Dear all. Sensors are often used to detect specific physical phenomena (displacement, magnetic fields, temperature, etc.). The acquired signal is generally in the form current, voltage, etc. The signal waveform reflects the physical behavior of the phenomena to be inspected, but in no case the physical phenomena. Does the particle wave duality represent two ways of observing particle behavior ? Thank you for your comments.
We know light as a wave but when it interacts with matter, it exhibits particle properties (Photoelectric effect and Compton scattering) and we know electrons as particles but they exhibit the wave properties of interference and diffraction. They are carriers of momentum and energy and have both particle and wave characteristics!
You must know that, macroscopic objects such as electrons, display wave behavior but the corresponding wavelengths are too small to detect. At the microscopic level, the waves associated with material particles are of the same size or exceed the size of the system, so, microscopic particles exhibit clearly discernible wave-like aspects. The general rule is: whenever the de Broglie wavelength of an object is in the range of or exceeds its size, the wave nature of the object is detectable but if its de Broglie wavelength is much too small compared to its size, the wave behavior of this object is undetectable.
In classical physics, particles and waves are mutually exclusive and they exhibit different behaviors but Photons, electrons, and any other microscopic particles behave unlike classical particles and unlike classical waves. The theory of quantum mechanics can simultaneously make statements about the particle behavior and the wave behavior of microscopic systems. The true reality of a quantum system is that it is neither a pure particle nor a pure wave. Depending on the type of equipment used to detect, particles have the capacity to display either “particle” or "wave" features. For example, based on the double-slit experiment (that's amazing and you must read more about it), if we wanted to look at the particle aspect of the electron, we would need only to block one slit or leave both slits open but used an observational tool, but if we were interested only in its wave features, we would have to leave both slits open and don't used observational tools. This means that both the “particle” and “wave” features are embedded into the electron (all of the materials), and by modifying the detect tools, we can suppress one aspect of the electron (As a fundamental particle of the whole universe) and keep the other. When we subject an electron to Compton scattering, we observe only its particle aspects, but when we involve it in a diffraction experiment (double-slit experiment), we observe its wave behavior only. So if we measure the particle properties of a quantum system, this will destroy its wave properties and vice versa. Any measurement gives either one property or the other, but never both at once. We can get either the wave property or the particle but not both of them together!!!!
Ait Mansour El Houssain I would like to suggest you see the actual particle-wave duality attempt by De Broglie. I have attached the paper of the same with this. In that paper, he commented about the structure of photon by the annihilation theory, and on the same Einstein commented that Duality is a temporary solution, the permanent one will come out from something obvious.
I am working currently on the same because to me, the wave-particle duality is not yet understood properly.
Thank you Aziz Lokhandwala for you response. I'm agree with you.
The wave-particle duality is an intrinsic physical feature of single elementary particles such as photons, electrons, protons and neutrons, and is not a mere artifact of observation. Consider the Young 2-slit experiment, in which a beam of photons passes through a screen with two slits before reaching a detector. If the intensity of the beam is such that only one photon is emitted at a time . . . (cont. below)
(cont from above) ... a wavelike interference pattern will build up, point by point, on the detector. Each point represents the detection of a single photon, indicating particle-like behavior. The interference pattern, however, shows that in some sense each photon passes through both slits and interferes with itself, indicating wave-like behavior. Electrons and other particles exhibit the same interference.
We know light as a wave but when it interacts with matter, it exhibits particle properties (Photoelectric effect and Compton scattering) and we know electrons as particles but they exhibit the wave properties of interference and diffraction. They are carriers of momentum and energy and have both particle and wave characteristics!
You must know that, macroscopic objects such as electrons, display wave behavior but the corresponding wavelengths are too small to detect. At the microscopic level, the waves associated with material particles are of the same size or exceed the size of the system, so, microscopic particles exhibit clearly discernible wave-like aspects. The general rule is: whenever the de Broglie wavelength of an object is in the range of or exceeds its size, the wave nature of the object is detectable but if its de Broglie wavelength is much too small compared to its size, the wave behavior of this object is undetectable.
