From pilot-wave hydrodynamics to hydrodynamic quantum field theory

[@Krisoler]

0:00 Presentation 0:51 Introduction 1:20 Acknowledgements 2:11 Quantum Mechanics 3:11 The troubling languaje of quantum mechanics 3:53 Hidden variable theories 5:09 Hydrodynamic quantum analogs 6:01 Talk outline 6:48 Faraday waves 7:18 Noncoalescence on a vibrated fluid bath 7:48 The Couder walker 8:58 Trayectory equation for resonant walkers 9:47 Strobed pilot-wave dynamics 10:18 The stroboscopic model 10:49 Static bound states 11:09 Dynamic bound states 11:25 Rings of bouncing droplets 12:03 Hydrodynamic quantum analogs (HQAs) 12:07 Single-particle diffraction and interference 13:08 Revisitation of walker diffraction experiments 15:06 Walkers in rotating frame 16:26 Landau orbits / Inertial orbits 16:50 Pilot-wave dynamicsin rotating frame 17:07 Quantized orbits in a rotating frame 17:55 Chaotic, orbital pilot-wave dynamics 18:45 Hydrodynamic spin satates at ultra-high memory? 19:31 Motion in a central force: doubly quantized orbits 20:47 The quantum corral 21:37 Droplet walking in a circular corral 22:06 Probability density function 22:33 Emerging physical picture: 3 time scales 23:46 More recent experiments: the elliptical corral 24:14 A striking equivalence 24:43 The mean pilot-wave field 25:34 Observation (from 1D simulations) 26:27 Surface Schlieren imaging: a walker interacts with a pillar 27:06 Logarithmic spiral 27:29 Infer wave-mediated pillar-induced force from trajectory 29:03 Friedel oscillations 29:50 Walker-well interaction 30:47 A hydrodynamic analog of Friedel oscillations 31:12 Three paradigms for macroscopic quantum behavior 32:23 Hydrodynamics quantum analogs 33:25 *A generalized pilot-wave framework 33:42 Pilot-wave dynamics: a parametric generalization 34:43 Generalized pilot-wave theory 35:10 Generalized pilot-wave theory: the free particle in 2D 36:31 Generalized pilot-wave dynamics 37:16 *The (old) hydrodynamic interpretation of quantum mechanics 38:45 *Bohmian mechanics (1952) 40:01 Bohmian mechnics / Walkers 41:18 *De Broglie's relativistic pilot-wave theory 42:04 De Broglie's pilot-wave theory: The double-wave solution 43:56 De Broglie's pilot-wave theory 44:20 De Broglie / Walkers 47:14 Shotcomings of the quantum pilot-wave theories 47:34 *The new hydrodynamic interpretation of QM 47:44 Hydrodynamic quantum field theory 48:42 Hydrodynamic quantum field theory: Kinematics 48:56 HQFT: Kinematics 49:22 HQFT Dynamics, the free particle: From Jitter to Zitter 49:39 Hydrodynamic quantum field theory: in-line Zitter 50:04 HQFT: Analytics 50:39 Hydrodynmic quantum field theory 51:43 HQFT: the path forward 52:34 Quantum Reinterpretation 53:22 Nonnonlocality: Misinference of non-locality from local hereditary pilot-wave dynamics 54:58 Big picture 55:49 Conclusion 57:30 For more

[@AG-pm3tc]

Thanks my dude 👌

[@liamlawler609]

Great talk, and great theory. The most likely road to bring this whole thing full circle imho, keep at this! Love how it addresses the nonsensical 'collapse' bullshit and brings back the trajectory. Much more intuitive for people like me and it is a lovely thing to point at when the Everettians start daydreaming. I don't know where my career is leading yet but damn, this stuff is compelling.

[@frun]

Don't attacks the Everettians they are allies, blame Copenhagenianists.

[@liamlawler609]

@@frun The Copenhagenians limit their worldview too much, gave us useful stuff and then have up. The everettians go too far the other way, to the point that the questions they're asking aren't even scientific

[@schmetterling4477]

@@liamlawler609 Neither is Bohmian quantum mechanics. It posits an aether that moves little hard balls around that nobody has ever seen and gets absolutely nothing in return.

