Single particle creates interference after double slit - Wave particle duality at the workshop on HackerTube: recommended by 3 Hacker News commenters across 4 separate months, 2015–2021.
demo · evergreen
A short demo of a walking droplet on a vibrating silicone oil bath passing through a double slit and producing interference, a macro-scale analogue of pilot-wave behavior.
HN users share it to build intuition about wave-particle duality and pilot-wave ideas in quantum mechanics threads.
“If you want to develop intuition, look at this video”
11 Hacker News comments link this video. Each one links back to its thread.
IMHO, you should look at this video, where water droplet at macro scale « exists in two places at once » (demonstrates self interference when passing two slits). ▶ this video
in “A Spacetime Surprise: Time Isn’t Just Another Dimension” · View on HN
If you want to develop intuition, look at this video: ▶ this video . Please note that physics as science in general is advancing constantly, but mainstream physics advances in sprints. Currently, walking droplets and Pilot Wave Theory are not good enough to be included into mainstream physics.
in “Ask HN: What is a science fact that blew your mind when you learned it?” · View on HN
Interestingly, there is a (possibly still incomplete?) model of QM that explains this mystery and can even be replicated in human scale experiments: The de Broglie-Bohm pilot wave model. In this model, both the wave and the particle are simultaneously real. the particle is being moved around by the wave. When we get near the double slit, the wave naturally travels through both slits and forms an interference pattern.The particle randomly moves through one of the slits, and is them carried further by the interference pattern, the highest probability being that it will be carried to one of the local maxima. The nicest part is that this exact behavior can be seen by bouncing a droplet of oil or silicone on a vibrating bath of the same material: ▶ this video . Of course, this being a consistent model for QM, it doesn't get away from the Bell inequalities, it doesn't have local realism. It does preserve realism, but it it is a nonlocal theory (some effects travel instantaneously).
in “Double Slits with Single Atoms” · View on HN
I highly recommend to watch this video first: ▶ this video , to get the idea. Then this: [link] , for explanation. No need to read long books.
in “Close to absolute zero, particles exhibit their quantum nature” · View on HN
QC is very fast random generator attached to physical quantum network, which performs calculation. Network is designed in such way, that an end state of the network is a solution to a problem. When you sample the network, you can sample it in a right moment and see the solution. For small problems, it's work flawlessly, e.g. when you need to find an odd number, the network will be in solution state 99,99999999999999% of the time. However, large networks are loosing their quantum properties very fast. Large objects have no properties of quantum objects — this is the corner stone of QM. The network can lose solution faster than it can find it, so when you sample, most of samples contains no solution to the problem, so you need to be lucky. Currently, QC math doesn't account this, so we have a "measurement problem", because physical reality doesn't match math abstraction, but mathematicians don't want to adjust their formulas. If you want to develop intuition, just look at reproduction of double slit experiment in macro[0]. It's just self-interference. BTW: If you have resources, can I ask you to help to reproduce Stern–Gerlach experiment in macro? We need fresh blood (and money for experiments). [0]: ▶ this video
in “What makes quantum computing so hard to explain?” · View on HN
It awfully simple. I took screenshot from this video: ▶ this video , then label things: particle, wave, interference, and quanta. Nothing special at all.
in “Double Slits with Single Atoms” · View on HN
"Quantum field" is literally "3d array" ("field") of "integers" (quantum). It's mathematical abstraction, not a real thing. Yes, in mathematical abstraction, when we have something in a point of space, we can name that "excitation". We don't know what it is, so this is fair. But whole idea of quantization is that we have whole things, i.e. particles. Yes, abstract thing can exists everywhere, mathematics have no limits, but real physical thing cannot. You can look at reimplementation of double-slit experiment at macro scale using walking droplet[0][1]. As you, dual particle-wave behaviour can be implemented at macro scale too, so quantum world is not special in this regard. [0]: ▶ this video [1]: [link]
in “Danish physicists claim to cast doubt on detection of gravitational waves” · View on HN
Interference is very fragile. It used to create the most sensitive scientific instruments. It is very easy to disturb self-interference in double slit experiment. ▶ this video
in “The Quantum Theory and Reality (1979) [pdf]” · View on HN
Did you saw double slit experiment reproduction in 2D macro?: ▶ this video Observer breaks interference pattern.
in “The Trouble with Quantum Mechanics” · View on HN
Can I ask a dumb question? If I will create model of our Universe in a computer language and I will chose to use five-dimensional array for ease of computation, will our Universe have fifth dimension then? Despite that randomness is used in calculations, it is very unlikely that our Universe is random, thus "probability wave" is just mathematical abstraction, disconnected from reality, not a real thing. It just a particle, with concentrated rings of magnetic field around it (like rings of magnetic field around magnets). It moves fast, and it motion is influenced a lot by fluctuations in quantum field, so it is impossible to measure position of a particle precisely, like motion of a single atom in plasma, so random distributions and averages are very helpful in calculation. PS. Did you see the famous video? ▶ this video
in “EmDrive study officially published” · View on HN
For me, whole Theory of Relativity and Quantum Mechanics looks like huge scam. Mathematics is Turing-complete, so proper formula with right magic constants can separate dogs from cats (see neural networks for example: they are pure mathematics). However, I had belief in Theory of Relativity for my whole life until I saw three effects: double slit experiment at macro level [0], magnetic foam at the edge of Solar system [1], and Sagnak in _linear_ motion [2]. Sorry, but I lost my belief and I want explanation, not a magic formula. [0] ▶ this video [1] [link] [2] [link] , [link]
in “The 'Sharpest Picture Yet' of the Higgs Boson” · View on HN