In classical physics, particles and waves are mutually exclusive and they exhibit different behaviors but Photons, electrons, and any other microscopic particles behave unlike classical particles and unlike classical waves. The theory of quantum mechanics can simultaneously make statements about the particle behavior and the wave behavior of microscopic systems. The true reality of a quantum system is that it is neither a pure particle nor a pure wave. Depending on the type of equipment used to detect, particles have the capacity to display either “particle” or "wave" features. For example, based on the double-slit experiment (that's amazing and you must read more about it), if we wanted to look at the particle aspect of the electron, we would need only to block one slit or leave both slits open but used an observational tool, but if we were interested only in its wave features, we would have to leave both slits open and don't used observational tools. This means that both the “particle” and “wave” features are embedded into the electron (all of the materials), and by modifying the detect tools, we can suppress one aspect of the electron (As a fundamental particle of the whole universe) and keep the other. When we subject an electron to Compton scattering, we observe only its particle aspects, but when we involve it in a diffraction experiment (double-slit experiment), we observe its wave behavior only. So if we measure the particle properties of a quantum system, this will destroy its wave properties and vice versa. Any measurement gives either one property or the other, but never both at once. We can get either the wave property or the particle but not both of them together!!!!
The evidence is all in and in favour of something like this. However the recent trend is to stay away from the obvious contradiction that the same thing is both particle and wave, and rather to say that there is both particle and wave separately. The wave is not material, but probabilistic. May or may not have eventual physical interpretation as something real.
It should not be a theory. The Building block of universe is quantum mechanics. Very large number of Constituent Elementary particle make atom. Atoms is smallest complete well organized unit of the Universe. Anything that is not atom is considered as a non-chemical element or Particle. atom & particle both are carrying mass. Wave in space of universe is carrying temperature. Wave-Temperature is duality that carrying information. i.e. we get picture from billions of mile though this system. We use wave-temperature on earth as well. our radio, TV. microwave oven, or x, gamma, beta...ray. Thus wave CAN NOT carrying particle or particle can not be wave duality. wave is always come with temperature. Temperature does not exist without wave, and wave does not exist without temp.
Article Quantum Intelligent Space
There is an absolutely definite and categorical answer to this specifically posed question: YES. This concept underlies quantum mechanics. And modern technological civilization is built essentially on the basis of quantum mechanics. In quantum mechanics there is such a thing as the wave function of a particle. And that’s all said already. You can of course delve into some subjective interpretations of wave-particle duality. But this does not change the reliability of the mathematical and computational results of quantum mechanics in a very wide field of physics, nor their agreement with a huge number of experimental data, and thus, and even more so, does not cancel technological progress. As for Einstein's statements on this issue, it may not really be that he understood quantum mechanics differently compared to its creators, for example, compared to Bohr, Geisenberg, or Schrödinger. It was just that at that moment he could not combine his general theory of relativity with the ideas of quantum mechanics, and this naturally irritated him. Hence his famous saying that he does not believe that God plays dice. There is currently a theory called quantum gravity. I am sure that, living in our time, the brilliant Einstein would have been very pleased with this fact, and therefore would have imputed other no less interesting functions to God.
@Seyedeh Tahereh Hosseini You are right, but when de broglie proposed his hypothesis of wave particle duality, he was not sure that how electrons and other particles are exhibiting wave nature. Also because of the data from the single electron double slit experiment, it was known that till n electrons random spots were observed on the screen of the double slit experiment as mentioned by frabboni but after those n electrons, they observed very faint inteference pattern for (n+1)th electron, because of which for finding the reason, de broglie provided his photon structure by the annhilation of electron and positron and motion. The model failed to explain the single electron phenomena but it was a way to explain the reality
@Seyedeh Tahereh Hosseini Also, because of him, if photon was structured as per de broglie’s hypothesis, the photon duality was assumed to be of major concern then the electron duality. At those times, physicists start working on this and formed various arrangements of electron and positron when the electron is shooted from the electron gun, but they were not able to explain. Also at that time Bohm and Schrodinger were also proposing there models to explain single electron experiment of which Schrodinger propose it to be like a smear of electron(a water mellon) typed shape, but this structure by him failed. Then he proposed probability wave concept.