[@krumkutsarov618]

@@schmetterling4477 Most of the postulates of the copenhagen interpretation come naturally as provable theorems in BM. How is that "nothing in return"?

[@schmetterling4477]

@@krumkutsarov618 What postulates would that be? Please be precise now otherwise I will be thinking that you are just bullshitting. ;-)

[@tomandersenvideo]

Thanks John - don't know how I missed this until now. Good to refresh on the whole scheme. de Broglie was right.

[@austincasey4621]

I remember watching a Sean Carroll debate (more like a gentleman’s disagreement) where he said he thinks that, in the future, there will be a classical interpretation / explanation of what is now seen as the weirdness of the quantum. While I don’t think this is what he had in mind, him being a many world’s proponent, this theory seems to be the best interpretation of what’s actually happening at the most tiny of scales. It is truly brilliant; even though there’s still a long way to go and a lot more weirdness to account for.

[@frun]

Yes, that is unlikely as Sean is a MWI proponent. HQA are amazing, i see them as a hint towards Fractal universe 🥦

[@catherinegrimes2308]

I was very impressed with this talk. I didn’t know that so much progress has been made in this field. Hopefully this theory, or something similar, will be able to provide a complete explanation of QM. QM will then be based on understandable principles instead of interpretations. I wish you all the best with your endeavours.

[@schmetterling4477]

There has been way more progress than this. What do you think they are doing at CERN? QM has left the tabletop experiment stage in the 1930s. Actually, the cyclotron was invented in 1929, the same year that the particle nonsense was debunked by Mott. Did all people get the message? No. Is that different from some people not believing in the COVID-19 vaccine? No. To many "reality" is just either too complicated or it doesn't appeal to their personal likes, which take precedent over facts.

[@catherinegrimes2308]

@@schmetterling4477 What is your problem? Of course I know what is going on at CERN. You sound like somebody who knows a little, but not enough to realise that they could be wrong. We have a formulation of QM that nobody (including you) understands. We even have Sean Carroll saying that QM is an embarrassment, see: kzbin.info/www/bejne/kJLGmJp-btx1bbs More people who work in this area with different ideas can only be a good thing. Just saying "shut up and calculate" isn't good enough.

[@schmetterling4477]

@@catherinegrimes2308 Sean Carroll is an idiot (at least about this topic). Why are you listening to him? Because you can't tell where he is wrong and he sounds convincing? Where did I say "shut up and calculate", again? Can you quote those words for me? Just because you don't understand quantum mechanics (which is one of the reasons why you love Sean Carroll) doesn't mean that other people do not.

[@catherinegrimes2308]

@@schmetterling4477 I do not think that Sean Carroll is an idiot. If you look on Wikipedia, you can see the various interpretations of Quantum Mechanics, see: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interpretations_of_quantum_mechanics I suppose that this entry was also written by an idiot as well? Even Richard Feynman didn’t understand QM. He admitted it with his quote, "If you think you understand quantum mechanics, you don't understand quantum mechanics". For details see: en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Talk:Richard_Feynman#%22If_you_think_you_understand_quantum_mechanics,_you_don't_understand_quantum_mechanics.%22 I suppose that he is an idiot as well? I am terribly sorry; I have just realised that I am communicating with the only person on the planet who understands QM. I did not realise that I was communicating with such an illustrious intellect. Please accept my apologies for doubting your superior knowledge. I would imagine that you are a professor at Princeton, Cambridge, Stanford or somewhere of an equivalent standing. I haven’t heard about this, but presumably you will soon be awarded a Nobel Prize in physics. I did not write that you wrote “shut up and calculate”, I meant it is a phrase that some people say. I am of the impression that you seem to easily get very angry. You classify a distinguished scientist, who disagrees with you about the subject of QM interpretations, as an idiot. I find you to be objectional and don’t wish to hear from you anymore. Goodbye and good riddance.

