Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Wave-particle duality at Macro scale?

  1. Nov 15, 2011 #1
    No-one is suggesting that this is exactly the same as the wave-particle duality that exists at the quantum scale (e.g. non-locality) but I thought these papers looking at the behaviour of “walking droplets” that can be seen at the macroscale were very interesting:

    Quantum mechanics writ large

    Walking Droplets-A form of Wave-particle duality at macroscopic scale?

    Path-memory induced quantization of classical orbits

    Full thesis:
  2. jcsd
  3. Nov 15, 2011 #2

    My! That's got to be one of the cleverest experimental setups ever.
  4. Nov 16, 2011 #3
    Certainly no surprises.

    Yves Couder emailed me back this:

  5. Nov 16, 2011 #4
    I think Antony Valentini is very much supportive of de Broglie's approach vs Bohm's, from my understanding and is particularly critical of imposing a Lorenz-invariant extension into the pilot wave. I'm not sure what Valentini thinks of H. Nikolic's relativistic covariant version of Bohmian mechanics? There does seem to be a divergence of opinion between him and the Goldstein/Durr/Tumulka et al. team also with respect to the ontology of the wave function/pilot wave. The latter treating it as nomological while Valentini prefering a new type of non-local "causal" agent. Regardless, this stuff is very interesting for people who favour the "realist" interpretation. An interesting passage from Valentini is the following:

    Beyond the Quantum

    On Galilean and Lorentz invariance in pilot-wave dynamics
    Last edited: Nov 16, 2011
  6. Nov 20, 2011 #5
    It's good to see thoughts are evolving since we first discussed this experiment on Physics Forums. I would be interested in having any information on recent Heinz von Foerster congress on Emergent Quantum Mechanics where Yves Couder held the http://www.univie.ac.at/hvf11/congress/EmerQuM.html".
    Last edited by a moderator: Apr 26, 2017
  7. Nov 22, 2011 #6
    Actually, I was at that conference. What specifically are you interested in?
  8. Dec 9, 2011 #7
    Another interesting paper on this topic. Can someone summarize what the hi-lited parts are implying?

    From Abstract:
    From the body/discussion part of the paper:

    Information stored in Faraday waves: the origin of a path memory

    http://www.lpm.u-nancy.fr/webperso/chatelain.c/GrpPhysStat/PDF/WorshopNancy_EFort.pdf [Broken] (very cool slide presentation!)
    Last edited by a moderator: May 5, 2017
  9. Dec 14, 2011 #8
    This is a real cool video show this quantum-like macroscopic behaviour through the double-slit

    Yves Couder . Explains Wave/Particle Duality via Silicon Droplets [Through the Wormhole]

    Last edited: Dec 14, 2011
  10. Jan 23, 2012 #9
    Another paper on this topic that came out:
    Wave-particle duality in classical mechanics

    What I just don't understand is the conflicting opinions on this topic. I thought that the PBR (Pusey-Barrett-Rudolph) theorem that was discussed ad nauseum on this forum ruled out such a possibility (see links below)? I'm lost.

    The quantum state cannot be interpreted statistically (this is the original paper)
    Generalisations of the recent Pusey-Barrett-Rudolph theorem for statistical models of quantum phenomena
    Completeness of quantum theory implies that wave functions are physical properties

    Quantum theorem shakes foundations

    http://mattleifer.info/2011/11/20/can-the-quantum-state-be-interpreted-statistically/ (best article)
  11. Sep 11, 2012 #10
    A very interesting lecture presentation (~ 83 minutes) from Perimeter by Yves Couder:
    A Macroscopic-scale Wave-particle Duality : the Role of a Wave Mediated Path Memory
  12. Sep 12, 2012 #11
    not yet (and maybe never)...

    arguing for ψ-epistemic
    Epistemic view of quantum states and communication complexity of quantum channels
    Alberto Montina

    ...We show that classical simulations employing a finite amount of communication can be derived from a special class of hidden variable theories where quantum states represent statistical knowledge about the classical state and not an element of reality...
    ...In this paper, we will show that ψ-epistemic theories have a pivotal role also in quantum communication and can determine an upper bound for the communication complexity of a quantum channel...

