«Although the idea of a pilot wave or realist interpretation of quantum mechanics is not the dominant view of physics today (which favors the Copenhagen interpretation), it has seen a strong resurgence of interest over the last decade based on some experimental work pioneered by Couder and Fort [13]. Couder and Fort discovered that bouncing a millimeter-sized droplet on a vibrating shallow fluid bath at just the right resonance frequency created a scenario where the bouncing droplet created a wave pattern on the shallow bath that also seemed to guide the droplet along its way. To Couder and Fort, this seemed very similar to the pilot-wave concept just discussed and, in subsequent testing by Couder and others, this macroscopic classical system was able to exhibit characteristics thought to be restricted to the quantum realm. To date, this hydrodynamic pilot-wave analog system has been able to duplicate the double slit experiment findings, tunneling, quantized orbits, and numerous other quantum phenomena. Bush put together two thorough review papers chronicling the experimental work being done in this domain by numerous universities [14,15].»
So it makes sense in paper, but does not makes sense at HN?
I can't speak for anybody else who downvoted you, but I did it because your post comes across as being quite condescending. Take this pattern, for example:
> You know that X. Right?
> Y. Right?
> Z. Right?
The "You know that" part makes your argument unnecessarily personal, when your comment could just as easily be stated without any reference to the person behind the comment you were responding to.
The "Right?" ending each line is also very patronizing. This sounds like how an adult might talk to a child, walking them through a line of reasoning.
Maybe you did not intend to sound condescending, but you did, and this is no place for that.
(Also, your post is worded as if the pilot wave theory is a fact, when it is actually not even particularly widely accepted. It is one of many interesting views of QM, but certainly not the only one.)
Oh, sorry. I forget about that effect. After lot of endless battles in newsgroups, I learned that text contains no emotions, so all emotions, which I may draw on my opponent, are in my head only.
How I should rewrite that text so it will not cause unwanted emotions, but will not look like a dictionary article? Can you help me, please? My level of English is not strong enough to be sure.
PS.
Even when (if) Pilot-Wave theory will be widely accepted, it will be theory, not a fact. :-)
Actually, PWT explains some effects much better than GTR. Moreover, walking droplets shows that relativistic and quantum effects can be described in terms of Newtonian physics, which is much easier to imagine and argue, which may cause significant advance in physics, after almost 100 years of "shut up and calculate".
> How I should rewrite that text so it will not cause unwanted emotions, but will not look like a dictionary article?
That's easy to answer. A "good" post, one likely to generate light, has many topical references and almost no, or no, first-person ("I") or second-person ("you") pronouns.
A less desirable post, one more likely to generate heat instead of light, has fewer topical references and more first-person and second-person pronouns.
So when composing a forum post, a post to be read by strangers, it's desirable to either remove or edit all constructions that might be taken to describe a distinction between oneself and others.
One could go so far as to write it as an equation:
Forum post Q factor = (topical references) / (1+sum of first-person and second-person pronouns)
The advantage of the equation is that it could hypothetically be automated and added to a forum post editor, so one's score could be seen to rise and fall as the post is typed. The drawback is that it's a classic case of reductionism -- the possibly misguided idea that everything can be reduced to (for example) mathematics.
There's obviously more to quality forum posting than this, but it's at least easy to explain and apply.
You need to replace statements of the form "X, y, z, right?" with statements of the form, "I believe X because of this evidence, and y because of this other evidence, and z because of this third piece of evidence, and that leads me to believe, or supports my understanding of Q."
In the first form you are trying to stipulate facts, and others reading may not agree with those facts. Since you have no reasoning or evidence that you have used to convince yourself that the facts are accurate, the only response to such a stipulation is "I don't believe you" or "that is rubbish", which is often reflected as a down vote here.
Let's look at your first such statement: "Unlike regular matter, waves are propagating through space, by contraction and expanding of a field. Because of particle-wave duality, when matter is moving, EM field around matter expands and contracts at high frequency. Right?"
I've read a lot of physics paper and had several years of study of it in University, and I don't recall any characterization of electro-magnetic fields as "contracting and expanding". Sure they kind of look like that if you show them on an oscilloscope in the time domain, looking like the waves on the ocean, but in my understanding they they are nothing like pressure waves in their existence.
I am pretty confident your first statement goes against every characterization of EM field theory I've seen, even pilot wave theory. Thus if you are going to start there, you have to explain to how you got there.
The referenced paper shows some good examples of this, the authors know that what they are looking at is disallowed by every existing, mainstream, theory of physics. They are very careful to explain exactly how they did their experiments, the things that affect their observation (thermal expansion, fat fingering the setup) the ways they tried to avoid those confounding factors, and the data they recovered. They don't claim some new theory or some new understanding but they do look at some theories that have been debated in the past which looked promising in terms of having a bearing on the experiment.
So now the hard work for the theoretical physicists is to thoughtfully re-examine the relationships that are called out here, a tapered container, radio frequency energy, and changes in momentum, and then explain them with theory. That explanation has to be consistent with all of the other observed effects and behaviors and include this new effect and behavior, ideally it should predict a still newer effect or behavior so that an additional experiment, one that has not yet been run, would have the outcome they predicted.
Your comments appeared to just want to bring the pilot wave theory back as is. That is fine, except that like the paper here, you need to recognize there are some pretty strong counter arguments that it is not "the" answer and the current quantum mechanical theories answer a lot more questions and have a lot of experimental data backing them up.
You can't just pull this old theory out of storage and say, "Because of this one experiment this is correct and the others are wrong." (and that was how your original comment read to me) You have to say, "Here is this new theory based on the pilot wave conjecture which not only explains this experiment, but all of the experiments that have confirmed quantum mechanics for the last 70 years, starting with the slit up through entangled photon teleportation.
Hold on to this: "Actually, PWT explains some effects much better than GTR.", when you have a theory that explains all effects better than GTR and can explain effects that GTR can't, then you have something (and everyone would be really excited to hear it and understand it). That will also give you the understanding to propose experiments that would demonstrate the predictive power of the theory even if you didn't have the tech to build them yet (for example the Gravity B experiment that showed frame dragging, Einstein predicted it, but couldn't build an experimental apparatus to prove it).
«Although the idea of a pilot wave or realist interpretation of quantum mechanics is not the dominant view of physics today (which favors the Copenhagen interpretation), it has seen a strong resurgence of interest over the last decade based on some experimental work pioneered by Couder and Fort [13]. Couder and Fort discovered that bouncing a millimeter-sized droplet on a vibrating shallow fluid bath at just the right resonance frequency created a scenario where the bouncing droplet created a wave pattern on the shallow bath that also seemed to guide the droplet along its way. To Couder and Fort, this seemed very similar to the pilot-wave concept just discussed and, in subsequent testing by Couder and others, this macroscopic classical system was able to exhibit characteristics thought to be restricted to the quantum realm. To date, this hydrodynamic pilot-wave analog system has been able to duplicate the double slit experiment findings, tunneling, quantized orbits, and numerous other quantum phenomena. Bush put together two thorough review papers chronicling the experimental work being done in this domain by numerous universities [14,15].»
So it makes sense in paper, but does not makes sense at HN?