[@schmetterling4477]

@@catherinegrimes2308 Richard Feynman (even if the quote was by him, which some say is not) would have made a physics joke there. Sorry that you don't have a physics sense of humor. No, I am not the only person who understands quantum mechanics. There is at least one more: Nima Arkani-Hamed. You may want to listen to him about physics and not Sean Carroll. Nima is the real deal when it comes to theory and phenomenology. Thanks for admitting that I didn't tell you to shut up and calculate. Now, if you want to learn something substantial about the proper ontology of quantum mechanics that flows from actual experiments (I am an experimentalist), feel free to ask me and read my posts. I don't pretend to know it all, but I am one of the few people around here who will tell you what nature does instead of telling you what they think nature does. Take care.

[@Blue2swing]

This is AMAZING! Thank you very much for this. I don't understand how this only has 269 views, 10 likes, and 1 comment? :)

[@frun]

The general public is unaware.

[@david203]

Not only is the general public unaware of these experiments, but physicists in general are unaware of how successful Bohm was. The prejudice against Bohm consists of (1) his dramatic elimination of the problems posed by the Copenhagen Interpretation (physicists are quite attached to those problems, thinking of them as axioms instead of institutionalized ignorance and mystery), (2) Robert Oppenheimer's statement that Bohm's physics are okay but that people should stay away from him, and (3) his being smeared as an evil Communist by Sen. Joseph McCarthy (related to 2).

[@schmetterling4477]

@@david203 What does Bohm allow you to predict that you didn't already have in Copenhagen? Nothing. End of story.

[@david203]

@@schmetterling4477 You really seem to know very little actual physics, and possibly didn't watch the videos here on Bohm's interpretation. He predicted that particle trajectories in the double slit experiment are deterministic and gave formulas for computing them, and this has been confirmed by two independent published papers, using modern non-perturbing methods of measurement. Yes, it's only one confirmation, but it happened in spite of his ideas being ignored or ignorantly condemned by the majority of physicists.

[@schmetterling4477]

@@david203 So you can predict when and where the next quantum will appear in my photomultipliers? Can you predict the lottery numbers, too? The cookie is on the way, I am afraid.

[@matthewcory4733]

The is the most awesome thing I've seen in a long time. Great presentation of the material. Proves Einstein's doubts about QM were very reasonable.

[@david203]

I wouldn't say that this model "proves" anything. It helps to suggest that Einstein's doubts were reasonable, when taken in addition to the rest of Bohmian Mechanics (the parts that are missing here), with the support of John Bell's later opinions in favor of Bohm. The only real flaw of the model is that its action is not identical to what probably happens in the very tiny regime. For example, an open slit nearby produces very different particle trajectories from what is seen in experiments that observe particle trajectories. Also, in this model, particles that pass through one slit can cross the plane that is equal in distance from both slits; in Bohmian Mechanics this cannot happen, not even by tunneling.

[@matthewcory4733]

​@@david203 It PROVES there are mundane analogs to a lot of quantum behavior hitherto seen as ineffable. There's been tremendous progress in this VERY YOUNG theory. They've mimicked single-particle diffraction, tunneling, quantized orbits, orbital level splitting, spin, multimodal statistics, etc. What particularly interests me are possible loopholes to Bell. Outcome independence and measurement independence may not be generally valid in this regime. It's existing theories that have serious problems and are making physicists, like Griffiths, retreat into mysticism and desperate forms of illogic. As Maudlin says, the central pillars of existing modern physics are contradictory. I came across HQFT reading Dave Hestenes on using GA to interpret spin and saw that there has been a stubborn unwillingness on the part of bandwagon physics to explore alternatives. As for Einstein, the physics community shows a complete ineptitude reading the major papers in their field or knowing what important people actually said. Einstein never said spacetime curvature caused gravity and he dismissed geometrization. He also worried more about nonlocality than nondeterminism but people always use ellipses in his quotes to suggest otherwise. I don't have much faith in a field of investigation that works on random guesses, like polyhedra or strings, for decades, to no avail. These kinds of explanations are actually serious, for a change, and I welcome them wholeheartedly.

[@schmetterling4477]

Einstein was the actual perpetrator of the "problems" with quantum mechanics. He made his biggest blunder in his 1905 paper on the photoelectric effect, in which he gave corpuscular properties to photons without any evidence. That mistake continues in your mind.

[@matthewcory4733]

@@schmetterling4477 And so where is your Nobel for unification?

[@david203]

@@schmetterling4477 Please give me a reliable reference to your claim that the photon is not a particle. Einstein publicly claimed to have made one blunder in his career, but I don't believe it. He was a true genius.

[@lisayoung7992]

I am not an expert at all but super happy to find a model that made the double slit experiment more comprehensible to an amateur! The presenter explained everything in such an accessible way too!

[@schmetterling4477]

If you think that this is the right explanation for the double slit experiment, though, then you are completely misunderstanding quantum mechanics. The double slit experiment is not even quantum mechanics, to be precise.

[@sensavenir]

@@schmetterling4477 Straightforwardly wrong in typical German pedant fashion

[@schmetterling4477]

@@sensavenir The double slit was correctly explained by Young in 1801 using classical waves. Learn your science history, kid. ;-)

[@sensavenir]

@@schmetterling4477 Obviously they're referring to the variations involving observation and wavefunction collapse, overspecifying someone's statement to knock it down is classic pedantry

[@schmetterling4477]

@@sensavenir There is no such a thing as wave function collapse. There are only people who don't know what a wave function is. ;-)

[@pirminborer625]

Magnificent work and theory. Having a background in fluid mechanics it amazes me the features emerging from the chaotic dynamics of just the resonance with a drop. The similarity with QM is certainly not just a coincidence. Seems to be a strong indication that space-time is like a fluid with particles riding the waves they generate. If I understand your theory correctly, spin and energy arises from stable domains in the chaotic patterns. So no need for particle flavours ? It would just be some energy packets walking around and resonating in a energy field which we call space-time? If you have lots of these walkers you could imagine them bending the fluid by their mass (energy), clustering them together. Like mass bends space-time. Wouldn't this just solve the problem of quantum gravity, gravity waves and even black hole information paradox? Could you try to send walkers at a fluid vortex to create a black hole analogy? So many things to explore. You are onto something, keep going. Great work.

[@DigitalAlligator]

If someone could use The pilot wave theory to explain gravity, that will be huge success

[@schmetterling4477]

The problem is that quantum mechanics is not chaotic. It is fully time-reversal invariant, which a chaos experiment is not.

[@Californiansurfer]

I remember reading book on Enrciho Fermi. The Pope of physics. And the Movie Oppenheimer , I remember the trials which he defended Oppenheimer who was a theorist and Teller, they did a good job. Enricho Fermi Didn’t think he was human. Watching the movie, this history came alive to me. It was great. I am glad you are doing this.. Love to keep leaning …

[@AG-pm3tc]

Very interesting and surprisingly accessible, even for an undergraduate like myself. Thank you for sharing!

[@nias2631]

What would be the effect of a more dense fluid below the silicon? Could this be forced so that waves occur at the boundary layer? if so would the waves at the boundary layer behave as a varying depth well for the droplet bouncing at the layer above?

[@nonlinearplasma1370]

The main misunderstanding is Coriolis effect which was disproven by the lack of rotation for Venus who still has trade winds

[@ShawnGardner-u8r]

If the quantum version of hydrodynamic walkers exist, what 'force' keeps the walker returning to the surface to recoil and resonate the surface? I am not against pilot waves, but that is one question that should be answered. And higher 'dimensions' have to be applied?

[@schmetterling4477]

Gravity. These are gravity waves. One can play the same game with surface waves on solids and acoustic waves in gases and liquids. It even works with electromagnetic fields. A practical application is called "light tweezers".

[@frun]

Hydrodynamic self-induction - Gravitoelectromagnetism ?

[@schmetterling4477]

So when are we going to see the formula that predicts when and where individual quanta will show up in the future?

[@LuciFeric137]

Fascinating. It seems Bohmian mechanics is undergoing a revival of sorts.

