Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 50 references

Diffraction of walking drops by a standing Faraday wave

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read The paper reports that walking droplets crossing a standing Faraday wave are deflected with a four-peaked statistical distribution reminiscent of the Kapitza-Dirac effect, and attributes the effect to phase-dependent sorting and a…

desk verdict A credible new walker experiment with an honest model, but the diffraction claim needs conditional statistics to rule out caustic artifacts. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.18936 v1 pith:IBKX7UAR submitted 2024-12-25 physics.flu-dyn nlin.CDquant-ph

Bauyrzhan K. Primkulov , Davis J. Evans , Valeri Frumkin , Pedro J. Sáenz , John W.M. Bush This is my paper · ORCID
classification physics.flu-dynnlin.CDquant-ph
keywords pilot-wavehydrodynamicswalkingdropletsKapitza-DiraceffectFaradaywavesponderomotivepotentialdiffractionimpactphasesorting
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper claims that a drop bouncing and walking on a vibrating liquid bath can be deflected by a standing Faraday wave in a way whose statistical signature matches the Kapitza-Dirac effect—the diffraction of quantum particles by a standing wave of light. From hundreds of launches, the deflection histogram shows four peaks, and the paper argues that the pattern arises not from quantized momentum kicks but from the droplet's phase-dependent interaction with the subharmonic wave. A non-resonant pilot-wave model reproduces the principal peaks, the slowdown over the wave, the downstream speed oscillations, and the sorting of droplets into two impact-phase classes whose tracks are separated by half a Faraday wavelength. The paper derives a ponderomotive potential for the horizontal deflection and notes that the unresolved outer peaks likely come from an additional tilted wave mode excited by the droplet.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the non-resonant pilot-wave trajectory equation, in which the droplet's pilot-wave field $h$ and the externally imposed Faraday wave $H$ enter additively through the gradient $\nabla(h+H)$, and the impact phase $\Phi_i$ controls the sign of the interaction. Using the experimentally measured envelope $\phi(\mathbf{x})$ for the standing wave, the model sorts droplets into two subharmonic impact states and yields a ponderomotive potential $U_p = \tfrac12 K|\nabla\phi|^2$ for the horizontal deflection, derived by time-averaging $F_N(t)\cos(\omega_F t)\nabla\phi$ in the same way Kapitza averaged the inverted-pendulum force. This potential is the mechanism that turns many random-looking bounces into a net lateral drift and gives the diffraction-like histogram.

What would settle it

Measure the time-averaged lateral acceleration of a walker crossing the well and compare it with the ponderomotive force $-\nabla(\tfrac12 K|\nabla\phi|^2)$; a mismatch would rule out the proposed potential as the deflection mechanism. Alternatively, adding the tilted wave mode observed in the experiments to the simulation should make the two outer histogram peaks appear if the paper's attribution is correct.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

At forcing 72 Hz with a deep rectangular well sustaining a 36 Hz standing Faraday wave of wavelength 5.16 mm, millimetric silicone-oil drops launched toward the wave are deflected by up to roughly 50 degrees. The central claim is that the histogram of deflection angles from 1623 launches—four peaks when impact parameters are swept from $-5$ to $5$ mm—is a classical hydrodynamic analog of the Kapitza-Dirac diffraction pattern, and that the underlying mechanism is phase sorting plus a time-averaged ponderomotive force. The walker's horizontal equation is $m\ddot{\mathbf{x}} + \zeta\dot{\mathbf{x}} = -F_N(t)\nabla(h+H)$, with $h$ the pilot-wave field from the reduced wave model and $H = \phi(\mathbf{x})\cos(\Omega\tau/2)$ the measured standing wave; droplets whose impact phase $\Phi_i$ differs by $\pi$ ('up' versus 'down') are channelled into tracks separated by $\lambda_F/2$, and the averaged lateral force reduces to $-\nabla(\tfrac12 K|\nabla\phi|^2)$. The authors argue that this account explains the central diffraction peaks, the speed reduction over the wave, and the underdamped $\lambda_F$ speed oscillations downstream, and they identify the tilted wave mode seen in experiments but absent from the model as the likely source of the two outer peaks.