@Seyedeh Tahereh Hosseini But the probablity wave model explained the single electron experiment but with that model various weird characteristics of single electron experiment was observed like the observer effect, decoherence due to gravity, etc Till the date no one is able to explain these weirdness arised in inteference experiment because of the probability wave model proposed by the Schrodinger
The wave particle dualism is as correct as the dualism "time/amplitude" / “frequency/intensity” in communications engineering. The “correctness” is given by the application constraints of the Fourier transform in the considered situations.
Aziz Lokhandwala, Classical physics fails to account for many other phenomena at the microscopic scale, besides failing to explain wave-particle duality, Compton, photoelectric. For example, experimental observations reveal that atoms exist as stable, bound systems that have discrete numbers of energy levels but classical physics, however, states that any such bound system must have a continuum of energy levels!
About de Broglie, he suggested that all material particles should display a dual wave-particle behavior (the wave-particle duality present in the light must also occur in matter) and starting from the momentum of a photon p= hν/c = h/λ, we can generalize this relation to any material particle with nonzero rest mass. (As we know de Broglie relation, connects the momentum of a particle with the wavelength (λ) of the wave corresponding to this particle).
Finally, de Broglie’s idea was confirmed experimentally by Davisson and Germer, and later by Thomson, who obtained interference patterns with electrons and these results confirmed again the wave behavior of electrons!
Quantum superposition lies at the quantum mechanics and gives rise to many of its paradoxes. Superposition of de Broglie matter waves has been observed for massive particles such as electrons, neutrons, atoms, dimers, and etc. Also, you can read a paper in Nature about wave-particle duality of C60 molecules that reports the observation of de Broglie wave interference of C60 molecules by diffraction at a material absorption grating. these observations supported the view that each C60 molecule interferes only with itself as a classical object.
Hence, microscopic systems are neither pure particles nor pure waves, they are both. The particle and wave manifestations do not contradict or preclude one another, but, as suggested by Bohr, they are just complementary. Both concepts are complementary in describing the true nature of microscopic systems. Being complementary features of microscopic matter, particles and waves are equally important for a complete description of quantum systems. From here comes the complementarity principle and without the complementarity principle, quantum mechanics would not have been in a position to produce accurate results.
"…any such bound system must have a continuum of energy levels"
A continuum of unbound states adjoins every set of bound states.
Aziz Lokhandwala, As quantum particles jointly display particle and wave features, they needed a mathematical way that embodied them simultaneously. so, used by de Broglie’s hypothesis, Schrodinger constructed the theory of wave mechanics which deals with the dynamics of microscopic particles and he described the motion of particles by means of a wave function (Ψ) which corresponds to the de Broglie wave of the particle. so, Ψ describes the wave properties of a particle.
A wave packet in real space, basically the wave function with a hump, is the closest to wave and particle. If you Fourier transform into k space you get another hump, for example a Gaussian in real space gives a Gaussian in k= 2 pi/lambda space.
The width of each, multiplied together gives a minimum larger than, or equal to 1/2
(use an integral Fourier transform). This is uncertainty principle.
p= hbar k is momentum. So in real- momentum space larger than, or equal to hbar/2
However this is merely a comon model proceedure, not the essense of the question, but shows that wave-particle duality gives the uncertainty principle.
One could say particle emerges if k is sharply defined, but know nothing about position, but certainly not a particle in the Classical sense! If you have a sharply defined position, you know nothing about momentum. So really neither particle or wave, the way we imagine it classically, is actually involved.