[@frun]

They say HQA correspond to de Broglie Double Solution theory of 1927, not to Bohmian theory.

[@schmetterling4477]

Not really.

[@xephyr417]

Hmm what is your bouncing particles are not particles, but solitons/knots in the field itself?

[@danielstan2301]

i was thinking , if this can be done in a bath of fluid, why not try to do it with solids too? for example use a flat speaker to bounce sand or other material(round balls). Or use a solid with a flat surface that oscilate due to vibrations sent through it. Why is this useful? You can use "particles"( balls) of different dimensions, you can use multiple oscillating frequencies with multiple sized "particles" to simulate interactions between multiple fields sized particles at once or even simulate the 3d interactions between "particles" etc

[@schmetterling4477]

Nobody stops you from performing your own experiments.

[@bombud1]

The drop moved because of the wave it produces itself. But in order to form a drop, there must be waves present before the drop impacts. How is this reconciled?

[@schmetterling4477]

There are neither drops nor waves. This is simply physics bullshit. ;-)

[@frun]

The drop itself is a wave 🌊. Think of sound waves. The drop and waves are collective excitations - collective movement of molecules.

[@KICAHZ]

-- Haibo Wang 導航波理論最近有所發展，研究者用水滴走路實驗再現了雙縫實驗中出現的干涉條紋和其它一些量子效應現象。在此基礎上提出了流體力學量子場論 -- 備註：David Spector 表示該影片這是實驗模型並非真實環境

[@david203]

Not exactly. It's just a model, not the way QM actually works.

[@TheMlg556]

sweet. all we gotta do is sort out spin and entanglement

[@schmetterling4477]

How about a 3d version, first? ;-)

[@schmetterling4477]

A very simple argument against Bohm is this: quanta like photons and electrons are all the same across the universe. They are completely indistinguishable, no matter where we are measuring them. This is because they are all energy values of one global field in quantum field theory. In the standard theory there is only one entity and its properties. If we attribute the motion of actual particles to an underlying hydrodynamical field kind of structure, like in Bohmian mechanics, then the motion of these particles should be uniform, but there is no mechanism to make the particles themselves uniform. It remains a mystery why a photon from the other end of the galaxy is indistinguishable from one from a candle across the room.

[@TheMlg556]

it seems like any two "drops" with the same mass (like actual amount of silicone oil) would be identical in this framework. they would have the same sphere shape with same radius etc, whereas of course in reality the drops are indeed different, since they're made of different molecules.

[@schmetterling4477]

@@TheMlg556 That's cool, but now you have to explain how the universe can make drops of exactly the same mass all the time. :-)

[@TheMlg556]

@@schmetterling4477 indeed, currently the particle creation occurs "outside". however at the very end 1:20:36 he mentions how the interface breaks if the oscillaton is big enough to create particle antiparticle pairs. would be interesting to see if these created particles had quantized sizes.

[@schmetterling4477]

@@TheMlg556 So you can't. NEXT! :-)

[@frun]

Is the energy conserved in the forced forced Klein-Gordon equation? kzbin.info/www/bejne/hZ3NkK2hiNenhsU It's unlikely, there is a need to introduce a stochastic background as it's a temporal approximation of the analogous system (particles being the collective excitations). Sometimes i imagine particles as vortices, and sometimes as a place where a phase transition occurred. I can imagine, that the waves are generated by surface tension, like at a liquid/vapor interface. Possibly, after all, there are a hierarchy of classical systems. And who knows if it all can be constructed using a single rule, like in Wolfram's model. Entanglement can be due to causality/common cause, same for a quantum eraser. Dependence on measurement settings in superdeterminism. I suspect the 2 degrees of freedom of gravity* are the amplitude and a phase. * with boundary conditions

[@david203]

Big claims, no details.

[@suddenseer9013]

Am I witnessing Newton connecting with the Copenhagen club?

[@schmetterling4477]

No. :-)

[@david203]

There are certainly chemical systems that are periodic, not just creating a chemical gradient. For example, liquids that keep cycling through the same color changes until the chemicals that drive this phenomenon are exhausted. Whether such chemical systems can be harnessed to simulate pilot waves is another question. It will require some real creativity.

[@schmetterling4477]

And why would you go trough such a Rube-Goldberg machine, anyway? If all you want is a system with perfect periodicity and an external energy source, then you set up a signal generator and a loudspeaker. Did they never show you standing wave experiments with vibrating plates in high school? This stuff predates quantum mechanics by probably more than a century and it doesn't tell you anything about quantum mechanics. Do you know why it doesn't? I will let you think about that for a while.

[@david203]

@@schmetterling4477 Your exquisite arrogance is quite amazing. Once it starts it doesn't stop.

[@schmetterling4477]

@@david203 It's not arrogance if you actually know your stuff. It's education. :-)

[@david203]

Audio dropout at 44:35 or so.

[@wolphramjonny7751]

The only way to get entanglement is allowing some kind of fast (compared with the wave dynamics) communication between waves across the liquid, perhaps using subsurface vortices, or whatever you can come up with. Neither internal clocks or other kinds of hidden variables will do the trick.

[@frun]

Entanglement is a memory effect, it appears.

[@wolphramjonny7751]

@@frun It cannot be a memory effect, That would make entanglement classical, which is not possible, unless you have either faster than light communications or some spatial non local connections like wormholes or the like

[@frun]

@@wolphramjonny7751 Superdeterministic memory

[@jeremygeltman]

I'm wondering if you have hydrodynamical analog for photons? Any thoughts on quantum gravity? These pilot waves also solve for virtual particles.

[@schmetterling4477]

One can't have an analog for relativistic systems that uses a non-relativistic background fluid. The entire point of relativity is that there nothing there. It would be a complete misunderstanding of what a photon is, anyway. A photon is a quantum of energy, it's not a material object with a strange motion pattern.

[@kristijantodoroski1409]

Gravity, Electro Magnetic field and light are all made from the same quant. That is why polarized light bends in magnetic field. A photon can travel at the speed of light or 0. In gravity the speed of the photon is 0...and the photons make an "net" that everything "sticks" to. Light bends in gravity because reacts with "gravity photons" that are fixed like a net in the gravity field (yes the warping of space thing....but this is quantified warped space OOOOK). It must be that way. Because of this graviton has very small energy and cannot be detected.....but....if it is knocked out the gravity web it can be detected...this can explain why photons from the sun can "push" the earth 1kg even though they have 0 mass...because they have mass of 1 graviton.....pilot wave is just a wave of gravitons... time slows down with speed because "static" gravitons get energy with speed and slow everything down...even a thought is a chemical process with moving molecules so everything slows down...that is why the two observers will se the speed of ight the same. the amount of energy that graviton receives is equal to the time dilation. Static graviton gets the energy exactly so the both observers will see the same speed of light because of the time dilation....this can only happen if the light, graviton and photon is the same particle .... How to prove this experimentally.... if a object in space radiates strong light and magnetic field it must "steal" gravitons, ....because photons and gravitons are the same particle and mater cannot be created from nothing ... the mass of that object will get smaller....measure it and it will weight less.

[@david203]

Rather crazy speculation. Gravity still doesn't fit as the fourth force, and certainly isn't the same as EM.

[@kristijantodoroski1409]

@@david203 it is not same as EM, just has the same quanta (photons) that behave different....in EM the propagate at speed of C, at gravity they are stationary, fixed in space like a net, only more concentrated arround a mass....

[@david203]

Photons normally do not slow down to create any nets. And photons have zero rest mass.

[@kristijantodoroski1409]

@@david203 the possible speed of a photon is C or zero...so theoretically in gravity (graviton) it can be zero...so gravitons are photons forming a net, the speed of graviton is zero. If you imagine in this "net" of gravitons a wave can still propagate at speed of C...hence gravitational waves...

[@schmetterling4477]

@@kristijantodoroski1409 We are giving out a lot of cookies today. :-)

[@davidhand9721]

Everett interpretation is worlds ahead of this wishful thinking.

[@schmetterling4477]

In terms of crazy? Absolutely. It's the best crazy there is. ;-)