Load-bearing premise

The model assumes the droplet's own pilot wave and the measured standing Faraday wave simply add, with the standing wave's shape unchanged by the droplet's passage.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the central claim is right, the four-peaked deflection histogram is a classical, deterministic pilot-wave phenomenon: no quantized momentum recoil or wavefunction collapse is needed to produce the statistical signature.
  • The phase-sorting mechanism implies that any standing subharmonic wave of sufficient amplitude will partition walkers into two impact-phase classes and separate their tracks by half a Faraday wavelength.
  • The derived ponderomotive potential $U_p = \tfrac12 K|\nabla\phi|^2$ should govern lateral drift wherever a walker encounters a spatially varying subharmonic wave envelope, not just in this rectangular well.
  • If the tilted wave mode seen in experiments is included in the model, the full four-peak histogram should be recovered; its absence is why the simulations show only the two central peaks.
  • The $\lambda_F$-periodic speed oscillations downstream imply position–speed correlations that the paper connects to the statistical signatures of hydrodynamic Friedel oscillations.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Because the standing wave sorts droplets by a binary impact phase, the setup is effectively a classical phase filter; a similar subharmonic wave in any driven bouncing system should separate particles by their oscillation phase.
  • If the tilted wave mode is confirmed as the source of the outer peaks, the 'diffraction' pattern would be a two-mode interference effect (primary Faraday mode plus droplet-excited mode) rather than scattering from a single grating; imaging the wave field during crossings and correlating mode amplitude with deflection order would test this directly.
  • The ponderomotive-potential derivation assumes the impact force averages to zero during the resonance-disruption interval; direct measurement of $F_N(t)$ across those bounces would pin down $K$ and could fail if the disruption is not statistically random.
  • The track separation of exactly $\lambda_F/2$ at fixed impact parameter is a sharp, testable prediction that should survive changes in droplet diameter, viscosity, and driving frequency as long as the subharmonic wave persists.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper reports experiments in which millimetric walking droplets cross a standing Faraday wave in a rectangular well, and the statistical distribution of their deflection angles shows four peaks. This is presented as a hydrodynamic analog of the Kapitza-Dirac effect, with a non-resonant pilot-wave model reproducing two central peaks, phase-sorting of walkers by impact phase, and speed oscillations, and with a proposed ponderomotive potential for the droplet standing-wave interaction.

Significance. If the multi-peaked deflection distribution is established as a genuine diffraction-like signature, the result is significant: it would extend the hydrodynamic pilot-wave quantum analogs to a standing-wave geometry analogous to the Kapitza-Dirac effect, and introduce ponderomotive ideas into pilot-wave hydrodynamics. The work's strengths include the large dataset (1623 launches), the baseline control below the Faraday threshold, direct trajectory and wave-field imaging, and simulations that use an experimentally measured wave envelope with no parameters fitted to the deflection histogram. The observation of impact-phase sorting into distinct tracks is a valuable and well-supported contribution.