    Reconstruction of Gaussian quantum mechanics from Liouville mechanics with an
    epistemic restriction

    Stephen D. Bartlett, Terry Rudolph, Robert W. Spekkens

    ...The success of this model in reproducing aspects of quantum theory provides additional evidence in favour of interpretations of quantum theory where quantum states describe states of incomplete knowledge rather than states of reality...

    arguing for ψ-ontic

    Maximally epistemic interpretations of the quantum state and contextuality
    M. S. Leifer, O. J. E. Maroney

    ...This implies that the Kochen-Specker theorem is sufficient to establish both the impossibility of maximally epistemic models and the impossibility of preparation noncontextual models...
    ...If one could prove, without auxiliary assumptions, that the support of every distribution in an ontological model must contain a set of states that are not shared by the distribution corresponding to any other quantum state, then these results would follow. Whether this can be proved is an important open question...
    Last edited: Sep 13, 2012
  13. Sep 15, 2012 #12
    buyers beware....

    R. Spekkens

    ...Such a principle does not force us to operationalism, the view that one should only seek to make claims about the outcomes of experiments...

    but he contradicts itself !

    http://www.perimeterinstitute.ca/en/Events/Quantum_Foundations_Summer_School/QFSS_Abstracts/ [Broken]
    ...it is useful to characterize the theory entirely in terms of the observable consequences of experimental procedures, that is to say, operationally...
    Last edited by a moderator: May 6, 2017
  14. Sep 15, 2012 #13
    Perhaps pointing out the contradiction would be helpful. I don't see it?
    Last edited by a moderator: May 6, 2017
  15. Sep 15, 2012 #14
    The best I can figure you are drawing a dichotomy between operationalism verses (general) realism. That is to say that you are implying that Spekkens contradicted himseld by on the one hand saying operational descriptions where "useful", while on the other saying we are not forced into operationalism. Only the "law of excluded middle" does not apply here, i.e., the implied dichotomy is false.

    Sighting a target through the provided sights of a gun is operationally "useful", but you are by no means required to do so. To provide an operational characterization is indeed useful, regardless of how limited such an operational description is in a given theoretical construct. Just consider what immediately followed what you quoted of Spekkens.

  16. Sep 16, 2012 #15

    not a dichotomy, is abrogate a method and later downplay it.
    nothing to do with X versus Y...... `realism vs operationalism´ stuff
  17. Sep 16, 2012 #16
    I figured I was off in my characterization of your contradiction. Which is why I asked before making a guess. However, you didn't explain what contradiction you intended with this response?

    First off Spekkens never abrogated operationalism, nor its negation. To say some principle does not "force" us into operationalism is not an abrogation of operationalism. Operationalism fully retains its "usefulness" irrespective of whether we entirely restrict ourselves to it or not. neither does admitting the "usefulness" of operationalism downplay the claim that theoretical constructs are not required to be strictly operational descriptions.

    I guess what I really need is a better explanation of exactly how you think he may have contradicted himself?
  18. Sep 16, 2012 #17

    who said that ?

  19. Sep 16, 2012 #18
    I'll answer the above question, but why haven't you answered my question? The same question started with and repeated.

    Spekkens, from your quote, said: "...Such a principle does not force us into operationalism,... To which you responded to me pointing out the use of the term "force" with: "is abrogate a method and later downplay it".

    So answer the original question... What was the contradiction you thinks Spekkens was guilty of? With the above question you posed I don't even know what you claimed was abrogated or downplayed.
  20. Sep 16, 2012 #19
    you did, not me......
    Last edited: Sep 16, 2012
  21. Sep 16, 2012 #20
    Apparently you don't want to answer the question. Nor does the above quote make any sense.
Share this great discussion with others via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook