Concerning the quantum -like behavior of oil droplets at the water surface, I don’t understand, why such experiment couldn’t work for 2 or three particles as well – at least conceptually. This doesn’t say indeed, the water surface is direct analogy of QM systems in Hilbert space – but it shows the way, by which the quantum mechanics is connected to classical one via correspondence principle.

In accordance with this, AWT proposes a nested foam model for modeling of quantum mechanics phenomena in direct analogy to water surface. The foam gets more dense under shaking temporarily, thus mimicking the mass/energy equivalence and probability density function.

http://superstruny.aspweb.cz/images/fyzika/simulace/incompressible/index.htm

]]>The article quoted is named “Single-particle interference”. From where you get your “N oil droplets” superposition?

/*…Entangled quantum wave function states of more than 1 particle have no analog..*/

Of course, they have. For example, if you split the undulating droplet into two halves, the resulting droplets will undulate “at phase”, i.e. they remain entangled in QM sense.

]]>To ZEPHIR: The experiment you cited is fascinating, but the problem with that kind of macroscopic analogy is that the ordinary mechanical surface wave created by N oil droplets suspended on water is a simple superposition of the N droplets’ individual waves on a 2-dimensional space (water surface), or, even if the wave equation is nonlinear, it is still just a function whose domain is simply the two-dimensional (x,y) water surface coordinates. In contrast, the quantum wavefunction of N particles located in a shared 2-dimensional space is a function over a *2N-dimensional* configuration space. The two concepts are not at all the same, the quantum wavefunction is a much more complex type of entity, and so the analogy completely breaks down in cases when there is more than 1 particle. Entangled quantum wavefunction states of more than 1 particle have no analog (no direct one, at least) in the classical mechanical domain, as far as anyone has been able to determine.

]]>What we can observe are just a lensing effect of density gradients (as described by probability function), induced by these waves in vacuum foam by thickening effect during shaking.

]]>http://www.physorg.com/news78650511.html

The standard AWT explanation of double slit experiment is, the fast flying particle creates an undulation of vacuum foam around itself by the same way, like the fish flowing beneath the water surface (de Broglie wave). These undulations are oriented perpendicular to the particle motion direction and they interfere with both slits, whenever the particle moves through one of them. The constructive interference makes a flabelliform paths of more dense vacuum foam, which the particle follows preferably being a wave packet, thus creating a patterns at the target.

Currently I don’t see any reason, why the many word concept should influent the result of DSE, if it should be considered as a standard interpretation of QM at the same time. The Everett’s many worlds concept is alternative interpretation of QM, following from Huygens-Fermat-Lagrange principles of longitudinal wave spreading in particle environments, as such it’s can be explained by AWT mechanically as well and it doesn’t bring any new information into it, by my opinion.

]]>In fact, I just want to know how the author applies the central limit theorem in the case of quantum mechanics. Doesn’t the Berry-Esseen theorem only concerns the statistics of the average of random variables? ]]>