major comments (3)
  1. [Fig. 3(b) and Appendix Fig. 8] The headline evidence, the four-peak deflection histogram in Fig. 3(b), is obtained by pooling 1623 trajectories with impact parameters swept over -5 ≤ y0 ≤ 5 mm. The paper does not report the measured y0 distribution used in this pool, nor conditional histograms θ|y0, nor error bars or a significance test. If the deflection angle is a deterministic (or nearly deterministic) function θ(y0) for a given impact phase, pooling over y0 will produce peaks at stationary points of θ(y0) - classical caustics - with no diffraction-like mechanism. This concern is made concrete by the authors' own statement in the Simulations section that the two simulated central peaks are 'essentially dictated by the geometry of the standing wave' and can be moved by adjusting the envelope width. To secure the Kapitsa-Dirac analogy, the authors must show that the peaks are not artifacts of the pooling procedure, e.g., by presenting the y0 distribution, conditional θ|y0 histograms at fixed y0, and appropriate uncertainty or significance measures.
  2. [Simulations, Fig. 3(b)] The numerical model reproduces only the two central peaks of the experimental histogram; the two smaller outer peaks are not captured. The paper attributes this to tilted wave modes observed in Supplemental video 7, which are not included in the model. This is an admitted incompleteness in the model's account of the full deflection distribution. As a result, the claim that the diffraction pattern 'results from the complex interactions' of droplets with the standing wave is directly supported by the model only for the central peaks. The authors should either extend the model to include the tilted modes, or explicitly restrict their mechanistic claims to the central-peak structure and describe the outer peaks as an open issue.
  3. [Appendix: Idealized Ponderomotive Force] The derivation of the hydrodynamic ponderomotive potential Up = (1/2)K|∇ϕ|^2 leaves the coefficient K as an unevaluated correlation integral involving f(t) = FN(t)cos(ωF t). No estimate is provided from the measured bounce times, contact durations, or force amplitudes, so the potential is not a quantitative prediction and the comparison with the quantum result in Table I is only formal. In addition, the derivation assumes that during a resonance disruption event the impact times are random and the average of f(t) vanishes; this is an idealization rather than a derived consequence. Please state explicitly that K is a phenomenological coefficient, or provide an estimate from the model or experiments.
minor comments (4)
  1. [General] The text contains a few typographical errors: 'excedes' should be 'exceeds' in the Experimental details, and 'Lorenz force' should be 'Lorentz force' in the Discussion.
  2. [Eq. (5)] The definition of the impact phase in Eq. (5) uses Ω, which is not defined in the text; the notation would be clearer if the symbol were explicitly introduced before this equation.
  3. [Fig. 3 caption] The red simulation histogram in Fig. 3(b) is normalized differently from the blue experimental histogram (690 simulations vs 1623 experiments); the caption should specify whether both are probability densities and how binning was chosen.
  4. [References] Supplemental videos are cited informally; if the journal permits, they should be listed with a brief description in a dedicated supplementary section.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the deflection data are experimental, the simulation uses a measured wave envelope without fitted parameters, and the model's acknowledged failure to reproduce the outer peaks is a stated limitation rather than an input-output loop.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is self-contained rather than circular. The central observable, the four-peaked deflection histogram in Fig. 3(b), is experimental data obtained from 1623 trajectories; it is not an output of the model. The model in Eqs. (1)-(4) is written out explicitly, with wave-amplitude coefficients and damping parameters taken from prior measured studies, and the standing-wave envelope H(x, tau) is input directly from the experimental FCD measurement (Fig. 2a). No parameter is fitted to the deflection-angle histogram, and the paper explicitly states that the simulations recover only the two central peaks and are 'essentially dictated by the geometry of the standing wave,' an admitted sensitivity of the output to a measured input rather than a concealed fit. The Appendix derivation of the ponderomotive potential is an independent analytical argument based on the stated idealization f=0 over resonance-disruption events, following Kapitza's pendulum treatment; it does not assume the deflection distribution it is used to explain. Self-citations to Moláček and Bush and to Primkulov et al. supply model components, but the relevant equations and parameter values are reproduced in the text, so the argument does not reduce to an unverified self-citation. The paper also openly identifies what the model misses (the tilted wave modes and the outer histogram peaks), which is a limitation in scope, not circularity. The comparison to the Kapitza-Dirac effect is an analogy supported by the histogram shape, not a derivation that presupposes the conclusion.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claims rest on a small set of modeling assumptions inherited from prior work (the reduced wave model, linear superposition) plus one ad hoc idealization (random impact phases) used for the ponderomotive derivation. No free parameters are fitted to the deflection histogram.

assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption The reduced wave model of Moláček and Bush accurately describes the pilot-wave field generated by the walking drop.
    Used in the expression for h(xp,τ) in the Model section; this is a prior model rather than derived here.
  • domain assumption Linear superposition of the droplet's pilot-wave field and the standing Faraday wave is valid in Eq. (2).
    Justified only partially by comparing the anomalous pilot wave (Fig. 2c) to a free walker; the simulation misses two of four peaks, suggesting the superposition/reduced model may fail.
  • ad hoc to paper During a resonance disruption event, the impact times are effectively random and the average of f(t)=FN(t)cos(ωF t) vanishes over the short interval.
    Introduced in the Appendix to derive the ponderomotive potential; no quantitative verification of randomness is provided beyond high-speed imaging.
  • domain assumption The experimentally measured standing-wave envelope represents the field experienced by the drop, with negligible modification from the drop's passage.
    Used in simulations; Fig. 2c provides partial support via the anomalous pilot-wave subtraction, but the tilted modes noted in the Discussion are neglected.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Diffraction of walking drops by a standing Faraday wave." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/IBKX7UAR

@misc{pith2026241218936,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Diffraction of walking drops by a standing Faraday wave},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/IBKX7UAR}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.18936}
}
read the original abstract

The Kapitza-Dirac effect is the diffraction of quantum particles by a standing wave of light. We here report an analogous phenomenon in pilot-wave hydrodynamics, wherein droplets walking across the surface of a vibrating liquid bath are deflected by a standing Faraday wave. We show that, in certain parameter regimes, the statistical distribution of the droplet deflection angles reveals a diffraction pattern reminiscent of that observed in the Kapitza-Dirac effect. Through experiments and simulations, we show that the diffraction pattern results from the complex interactions of the droplets with the standing wave. Our study highlights non-resonant effects associated with the detuning of the droplet bouncing and the bath vibration, which are shown to lead to drop speed variations and droplet sorting according to the droplet's phase of impact. We discuss the similarities and differences between our hydrodynamic system and the discrete and continuum interpretations of the Kapitza-Dirac effect, and introduce the notion of ponderomotive effects in pilot-wave hydrodynamics.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.18936 by the authors.

Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. Experimentally-measured surface wave heights ac [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. (a) Top view and (b) schematic side view of the hydro [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. In our experiments, we launched individual walk [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (8 more)
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3. Histogram of the deflection angles (a) without and (b) with the standing wave above the rectangular well. Experiments [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png]
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. An ensemble of experimental droplet trajectories with [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. A standing wave disrupts the resonance of the walking drop, specifically the periodicity of its vertical dynamics. This [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. Simulations of a walker crossing the standing Fara [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_6.png]
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: (d) Color coding according to phase Φi indicates dy￾namic sorting of walkers along different channels according to their vertical bouncing phase. Walkers maintain constant impact phase Φi when they are in resonance with the vibrational forcing of the bath, for example,…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7. Schematic comparison of ponderomotive effects aris [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8. Experimental distribution of (a) the impact parame [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: FIG. 9. Simulated trajectory of a walker captures the dis [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_9.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

50 extracted references · 50 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    F. M. Grimaldi, Physico-mathesis de lumine coloribus et iride aliisque adnexis libri duo (1665)

    work page

  2. [2]

    Huygens, Trait´ e de la lumi` ere(1690)

    C. Huygens, Trait´ e de la lumi` ere(1690)

    work page

  3. [3]

    Newton, Opticks, or a Treatise of the Reflections, Re- fractions, Inflections and Colours of Light (1704)

    I. Newton, Opticks, or a Treatise of the Reflections, Re- fractions, Inflections and Colours of Light (1704)

    work page

  4. [4]

    Young, I

    T. Young, I. The Bakerian Lecture. Experiments and cal- culations relative to physical optics., Philosophical trans- actions of the Royal Society of London 94 (1804)

    work page

  5. [5]