I am presenting Quantum Mechanics Universe, and space does not consider as just holder, it consider as a substance as well. i.e. over 99.99% of each atom is holding different characteristic space . The nature of Space has no temperature, but as it get temperature it creates wave. Wave is carrying information of heat, or photon and it is tool of universe to communicate with it mass. The reason that all planets are spherical shape it is because of this communication, therefore Wave is not able to carry mass particle. This pictures below is one of millions example, that universe is not a mechanical, it is QM phenomenon.
https://www.bing.com/images/search?q=picture+drop+of+water+over+a+pond&id=77F2FD08847C34840A3182E8100DD42FFA2BC693&FORM=IQFRBA
@SeyedehTaherehHosseini Yes exactly but can you comment on how the particle is getting these wave properties or say what is the reason behind formation of this probability wave?
These questions were in mind of the great physicists like Bohm, De Broglie and because of that they made an attempt for answering these questions which was De Broglie’s Pilot wave theory. This theory relies on the vortices and invokes the concept behind dirac’s equation which comments on anti particle theory. From that DeBroglie thought of explaining “wave properties” by proposing a structure of photon from two helical paths of electron and positron.
Either there is a wave and a particle or there is not. If you assume there is, then things like the two-slit experiment follow. If you assume there is only one, then you have to argue that the mathematics say the other occurs. Thus in the two-s;lit experiment, every individual photon arrives at its own individual point, which s what a particle should do but overall, the pattern becomes that of a wave. To calculate what happens to a huge number of particles or photons, you use a wave equation, and you accept you cannot calculate that for a single particle or photon. Then, to make matters worse, you cannot usually detect the wave. (There is an exception in that a phase change has been recorded for passing photons. See Lundeen, J. S., Sutherland, B., Patel, A., Stewart, C., Bamber, C. 2011. Direct measurement of the quantum wavefunction. Nature 474: 188 – 191.)
So, what does this mean. In my opinion, the fact you invariably detect points indicates there is a particle there. The result of Lundeen et al. shows there is a wave. Therefore, I conclude there are both present, but I assure you, I am in a very tiny minority. It appears preferable to submit to mathematical mysticism.
The wave-particle dualism of QM is a reflection of the duality that permeates all mathematics. As Bourbaki noted, there is not a single section in it where it does not appear in one way or another.
Dear Ian Miller,
You wrote: "In my opinion, the fact you invariably detect points indicates there is a particle there. The result of Lundeen et al. shows there is a wave. Therefore, I conclude there are both present, but I assure you, I am in a very tiny minority. It appears preferable to submit to mathematical mysticism."
I completely agree with you.
But don't think that you belong to such a tiny minority. This simply is common sense, just like we treat water as a fluid without inner structure at our macroscopic level while knowing perfectly well and being quite comfortable knowing that at the submicroscopic level, it is quantized and made of separate water molecules.
Any rational person can relate to this.
The problem in the community is that irrational people are more vocal and are closed to any reconsideration of their warped certainties.
There is no need either to submit to any of their mathematical mysticism.
If interested, quite rational explanations in full conformity with electromagnetism are around:
Ref: Michaud, A. (2020) Electromagnetism according to Maxwell's Initial Interpretation. Journal of Modern Physics, 11, 16-80. https://doi.org/10.4236/jmp.2020.111003.
https://www.scirp.org/pdf/jmp_2020010915471797.pdf
Best Regards, André
Ian Miller
I agree about the physics and about the minority issue.
The mechanism of how the photon and wave in an aether works, see the video which is the implementation of several experiments and a computer toy simulation the models several experiments that reject wave only models of light.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OMAjKk6k6-k&t=26s
https://www.researchgate.net/project/STOE-photon-diffraction-and-interference?_sg=Tkkhhi96ERIKld1dmNJPUr9yuDzkoNJKMpU9sbX02RFzbiLT4lv1wqKmNLyvtYruHzAY0T7hc_wrN9ME2SIMRfkq1D_gWGs7aVsL
Dear Seyedeh
Photoelectric effect is better explained by the wave model, since particles moving towards a surface are not likely to cause anther particle to move away from that surface. Instead, photoelectric effect can be regarded as a process in opposite direction to blackbody radiation.
