HackerTubewatch
Surprise me
Frame from Single particle creates interference after double slit - Wave particle duality at the workshop Plays via YouTube's privacy-enhanced embed

Single particle creates interference after double slit - Wave particle duality at the workshop

heligone
Demos
YouTube
3 HN users recommended this demo4 months2015–2021 score 4
Years with an HN recommendation, 2007–2026

HN users share it to build intuition about wave-particle duality and pilot-wave ideas in quantum mechanics threads.

A short demo of a walking droplet on a vibrating silicone oil bath passing through a double slit and producing interference, a macro-scale analogue of pilot-wave behavior.

“If you want to develop intuition, look at this video” (HN, 2020)

4 recommendations · 7 citations · Demos

11 Hacker News comments

From the HN archive; up to 20 kept per video, favoring different commenters. Recommendations first.

@tsimionescu Feb 2020 Recommends
on HN thread Double Slits with Single Atoms
Read more
Interestingly, there is a (possibly still incomplete?) model of QM that explains this mystery and can even be replicated in human scale experiments: The de Broglie-Bohm pilot wave model. In this model, both the wave and the particle are simultaneously real. the particle is being moved around by the wave. When we get near the double slit, the wave naturally travels through both slits and forms an interference pattern.The particle randomly moves through one of the slits, and is them carried further by the interference pattern, the highest probability being that it will be carried to one of the local maxima. The nicest part is that this exact behavior can be seen by bouncing a droplet of oil or silicone on a vibrating bath of the same material: [this video] . Of course, this being a consistent model for QM, it doesn't get away from the Bell inequalities, it doesn't have local realism. It does preserve realism, but it it is a nonlocal theory (some effects travel instantaneously).
Oil droplet on a vibrating bath mimics pilot wave double-slit behavior
@drran Aug 2020 Recommends
on HN thread Ask HN: What is a science fact that blew your mind when you learned it?
If you want to develop intuition, look at this video: [this video] . Please note that physics as science in general is advancing constantly, but mainstream physics advances in sprints. Currently, walking droplets and Pilot Wave Theory are not good enough to be included into mainstream physics.
Walking droplet demo for building intuition about quantum behavior

Citations, criticism and jokes

@lisivka Sep 2015 Cites it
on HN thread The 'Sharpest Picture Yet' of the Higgs Boson
For me, whole Theory of Relativity and Quantum Mechanics looks like huge scam. Mathematics is Turing-complete, so proper formula with right magic constants can separate dogs from cats (see neural networks for example: they are pure mathematics). However, I had belief in Theory of Relativity for my whole life until I saw three effects: double slit experiment at macro level [0], magnetic foam at the edge of Solar system [1], and Sagnak in _linear_ motion [2]. Sorry, but I lost my belief and I want explanation, not a magic formula. [0] [this video] [1] [link] [2] [link] , [link]
Macro double-slit demo cited by a relativity and QM skeptic
@lisivka Nov 2016 Cites it
on HN thread EmDrive study officially published
Read more
Can I ask a dumb question? If I will create model of our Universe in a computer language and I will chose to use five-dimensional array for ease of computation, will our Universe have fifth dimension then? Despite that randomness is used in calculations, it is very unlikely that our Universe is random, thus "probability wave" is just mathematical abstraction, disconnected from reality, not a real thing. It just a particle, with concentrated rings of magnetic field around it (like rings of magnetic field around magnets). It moves fast, and it motion is influenced a lot by fluctuations in quantum field, so it is impossible to measure position of a particle precisely, like motion of a single atom in plasma, so random distributions and averages are very helpful in calculation. PS. Did you see the famous video? [this video]
@v_lisivka Nov 2018 Cites it
on HN thread Danish physicists claim to cast doubt on detection of gravitational waves
Read more
"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]: [this video] [1]: [link]
Walking droplet macro-scale double-slit analogue
@brutt Feb 2020 Cites it
on HN thread Double Slits with Single Atoms
It awfully simple. I took screenshot from this video: [this video] , then label things: particle, wave, interference, and quanta. Nothing special at all.
@drran Jun 2021 Cites it
on HN thread What makes quantum computing so hard to explain?
Read more
QC is very fast random generator attached to physical quantum network, which performs calculation. Network is designed in such way, that an end state of the network is a solution to a problem. When you sample the network, you can sample it in a right moment and see the solution. For small problems, it's work flawlessly, e.g. when you need to find an odd number, the network will be in solution state 99,99999999999999% of the time. However, large networks are loosing their quantum properties very fast. Large objects have no properties of quantum objects — this is the corner stone of QM. The network can lose solution faster than it can find it, so when you sample, most of samples contains no solution to the problem, so you need to be lucky. Currently, QC math doesn't account this, so we have a "measurement problem", because physical reality doesn't match math abstraction, but mathematicians don't want to adjust their formulas. If you want to develop intuition, just look at reproduction of double slit experiment in macro[0]. It's just self-interference. BTW: If you have resources, can I ask you to help to reproduce Stern–Gerlach experiment in macro? We need fresh blood (and money for experiments). [0]: [this video]
Macro double-slit reproduction offered for intuition

Video list and Hacker News comment labels from HackerTube (prompted by @karpathy), released under ODC-By 1.0, built on the open-index/hacker-news archive. Hacker News data is provided by Y Combinator; comments remain the work of their authors. Video titles, channel names and thumbnails belong to their creators and are shown via YouTube. HackerTube Watch is an unofficial edition. Data export of 2026-10-31.

Keyboard shortcuts

/
Search
j k
Next / previous video
r
Surprise me
l
Like (video page)
w
Watch later (video page)
?
This help
Esc
Close