    Fresnel, Premier m´ emoire sur la diffraction de la lumi` ere(1815)

    A.-J. Fresnel, Premier m´ emoire sur la diffraction de la lumi` ere(1815)

    work page

  6. [6]

    Einstein, On a heuristic point of view about the cre- ation and conversion of light, Annalen der Physik17, 132 (1905)

    A. Einstein, On a heuristic point of view about the cre- ation and conversion of light, Annalen der Physik17, 132 (1905)

    work page 1905

  7. [7]

    de Broglie, Recherches sur la th´ eorie des quanta , Ph.D

    L. de Broglie, Recherches sur la th´ eorie des quanta , Ph.D. thesis, Migration-universit´ e en cours d’affectation. (1924)

    work page 1924

  8. [8]

    C. J. Davisson and L. Germer, Reflection of Electrons by a Crystal of Nickel, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 14, 317 (1928)

    work page 1928

Show all 50 references
  1. [9]

    P. L. Kapitza and P. A. M. Dirac, The reflection of electrons from standing light waves, Mathematical Pro- ceedings of the Cambridge Philosophical Society 29, 297 (1933)

    1933

  2. [10]

    Batelaan, Colloquium : Illuminating the Kapitza- Dirac effect with electron matter optics, Reviews of Mod- ern Physics 79, 929 (2007)

    H. Batelaan, Colloquium : Illuminating the Kapitza- Dirac effect with electron matter optics, Reviews of Mod- ern Physics 79, 929 (2007)

    2007

  3. [11]

    P. L. Gould, G. A. Ruff, and D. E. Pritchard, Diffrac- tion of atoms by light: The near-resonant Kapitza-Dirac effect, Physical Review Letters 56, 827 (1986)

    1986

  4. [12]

    Martin, B

    P. Martin, B. Oldaker, A. Miklich, and D. Pritchard, Bragg scattering of atoms from a standing light wave, Physical Review Letters 60, 515 (1988)

    1988

  5. [13]

    P. H. Bucksbaum, D. W. Schumacher, and M. Bashkan- sky, High-Intensity Kapitza-Dirac Effect, Physical Re- view Letters 61, 1182 (1988)

    1988

  6. [14]

    K. Lin, S. Eckart, H. Liang, A. Hartung, S. Jacob, Q. Ji, L. P. H. Schmidt, M. S. Sch¨ offler, T. Jahnke, M. Kunitski, and R. D¨ orner, Ultrafast Kapitza-Dirac effect, Science 383, 1467 (2024)

    2024

  7. [15]

    D. L. Freimund, K. Aflatooni, and H. Batelaan, Observa- tion of the Kapitza–Dirac effect, Nature 413, 142 (2001)

    2001

  8. [16]

    D. L. Freimund and H. Batelaan, Bragg Scattering of Free Electrons Using the Kapitza-Dirac Effect, Physical Review Letters 89, 4 (2002)

    2002

  9. [17]

    Y. B. Ovchinnikov, J. H. M¨ uller, M. R. Doery, E. J. D. Vredenbregt, K. Helmerson, S. L. Rolston, and W. D. Phillips, Diffraction of a Released Bose-Einstein Conden- sate by a Pulsed Standing Light Wave, Physical Review Letters 83, 284 (1999)

    1999

  10. [18]

    Nairz, B

    O. Nairz, B. Brezger, M. Arndt, and A. Zeilinger, Diffrac- tion of Complex Molecules by Structures Made of Light, Physical Review Letters 87, 160401 (2001)

    2001

  11. [19]

    Couder and E

    Y. Couder and E. Fort, Single-Particle Diffraction and Interference at a Macroscopic Scale, Physical Review Let- ters 97, 154101 (2006), publisher: American Physical So- ciety

    2006

  12. [20]

    found that a millimetric drop of silicone oil may self- propel on the surface of a vertically vibrated liquid bath via a resonant interaction with its own guiding or ‘pi- lot’ wave field. The drop and its pilot wave comprise a compound entity, termed a ‘walker’, that represent...

