/sci/ - Science & Math

It implies we may be missing something, which is basically what the consensus already is.

Cool demonstration that mimics atomic behaviour.
Maybe there's a deep constant frequency that continuously gives atoms the property that aligns and binds them together so well. If you assume this is true, it also answers the wave-particle mystery.

btw, this is from a French lab.

Because you know, you don't need that much money to produce something meaningful the way americlaps do.

>>6296906
I thought it implied that OP is an unmeasurable faggot

>>6297112
then go back to /b/ you fucking retard

Nothing much. Quantum wave guide has been around for a rather long time and was initially proposed by de Brooglie and I think Bohm formalized it more to create Bohmian mechanics. But, this type of theory is indistinguishable form every other interpretation of quantum mechanics [and non-local hidden variable theories are unpopular because of relativity]. I also don't find the results shown in the video to be as impressive as the documentary wants you to believe as it is entirely classical and is thus only a neat case where classical mechanics gives rise to something that looks quantum mechanical, but with no quantum mechanical involvement.

I get the feeling that the double slit experiment thing they show is nothing like the original double slit experiment. I don't see the connection.

>>6297142
But they do act like it. They never touch each other, yet 'lock' around each ones radius. They are particles, but also produce waves.

is humanity this stupid? i can explain the dropplet behavior just fine.

>>6297147
take a look at this

>>6297165
the sound causes the dropplet to jump up, gravity pulls it back down creating these waves when the dropplet hits the water. they probably hit a specific resonating frequency which ends up increasing the size of these waves. the highest point of the wave is under the dropplet. the dropplet then falls into the nearest canyon due to gravity where it will create another wave. the momentum from the previous fall keeps it going. they orbit eachother because the vibrating water probably creates less resistance than standing water.

for the water dropplet, it's probably just molecules finding new connections in the pond.

>>6297169
You do get that. Look up single slit diffraction.

>>6297169
I love it when people post this image, because they think they're being witty. In fact, when you use a single slit, you DO get something similar to the second image. And in fact, you get a bright-dark fringe pattern as well. It's called diffraction, and it's fairly well understood

>>6297190
nope. you get a shitty single stupid stripe of light

>>6297142
I think if such a system acts sufficiently like a system at such a different scale, more than just superficially or stylistically but in its actual workings, its very possibly more than a coincidence. That that it certainly isnt, but its something that should be investigated to determine it.

>>6297814
And, in addendum, if some of its properties do actually act the same as those in another system, it can certainly be useful, cant it?

>>6296906

The problem with the second vid is that those macroscopic droplets don't behave exactly like things do in quantum mechanics. It's slightly misleading. I mean you can make something that mimics a solar system but that doesn't mean there's actual gravity and things orbiting others. It's an analogy, or a metaphor. Analogies aren't perfect.

But there are things in QM that we can relate to in the macroscopic world. The uncertainty principle is a consequence of waves in general. So something like that can be properly represented in the macroscopic world. Which is what that guy is getting at. But the show itself is kind of misleading.

>>6297814
Nature has patterns correlating on many different scales. I don't think it would be surprising that this is what's going on on the atomic level.

>>6297169
lel this is so true

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B9xM2_MrC2k

>>6297112
>>6297112
Top lel

>>6297814
But it isn't anything at all the same in actual working, only in some apparent effects. These experiments, for example, should not be capable of showing violation of the Bell inequalities and hence cannot show fundamental quantum mechanical behavior. If they can, then we have violated relativity and this type of violation is why non-local hidden variable theories, like de Brooglie wave guide, are unpopular.

>>6297169
Is this a troll?