Compton effect can be a first step, like photoelectric effect when an electron escapes.
When the electrons is captured by another atom the process goes in opposite direction.
Regards ________ John-Erik
Dear Soudip Sinha Roy thanks for sharing your thought. I do have some problem with Scopus, because I don't have .org Email. Is it possible to submit as a independent researcher?
All: There is NO "wave-particle” situation -- there are NO classical waves and NO particles in Nature, NOR any "mixture" thereof. The "wave-particle" duality is observer-dependent, not a "fact" of Nature. Only quantum waves exist in Nature as it can be measured (Wirklichkeit).
If an observer makes a measurement, is the result a fact? Also, nobody has ever measured a quantal matter wave, but merely the effects of it. I know of one weak measurement of a phase change from a passing photon which I suppose is at odds with the previous sentence, but generally you measure points, which are particle-like. You have to use words to explain hyour interpretation of the measurement, and particle seems to me to be fair enough to describe something that is detected as an extremely small volume that conveys momentum and energy when it strikes something.
Funny that some one would doubt classical waves and particles. If anything one would doubt quantum waves and particles, as having little resemblence to the classical counterparts, by the uncertainty principle. Either perfect wave, but no position, or perfect position, but totally undefined momentum. Of course you can doubt a wave and a particle at the same time, either classically or in the quantum.
Just because you don't know exactly where or how fast a particle will be does not mean there is no particle. Nature cares not for your concern on this.
All: Consider an interference pattern under very-low-power, so that there is only one photon at a time in the interferometer. Then, observe what happens -- see the experiment at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GzbKb59my3U
BTW, this is known in top US and UK universities since the 1950's (postwar). To doubt this is to be illogical. There is NO "wave-particle” situation. Only quantum waves exist. Classical physics does not apply, there is no particle -- only localized vibrations... of quantum waves. Do a search.
All: Bohm predicted exactly what would happen in the 2-slit interferometer based on the existence of a wave and a particle. The predicted sequence of one photon at a time was observed by Kocsis, S. and 6 others. 2011. Observing the Average Trajectories of Single Photons in a Two-Slit Interferometer Science 332: 1170 – 1173. Accordingly, this would seem to show the 2-slit interferometer, one photon at a time, SUPPORTS the argument that there is a wave and a particle, does it not? A prediction based on a concept that is observationally verified cannot be taken as evidence that the concept is wrong
Physicists should believe only in what they have experienced in the laboratory, not what they think they have experienced. So they should say “I have observed a signal”, not “I have observed a particle.” Certainly, use a theory that uses mathematical concepts such as waves, particles, and so on, if it helps predict those signals. But don’t be so foolish as to believe those concepts have anything more than mathematical value. Most replies to this question have implicitly assumed a realist position regarding waves and particles. This discussion requires the observer concept from the very start.
Of course, the sophisticated philosopher will point out that physicists make implicit assumptions about what they have observed. Certainly. Science is an art form that requires the practitioner to know how far to go and when to stop in their beliefs. I suggest proper science does not assume there are absolutes. Scientific truth values are contextual on empirical protocols. I look forward to objections from realists.
Technically, what is actually observed is usually some deflection on a voltmeter (i.e. something that detects a change of electric potential). To wander around quoting a sheet of such numbers is not usually very enlightening, and it is usual to interpret what you see using words. Then words may not be completely satisfactory, but we have to do something.
All: Given that one can only observe finite rationals (i.e., finite integers), one should use the appropriate algebra, which is described by Galois fields. Then, there is actually no "probability" but certainty. Describing that certainty may use a probabilistic model, but that is not what the thing is.
Thanks to Ed Gerck , Dr Ghanshyam , Ian Miller , George Jaroszkiewicz and all for answers.
What is particle?
The smallest, the complete, organized unit of universe is hydrogen atom. Anything that is not atom is considered particle.
Definition of particle is: Particles are carrying mass with no characteristic behavior.
Definition of wave is: Wave is a duality system that is carrying massless, volume-less, shadow-less information.
