Dear Colleagues,

Good Day,

Particle  came first by Newton, after that wave came by Bohr.

Dear Colleagues,

Good Day,

Particle  came first by Newton, after that wave came by Bohr.

This is a good question.   I wish I had thought of it.

I agree with @Hazim Hashim Tahir": Particle came first by Newton, after that wave came by Bohr.

As it turns out, wave forms describe and exhibit  the behaviour of particles.   Another closely related concept can be found in the theory of strings, where a string is defined by the path of a particle moving through space.

Dear Hazim Tahir and Dear James Peters, Thanks for valuable sharing.

Dear James Peters thanks for compliments, when we do deal with combine sharing / brainstorming then the raised questions/answers are result of combine acquired creativity either our scenes notice it or not, and defiantly all are part of it sometime directly & sometimes indirectly. So its by all of us. Thanks Again.

Now the basic & related query is that WHY particle came first,

Was particle needed for some functional aspect along Dynamic Quantum Vacuum or only particle had the ability to cross and get enter to or form  this dimensional cosmos etc, 

Any idea, any theory, any supposition, assumption Plz ?

Regards,

Actually, Hazim Hashim Tahir has already given the most accurate answer because waves and particles are just concepts with which physicists and other scientists describe parts of the world we life in. Many people don't consider that that does not necessarily mean that the universe really consists of waves and particles (or particle-waves, since we developed quantum mechanics). This would be same thing as if you would have a photograph of an elephant and claim that this picture is an real elephant.

Take light as an example in some experiments it behaves like a wave, in others like a particle (in fact it was shown that those two mathematical-physical pictures are equivalent, it's just sometimes more convenient to take the particle description or the wave description). The truth is (and here it gets quite philosophical) that light (and anything else) is most probably something entirely different and we only have scientific analogons for our understanding/description of this phenomenon.

Hence you really can only take the time of the historical introduction of these concepts for the answer of your question.

Dear Johannes Gruenwald

Thanks for helping contribution,

Historic introduction are the result of observation and understandings which is relative to observer thoughts and it can be questioned, it can get addition and can be amended if needed........ Anyhow If both (particle & Wave) are same and there is no demarcation line then there is not need to describe them with two different words, it might be possible that they are interchangeable.... what the scientific limitations are there which don't allow us to go further into it.

Still the question is there that Why & How wave adopt a form of particle ?

Thanks

"Anyhow If both (particle & Wave) are same and there is no demarcation line then there is not need to describe them with two different words, it might be possible that they are interchangeable...."

That's actually not what I said, I said they are equivalent, which means that both descriptions will give you the same physical results at the end of the day - the mathematical structure for the two pictures is quite different.

In quantum mechanics (in a nutshell) particles can to a certain extend be described as harmonic oscillators with quantised energie levels (or discrete energy eigenvalues, if you want to go more into the mathematical details). This description is owed to the fact that the Schroedinger equation is a form of wave equation - that means that the solutions of Schroedingers equation can be expressed in form of sin, cos and sums of the two even if you are dealing with particles.

Sorry for the crudness of my explanations but the exact explanation fills whole book volumes and is thus too long and complex for RG (but if you are interested you can just go and read some introductory QM books).

Dear Johannes Gruenwald

Thanks for Nice contribution,

Mathematically it can be possible to ignore /cross the demarcation lines but do it witness practically ?

Wave and particle both might have their own differences among them, and there should be movement  types and structural differences as well even with the two view of same coin.

In either case Question is still there Why & How wave (or Energy -just to make question bit easy) adopt a form of particle ?

Regards,

The answer to your second question is what I wrote earlier - the explanation lies in Schroedinger's equation (again, waves and particles are just models that we use to describe certain aspects of nature). Thus, this is the best answer to your question I can think of.

Dear Johannes Gruenwald

Thanks Again

"the explanation lies in Schroedinger's equation (again, waves and particles are just models that we use to describe certain aspects of nature)"

Is it right to say that Schroedinger's equation is good for explanation of behavior under formed environment rather than the formation/creation of environment ?

Wave and particle both might have their own differences among them, and there should be movement  types,structural differences, inter conversion patterns etc as well even if they are two view of same coin.

In any scenario either wave form of coin get formed first or particle form get first or both get establish simultaneously at the same time line of event; In all cases Question is still there Why & How such forms get adopted/established, why not the same sides for a coin ? and they are incontrovertible too (E=mc2).

Regards,

Dear Pierlorenzo Brignoli

Thanks for such a nice guidance, Yes you are very true. I think rather than to ignore the said problem for our satisfaction, if we go deep down into it then might be possible  we can get some further base line of creation/evolution.

Regards,

Dear Raja N A Khan: Schroedinger's equation describes the temporal evolution of a quantum system in absence of perturbations (that has nothing to do with formed environement or formation of environment).

Again, you cannot speak of what was first formed - wave or particles because they are just concepts of the human mind (analogies, if you like), which per se do not exist in nature. This has nothing to do with "how such forms get adopted/established...". It has just turned out to be practical to describe certain things in nature like particles and others like waves - so, actually your question is very ill-defined in a real physical sense.

In the real physical sense, considering that the physical world exists but not percatemos us of him or phenomena that are verified in the field, I can say that Wave and Particle are essentially of the same, the way you can express and measure Matter and Energy, depending on the type and reliability of our measuring instruments, the fineness of our observations and mathematical equations applied.