    2024 arXiv

  13. [21]

    Couder, S

    Y. Couder, S. Proti` ere, E. Fort, and A. Boudaoud, Walk- ing and orbiting droplets, Nature 2005 437:7056 437, 208 (2005), publisher: Nature Publishing Group

    2005

  14. [22]

    J. W. Bush, Pilot-Wave Hydrodynamics, Annual Review of Fluid Mechanics 47, 269 (2015)

    2015

  15. [23]

    Andersen, J

    A. Andersen, J. Madsen, C. Reichelt, S. Rosenlund Ahl, B. Lautrup, C. Ellegaard, M. T. Levinsen, and T. Bohr, Double-slit experiment with single wave-driven particles and its relation to quantum mechanics, Physical Review E 92, 013006 (2015)

    2015

  16. [24]

    Pucci, D

    G. Pucci, D. M. Harris, L. M. Faria, and J. W. M. Bush, Walking droplets interacting with single and double slits, Journal of Fluid Mechanics 835, 1136 (2018)

    2018

  17. [25]

    Ellegaard and M

    C. Ellegaard and M. T. Levinsen, Interaction of wave- driven particles with slit structures, Physical Review E 102, 023115 (2020)

    2020

  18. [26]

    Pucci, A

    G. Pucci, A. Bellaigue, A. Cirimele, G. Ali, and A. U. Oza, Single-particle diffraction with a hydrodynamic pilot-wave model (2024), arXiv:2407.16001 [physics]

    2024 arXiv

  19. [27]

    E. Fort, A. Eddi, A. Boudaoud, J. Moukhtar, and Y. Couder, Path-memory induced quantization of clas- sical orbits, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sci- ences 107, 17515 (2010), publisher: National Academy of Sciences

    2010

  20. [28]

    D. M. Harris and J. W. M. Bush, Droplets walking in a rotating frame: from quantized orbits to multimodal statistics, Journal of Fluid Mechanics 739, 444 (2014), publisher: Cambridge University Press

    2014

  21. [29]

    D. M. Harris, J. Moukhtar, E. Fort, Y. Couder, and J. W. M. Bush, Wavelike statistics from pilot-wave dy- namics in a circular corral, Physical Review E 88, 011001 (2013), publisher: American Physical Society

    2013

  22. [30]

    P. J. S´ aenz, T. Cristea-Platon, and J. W. M. Bush, Sta- tistical projection effects in a hydrodynamic pilot-wave system, Nature Physics 2017 14:3 14, 315 (2017), pub- lisher: Nature Publishing Group

    2017

  23. [31]

    Nachbin, P

    A. Nachbin, P. A. Milewski, and J. W. M. Bush, Tun- neling with a hydrodynamic pilot-wave model, Physical Review Fluids 2, 034801 (2017)

    2017

  24. [32]

    A. Eddi, E. Fort, F. Moisy, and Y. Couder, Unpre- 8 dictable Tunneling of a Classical Wave-Particle Associ- ation, Physical Review Letters 102, 240401 (2009), pub- lisher: American Physical Society

    2009

  25. [33]

    P. J. S´ aenz, T. Cristea-Platon, and J. W. M. Bush, A hydrodynamic analog of Friedel oscillations, Science Ad- vances 6, eaay9234 (2020), publisher: American Associ- ation for the Advancement of Science

    2020

  26. [34]

    Frumkin, J

    V. Frumkin, J. W. Bush, and K. Papatryfonos, Super- radiant Droplet Emission from Parametrically Excited Cavities, Physical Review Letters 130, 064002 (2023)

    2023

  27. [35]

    P. J. S´ aenz, G. Pucci, S. E. Turton, A. Goujon, R. R. Rosales, J. Dunkel, and J. W. M. Bush, Emergent order in hydrodynamic spin lattices, Nature 596, 58 (2021)