Thus The wave-particle duality is not correct
. https://www.academia.edu/38373675/Creation_of_a_Quantum_Mechanic_Universe_and_its_Rotation.doc
" Given that one can only observe finite rationals " observation has a time character. Restriction of observation content to integers is not enough.
Dear Javad Fardaei
Yes, the wave-particle paradox was caused by an illusion, namely the illusion of an effect in the transverse arm in MMX. This was given a cover up by introducing dilation of time.
Regards __________ John-Erik
Time preserves the probabilistic character of observations, regardless of rational or irrational observation results. An absolute accurate or certain meaningful observation does not exist.
All: There is nothing probabilistic about an encrypted text using Galois fields. The decryption is a certain, unique text, not a probabilistic range.
We can only measure finite integers, and their ratio as a finite rational; so-called real numbers are used for their nice field properties, but they are not actually real — the reality that we can see and measure is limited to finite rationals, which can be mapped to integers -- the quantum found by Max Planck.
Leon Brillouin, ca. 1956, also concluded that the infinitely small does not exist. We confirmed the prevalence of Galois fields over so-called real numbers. This opens up to work on new results including software, the scalability of quantum computing, and the unification of general relativity with quantum mechanics.
A quantum microobject is neither a particle nor a wave. Wave-particle dualism is a fiction.
A quantum micro-object can be described as a particle or as a wave or as something else in between. But it is unknown how close to real properties and how complete the description is. However, this is only less pessimistic as Vadim Varlamov's replay, which is also true.
The things we observe are neither Waves nor Particle Duality, instead, they are wavefunctions - which are representations of the forces and symmetries we observing gravitation GL(3,1), Electro-Weak SU(2)=U(1) x SU(2), Strong SU (3) - and act as operators on a Hilbert Space because they interact with each other. Electron, Double Split and Screen are part of the same wavefunction, which you can't separate, because there are non-vanishing interferences.
Exactly how can you observe a mathematical representation as opposed to use a mathematical representation to describe what we observe?
Physics is using mathematical representation to describe what we observe and if the theory is right, the mathematical representation is reproducing what we observe up to isomorphism of the groups that describe the forces we observe.
Lets face it, QM is very abstract and hard.
[x, p(x)] =i hbar
tells you you cannot have x and a p(x)sharply definied at the same time. (As you could in a Classical trajectory)
However because images are useful, you keep on using Classical concepts like particle and wave.
There is nothing wrong with this, just that Quantum wave or particle have to be understood differently.
We only observe wavefunctions indirectly through particle distributions., and forces practically disappear in the quantum.
You are left with equations looking like
dx/dt = (1/i hbar) [x, H]
or with p(x) in place of x.
(All in operator language)
We do not observe mathematical points. The classical picture of point particles is useful under the right conditions, but it is only a good approximation. Everything we observe is extended in space and time. The pictures wave and particle are like projects from a point in 3D space in different 2D subspaces.
Things that are extended in space and time are functions / operators on Space-Time f(x, t) which are elements in a algebra of functions and operators that represent the forces / symmetries we observe.
Classical physics does not imply particle are points, because they clearly are not. It merely states you can treat them in many ways as if they are points if their size is irrelevant, or you don't know it. The same goes for QM, and wave-particle duality does not depend on the particle being a point. You get a diffraction in the 2-slit experiment from C60 molecules. We know their size and shape, and they are most certainly not weird distributions over space, and indeed you can get a bottle of them, if you have enough money/patience. We call an individual one in transit a particle, and not implying it is a point, but it is certainly a constrained volume with defined dimensions whenever they are measured. If you argue a crystal of them only has those dimensions who you measure them, you are resorting to extreme mysticism. Similarly, you cannot get a gram of a mathematical construct. But they still give a diffraction pattern in the 2 slit experiment. That is why I think there is a wave as well as a particle.
We know that a transition in an atomic shell from one excited state to another creates a single photon. With the Schrödinger equation or the Dirac equation we think to have a good understanding of the detailed structure of the atomic or even the molecular shell. But what about the detailed structure in time and space of the state transition and of the resulting photon.
