Hacker News Reader

Comment by canhascodez | Hacker News Reader

You're asserting your conclusion, and relying heavily on irrelevant statements, and semantic arguments.

Your definition of "quantum field" is wrong. It's not necessarily correct to think of particles in general as having a "real" existence, or rather, it's at least as correct to consider them as being localized excitations of a field. That field exists everywhere: there is no "in-between" for things to be in, just places where you have a low probability of observing a "particle".

Also, arguing quantum-level behavior by analogy with macro-scale objects is superlatively misguided.

View on HN

> Also, arguing quantum-level behavior by analogy with macro-scale objects is superlatively misguided.

Indeed this is how we came up with the Saturnian model, for which there are a ton of expected results that have been trivially proven wrong by experiment.

"Quantum field" is literally "3d array" ("field") of "integers" (quantum). It's mathematical abstraction, not a real thing. Yes, in mathematical abstraction, when we have something in a point of space, we can name that "excitation". We don't know what it is, so this is fair. But whole idea of quantization is that we have whole things, i.e. particles.

Yes, abstract thing can exists everywhere, mathematics have no limits, but real physical thing cannot.

You can look at reimplementation of double-slit experiment at macro scale using walking droplet[0][1]. As you, dual particle-wave behaviour can be implemented at macro scale too, so quantum world is not special in this regard.

[0]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nsaUX48t0w8 [1]: https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/journal-of-fluid-mec...

> But whole idea of quantization is that we have whole things, i.e. particles.

False.

> Yes, abstract thing can exists everywhere, mathematics have no limits, but real physical thing cannot.

False.

> As you, dual particle-wave behaviour can be implemented at macro scale too, so quantum world is not special in this regard.

Using macro-scale physical analogies to as an argument for quantum behavior is wrong on many, many levels.

1) I'm not sure that I understand your argument correctly, it's very short, but let me quote Wikipedia: Quantization is the process of constraining an input from a continuous or otherwise large set of values (such as the real numbers) to a discrete set (such as the integers).

2) Lets me quote very beginning of book about Quantum(Integer) Mechanics again:

Chapter 2

The Formulation of Quantum Mechanics

2.1

Basic Theoretical Concepts

Every physical theory involves some basic physical concepts, a mathematical formalism, and set of correspondence rules which map the physical concepts onto the mathematical objects that represent them. The correspondence rules are first used to express a physical problem in mathematical terms. Once the mathematical version of the problem is formulated, it may be solved by purely mathematical techniques that need not have any physical interpretation. The formal solution is then translated back into the physical world by means of the correspondence rules.

3) Of course, you are right. Walking droplet is 2D system while quantum world is 3D system. We cannot compare 2D system with 3D system, like we cannot compare 1D system with 2D system. They are very different worlds.

But, can we reproduce this strange behavior of this 2D macro-system, when oil droplet behaves like mater and wave at same time, at quantum scale?

It's demonstrated that walking droplets are working on white noise, so we need a noise generator. Casemir effect demonstrates that quantum world is full of strong white noise.

We also need to have waves around a particle. IMHO, electron is good candidate for that: it has strong EM field and very lightweight. White noise will cause vibrations. Accelerated charged particle will generate EM waves, fueled by energy of PV/QF/QA/E/YNI, not by energy of electron itself(!).

However, these EM waves must be converted but into thermal energy of PV/QF/QA/E/YNI, otherwise all energy of PV will be converted into EM waves, and vibrations will stop. As we see in interstellar red shift effect, light ages with distance, and more frequent light ages more quickly (confirmed using multiple wavelengths with high confidence). IMHO, it because EM waves are interacting with non-zero fluctuations of QF: they have charge, so they can draw energy from EM waves. Electron has high frequency of vibration and his EM waves are very weak, so his EM waves will die in 4E4-4E10km range (very rough calculations).

Also, we need two slits. Not a problem. Then we will shot electron trough one slit, while his companion EM waves will go trough both slits, cause interference and change course of electron, so it will show interference pattern. Looks doable.

What you think? Can we reproduce this weird dual wave-droplet behavior at quantum level?

Quantization means that energy is observed to come in discrete packets, not that those packets are particles. That the EM field is omnipresent is not a mathematical artifact, but corresponds to a real-world phenomenon. Macro-scale analogies continue to not be valid for predicting quantum behavior.

And discrete packets, in turn, are generated by discrete things.

At some zoom level, EM field will break and stop to be continuous. For example, Voyager found "magnetic bubbles" at the edge of Solar system, which may be caused by discrete nature of EM field.

I'm asked is we can reproduce macro-scale experiment at quantum level. So your answer is "no, we cannot reproduce this weird particle-wave duality demonstrated by oil droplet at quantum scale", right?

An oil droplet is a physical analogy for a quantum phenomenon. You cannot prove anything about the subatomic world by such analogies. Your insistence that it's "particles all the way down" also continues to be entirely incorrect. I think that you are more interested in believing that you have a special understanding of the universe than knowing the truth. Either way, I am uninterested in repeating myself further.

Again, I'm not asking what is analogy to what. I'm asking is we can reproduce this insane wave-droplet duality of oil-droplet at quantum scale or not. You are refuse to say. You contribution to discussion is "you are wrong, your claims are false, I know the truth, but I will not tell you."

Okay, you made claim that I made claim (instead of asking me) that I made claim that everything is made out of particles all the way down. It's not true.

What we call particle/atom/object/planet/galactic/galianea is just system, which keeps energy inside and can transfer that energy to an other thing, when it in small radius to that system.

For example, galaxy is a supper massive black hole or set of massive black holes. Rest of galaxy is mostly empty space, but this black hole can alter courses of stars and other black holes, by transferring energy to them via gravitational field. Same true for star system, planet, atom, particle.

We can put emphasis on centre (black hole, star, planet, atom, nucleus, etc.), or at field, or at energy, or at radius of interaction, so we can say "everything is made of field/energy/particles", but truth is that every component of that is equally important.

I found, that in most cases is easier to convince a scientist by going up instead of going down, because everybody agrees that we can zoom up indefinitely. Try to imagine that we zoomed up to 1E40 or so, so our visible universe is of size of elementary particle. How this worlds looks to you? As infinite uniform field of universes like our, like fog? Or we will still saw something like we already see in night sky?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com