Cavity effects in Double Slit experiments in Walker Systems

An article in Quanta Magazine has made quite a stir in the walker community.  The evidence DOOMS any hope for realism in quantum mechanics. Doomed We tell you! The gist of the argument centers around the double slit experiment in analog walker systems. In a nutshell it throws considerable FUD on the original paper by Couder and Fort, at the Parisian Langevin, who first reported results of interference patterns on double slit experiments some 10 years ago. The article claims they may have been quick to declare victory. The insinuation that there may have been fraud on the part of Fort and Couder is in really bad taste and we will pass in silence on that journalistic faux pas.   No replication of Double slit T he problem is that bona fide attempts by teams such as Bush's lab at MIT and others such as Batelaan (Nebraska) and Bohr III have failed to reproduce the effects reported in the original Nature article. Disclosure I work with both the MIT team and the Langevi

The Dollar is an Asset Backed Token.

Many in the crypto land (us at Freeside included) share the opinion that "Asset Backed Tokens" or "Security Token Offerings" are the new black in legal token offerings and that they will bring new levels of liquidity to the crypto exchanges.  At the same time "Stable Coins" are all the rage. What we are going to talk about is the link between the two which is deep and both obvious and obfuscated.   The gist of the STO/ABT constructions is that actual assets, be it debt, equity, or what have you, are backing the token. Real (future) cash flows back the token created out of thin air. These can represent REITs, Accounts receivables, debt, VC or really any cash flow coming from the real world.   To make things clear, and in an interesting parallel, we will describe FIAT money as an ABT.  This is not a stretch or abuse of language but rather a factual staple of modern monetary theory (MMT) and a illuminating meditation for those that wish to spend so

Simulation of Bell violations in Walker system

Discussing poster at emQM17 with R. Brady (Cambridge)  Abstract We describe results from an implementation of a Monte-Carlo simulation of Bell-CHSH type correlations with hydrodynamic walkers as suggested by [Vervoort2017]. We observe the formation of pairs of walkers strongly anti-correlated in position and velocity under various random initial conditions.  With a non-relativistic representation of the walkers, i.e. one where the hydrodynamic waves propagate faster than the walkers, as in real life walkers, we observe numerical S values of CHSH correlations above 2, violating the Bell limit as an explicitly non-local system.  We observe Bell violations up to the Tsirelson limit of 2sqrt(2), but not violating it, under fine-tuned observation and post selection conditions.  We report various such runs in the 2 < S <= 2.82 range under the non-separable assumptions.  However when we numerically enforce programmatic separability of the walkers, a numerically enforced local

Photon experiment blog.

In retrospect the previous blog, posted about a year ago, shows how naively I approached the problem.   The correct calculation, done around September gives a 1/4 correlation in certain configuration. The paper was written with QuTools, Munich based entanglement experts. The experiment was run by QuTools in March in Germany and gave us some interesting anomalous results which required several rounds of debugging and interpretation. By inserting only one QWP in one arm we detect phase effects with great sensitivity. A modulation in the signal correlation, otherwise computed to be 1/4 still remains.  The updated interpretation puts the blame on the source itself and that the pumps would not be perfect resulting in the amplitude and phase we see and detect.  This was double checked with a full state tomography on the source and seems to give results that roughly agree with what we measure in the simpler QWP experiment. We therefore have a way of characterizing the entangled sources in a

A proposal for an updated experiment on 2 entangled photons.


3 Nobel prize winners poopoo the walkers.

A great article from the Simons foundation came out back in June covering the walker research .   These objects, a wave/particle association, are attracting attention because they have the capacity to self-excite themselves into quantized orbits and reproduce an increasing catalog of quantum behavior previously only observed in electrons but never in 'classical' systems.  For a more in depth look at the walkers, the article does a good job.  The article interviews 3 Nobel prize winners.   Here is what t'Hooft had to say (from the article):  " Personally, I think it has little to do with quantum mechanics,” said  Gerard ’t Hooft , a Nobel Prize-winning particle physicist at Utrecht University in the Netherlands. He believes quantum theory is incomplete but dislikes pilot-wave theory. Wilczek was just as encouraging: "Many working quantum physicists question the value of rebuilding their highly successful Standard Model from scratch. “I think the experiment

Walkers vs Surfers: the computational view.

This post is going to be highly technical and will actually speak to about 20 people in the world (if that).  So if you are a casual reader of this blog you should skip this one and instead focus on the more general considerations of the walker study as it relates to the interpretation of Quantum Mechanics We are going to review the physics of the walker problem in the context of computational models. This will deal with the in-silico approaches to the problem and shed some light on what we call 'surfers vs walkers'. It is also meant as a 'checkpoint journal entry' for the participants of the  facebook group studying the walkers . The walker problem The object of study is the association of a particle and the wave it creates in a media.  We focus on the silicon walkers as observed by Couder et al and modeled by Bush et al. The physics is rather straightforward in the Newton (force/acceleration) view.  The forces are as such: Slope force.  Aka "field forc