    2021

  28. [36]

    A. J. Abraham, S. Malkov, F. A. Ljubetic, M. Durey, and P. J. S´ aenz, Anderson Localization of Walking Droplets, Physical Review X 14, 031047 (2024)

    2024

  29. [37]

    Frumkin, D

    V. Frumkin, D. Darrow, J. W. M. Bush, and W. Struyve, Real surreal trajectories in pilot-wave hydrodynamics, Physical Review A 106, L010203 (2022)

    2022

  30. [38]

    Frumkin and J

    V. Frumkin and J. W. M. Bush, Misinference of interaction-free measurement from a classical system, Physical Review A 108, L060201 (2023)

    2023

  31. [39]

    Wildeman, Real-time quantitative Schlieren imaging by fast Fourier demodulation of a checkered backdrop, Experiments in Fluids 59, 97 (2018)

    S. Wildeman, Real-time quantitative Schlieren imaging by fast Fourier demodulation of a checkered backdrop, Experiments in Fluids 59, 97 (2018)

    2018

  32. [40]

    T. B. Benjamin and F. Ursell, The stability of the plane free surface of a liquid in vertical periodic motion, Pro- ceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series A. Math- ematical and Physical Sciences 225, 505 (1954)

    1954

  33. [41]

    Durey, S

    M. Durey, S. E. Turton, and J. W. M. Bush, Speed oscil- lations in classical pilot-wave dynamics, Proceedings of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical and Engi- neering Sciences 476, 20190884 (2020)

    2020

  34. [42]

    Mol´ aˇ cek and J

    J. Mol´ aˇ cek and J. W. M. Bush, Drops bouncing on a vibrating bath, Journal of Fluid Mechanics 727, 582 (2013)

    2013

  35. [43]

    Mol´ aˇ cek and J

    J. Mol´ aˇ cek and J. W. Bush, Drops walking on a vibrating bath: Towards a hydrodynamic pilot-wave theory, Jour- nal of Fluid Mechanics 727, 612 (2013)

    2013

  36. [44]

    B. K. Primkulov, D. J. Evans, J. B. Been, and J. W. M. Bush, Non-resonant effects in pilot-wave hydrodynamics (2024), arXiv:2411.14996 [physics]

    2024 arXiv

  37. [45]

    S. E. Turton, M. M. P. Couchman, and J. W. M. Bush, A review of the theoretical modeling of walking droplets: Toward a generalized pilot-wave framework, Chaos: An Interdisciplinary Journal of Nonlinear Science 28, 096111 (2018)

    2018

  38. [46]

    M. M. P. Couchman, S. E. Turton, and J. W. M. Bush, Bouncing phase variations in pilot-wave hydrodynamics and the stability of droplet pairs, Journal of Fluid Me- chanics 871, 212 (2019)

    2019

  39. [47]

    A. U. Oza, R. R. Rosales, and J. W. M. Bush, A trajec- tory equation for walking droplets: hydrodynamic pilot- wave theory, Journal of Fluid Mechanics737, 552 (2013)

    2013

  40. [48]

    Durey and J

    M. Durey and J. W. M. Bush, Classical pilot-wave dy- namics: The free particle, Chaos: An Interdisciplinary Journal of Nonlinear Science 31, 033136 (2021)

    2021

  41. [49]

    Batelaan, The Kapitza-Dirac effect, Contemporary Physics 41, 369 (2000)

    H. Batelaan, The Kapitza-Dirac effect, Contemporary Physics 41, 369 (2000)

    2000

  42. [50]

    P. L. Kapitza, Dynamic stability of a pendulum when its point of suspension vibrates, Soviet Phys. JETP. (1951). APPENDIX Idealized Ponderomotive F orce The dimensional form of the trajectory equation (2) in the presence of a standing wave (with amplitude ϕ ≫ h) and for short ...

    1951

Pith tools

Reviewed August 11, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.