Of course both Particle and Wave are conceptions of human mint to define and understand the micro-structure of matter. First he idolized and conceptualized the infinitely smaller of matter through the existence of indivisible corpuscles (Atoms) part, then a corpuscular model of planetary type was adopted to explain the existence of sub-atomic (Bohr) particles, he evolved science physics and mathematics up to Galileo and Newton, reaching conceptualizing the matter in the framework of classical physics in a similar but more advanced models from the model proposed by Bohr.

Comes the scientific revolution in physics with Einstein in his Theory of Relativity, time which is better understood the dual concept of matter as Waves and Particles, which under certain conditions and type of observation / measurement is expressed more as Wave or a Particle, but it will never be possible to detect both properties of matter simultaneously.

What progress regarding the unification of Classical Physics, Relativistic Physics and Quantum Physics into a single theory (Unified Theory) have been difficult and unsuccessful until now. Some understanding has been taken with astrophysics and mathematical models of "String Theory" and the discovery of the "Graviton" (particles whose presence through the force of attraction of the planetary gravity is expressed)

In conclusion, for the moment I think the duality of Matter-Energy and Particle and Wave, is ontological type, one can not exist without the other in either direction.

Dear José Luis García Vigil,

just a few amendments:

1) The theory of relativity does not claim time has anything to do with waves/particles but that time is strongly connected with space.

2) "it will never be possible to detect both properties of matter simultaneously" - I wouldn't say so since the deBroglie wavelength of several particles has been measured years ago.

Answer lies in which of your eye sees first at the object ?

Dear Johannes Gruenwald

Thanks Again

Everything is a concept of human mind for understanding. If two things are interconvertible then they might have something same at previous level but can’t denoted as same at current level. Just to create prove for some proposed theory of everything etc we cannot bound the particle & wave to adopt some same identity, characteristics, structure and functional aspects AND left behind the differences. Anyhow such act only sounds smart during use of assumption at paper not during practical, untill creatures bring changes in DQV through their acquired set of logic via biologic & acquired creativity . Question is very clearly defined; however observation is relative to observer, feel free to define in more better way if possible. As now days the time is defined as the measurement of events not a separate physical dimension.

Anyhow Question is still there

In any scenario either wave form of coin get formed first or particle form get first or both get establish simultaneously at the same time line of event; In all cases Question is still there Why & How such forms (structural behaviour)  get adopted/established, why not the same sides for a coin ?

Thanks

Dear José Luis García Vigil 

Thanks for such helpful contribution

“In conclusion, for the moment I think the duality of Matter-Energy and Particle and Wave, is ontological type, one can not exist without the other in either direction”

Why this duality is and how it formed first time, during formation which structure got formed first and by which reason? what can be the mystery behind such structural & functional differences ?

Thanks

Dear Arno Gorgels

Thanks, Can you kindly explain it further 

Regards

Dear Arno Gorgels

Thanks for nice contribution.

The matter of "god" is some far away from scientific understandings, if there is some & the same as described in different religions. So for the logical need is about The designer, center of consciousness, universal design etc are more wisely supposed to be behind the curtains. 

Yes i agree that firstly wave get formed than particle; and then mass in particles get accumulated but their appearance in space is as Dear Johannes Gruenwald described two part of same coin for Energy Vacuum / DQV.  

But still here is question that what the Quanta of energy made off ? What that wave made of which gave existence to energy ? for EM production & existance as well there is need of rotation, spinning, movement , medium of travel etc so can we consider than wave can have self ability to produce charges with out the aid/presence of any particles ? if so then what that form of wave should be ?

Regards.

Dear Arno

Thanks for sharing

I think human need to solve the problem of this kind to before "officially" entering the space race in cosmos with others, hope some research organization will take care of it in future. Is it possible or some way can get discover that at the end energy can redesigned or restructure by the given solutions ?

Regards,

Hi Raja,

none of both ! the following remark is only mine! not issued from classical quantum physics

the first could be TIME   not as time but time(as duration) but as physical new state of the matter my be 6th or more- time is like an physical obervable, with weight of 7.8 10-90 uma

time MATTER is composed of MEMONS

you can read my book for free

http://www.glycan-shop.com/fr/liste-articles/category/25-medecine-quantique-et-e-book

don't burn me for the moment ! I have to finish my job!

Christian Daniel assoun

Dear Assoun Christian

Thanks for a nice contribution. Can you kindly describe that MEMONS are made of what ? and how "Time Matter" got formed specifically in absence of particle or wave?

Regards,

Raja

Dear Raja,

thank you for your remarks, unfortunatly my book is in French, but I can say that

the 4th of matter as plasma state is " recent" physical observable concept

formed of what? MEMONS, it could be the 5th of 6 th or more state of matter

For the moment we do not hold tools in order to reply "formed of what "  our scientific

knowleedge applied to physics is recent  200 years- may be in 70 years we could reply to this  formed of what or who came the first wave or particles- I do not say that MEMONS are formed of Nothing, but clearly formed of "waves and/or particles" but in higher state of matter unknown for the moment...

Regards

Christian Daniel Assoun

Dear Sir, its depending on system that you study , such as photoelectric effect , we deal with  particles and in Interference and Diffraction, we deal with wave. So if your asking about which came first then I will say particle because classical theory deal with all as particle then came Bohr and de Borligie in quantum physics to explain that the particles behave as waves