Why bouncing droplets are a pretty good model of quantum mechanics · HackerPapers discussions

Why bouncing droplets are a pretty good model of quantum mechanics — mentioned by LolWolf

Wed, 30 Aug 2017 15:30:32 GMT

>Show me a macroscopic system that exhibits true wave-particle duality and can be used as an analogy for quantum systems, then I'll take it seriously. With the "true" in that sentence, we might be dealing with some moving goalposts, but this[0] is a well-known classical system which behaves similarly to a Bohmian description of QM and also exhibits interference, etc, on double-slit experiments. ----- [0] https://arxiv.org/pdf/1401.4356.pdf

Paper and discussion history. A mention is not an endorsement.

Why bouncing droplets are a pretty good model of quantum mechanics — mentioned by GregBuchholz

Tue, 17 May 2016 19:56:42 GMT

Not necessarily directly correlated, but I couldn't resist posting about the Couder/Fort oil drop experiments: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W9yWv5dqSKk https://arxiv.org/abs/1401.4356

Paper and discussion history. A mention is not an endorsement.

Why bouncing droplets are a pretty good model of quantum mechanics — mentioned by anoncoder

Thu, 21 May 2015 02:25:49 GMT

See http://arxiv.org/abs/1401.4356, a paper by Ross Anderson and Robert Brady. They've since expanded the theory greatly, with other papers on arxiv. Also, check out this fascinating debate about these matters on Scott Aaronson's blog. Link is http://www.scottaaronson.com/blog/?p=1255 Brady and Anderson have many posts in this debate, and IMHO, wind up winning. It's looking more and more like physics took a wrong turn with the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics.

Paper and discussion history. A mention is not an endorsement.

Why bouncing droplets are a pretty good model of quantum mechanics — mentioned by chopin

Tue, 29 Jul 2014 06:45:08 GMT

The work of Couder et al. on oil droplets might show a way for more of a "quantum intuition". It's a pity that the article does not mention this work. See eg. http://arxiv.org/abs/1401.4356

Paper and discussion history. A mention is not an endorsement.

Why bouncing droplets are a pretty good model of quantum mechanics — mentioned by acqq

Mon, 30 Jun 2014 23:10:27 GMT

Allow me to not agree with your classification of the top article as "garbage." I've got from it more than from the text you linked to and I'm even less satisfied with your explanations whereas Natalie Wolchover did a rather good article. Please tell me if you have any background in physics, or what is your background? The major thing missing from the article for me is that she didn't mention that the co-author of the most recent paper on the topic is much more known as the security researcher than as somebody who does anything related to quantum physics: http://arxiv.org/abs/1401.4356…

Paper and discussion history. A mention is not an endorsement.