We only know that the length of the photon in transition direction reflects the duration of the transition. We also know that the energy and the angular momentum of the photon corresponds to the state change. But we do not know the lateral structure of photons. Do all photons of a specific transition have the same spatial structure or does the structure depend on the emission direction in respect to the orientation of the asymmetric atomic/molecular shell? We not even know if a fixed angle of emission in respect to an atomic or molecular axes exists.
The unknown spatial structure of photons leads to further questions. Do photons alter their shape during their travel through the vacuum? Mathematically we consider photons to be plane waves with zero vacuum dispersion. But we do not have any idea what happens to photons in lateral direction. Are they spreading? We know that photons are subject of gravitation and that every photon is accompanied by an according travelling gravitational field. The travelling gravitational field also can be assembled by according plane waves. And again, we do not have any idea of the lateral behaviour.
The final question is: Do photons in combination with their accompanying gravitational field slowly lose energy on their way through the universe.
There was on paper recently, and unfortunately I can't remember exactly where, in which a quantum transition between stationary states was interrupted en route and sent back. In principle, some answers to Wolfgang's questions might lie there. Sorry I am not more helpful with a reference.
There is a good article "Observing The Universe Really Does Change The Outcome, And This Experiment Shows How" ( https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2020/05/26/observing-the-universe-really-does-change-the-outcome-and-this-experiment-shows-how/#272888d167af) with a links to the relevant journal articles.
The annoying thing anout the experiments in Klaus' link is that there are more than one interpretations that explain what we see, but they all have, deep down somewhere, a dead rat that has to be swallowed. Of course enthusiasts that know, but do not understand, will claim that is not so.
Ian, we have to face the fact, that observing something means interacting with it and therefore changing it. There is no way out of it and quantum field theory and general relativity are describing it. Even two photons attract each other through their gravitation.
Klaus, I am far from convinced we understand gravity, and I am not sure we can extrapolate. I rather suspect that if we could detect the interaction between two atoms we would be surprised, and I doubt it would be possible between two photons. If gravity is mediated at c as required by GR, the effect of one could never catch the other, assuming there was such an effect.
Ian, even only with SR (E=mc2) and Newton's gravity, we have to conclude that photons will attract each other.
Klaus, With Newton's gravity, yes, if you accept instantaneous action at a distance. Also, if one photon is exactly in front of the second, or almost and far enough in front, it can attract the second, but for all other situations, if the action is limited to transmission at c, and the second can never send a signal unless you accept signals faster than c so how?
Signals faster than "c" are due to a weakness of Newton's concepts of space and time, which have been corrected by Einstein's SR and GR, which have been tested by experiments and observations on a very huge range scales in space, time and energy. That's the best we know today, but it is incomplete because it does not fit well together with the quantum field theory of the Standard Model.
I would like to comment few more things to this question,
If one photons to the double slit they show interference pattern as obvious but in same case if we send electrons to suspect the dual nature one may argue to that they are showing interfernce pattern because some of the electrons collide and scatters, to answer such questions, what physicists do is pass single electron through double slit.
In this case, two possibilities arises:
If light source is present at two slits for detecting electrons when electrons reach the slit, this light sources acts like a on-off indicator type thing. In this situation electrons will pass through any one of the slit and interference pattern is not observed.
But, in other possibility when two light source were not present, i.e no observation of electron is done, the interference pattern is observed somehow on the screen. This describes the dual nature of electrons, but this is way more weird than our understanding too.
The answer to the question of why, when the electron comes out of a slit and is observed it does not give a diffraction pattern, is simple if you accept there is a wave governed by the de Broglie wave equation and a particle. When the photon hits the particle and you get a scintillation, you have also changed the momentum of the particle. At that point, the old wave is destroyed and a new one created because you changed the momentum, and hence the wavelength, and the new one has not gone through the slits, so there cannot be a diffraction.
Actually, it should not matter what happens to the old wave because only the current one can affect the particle. Different waves do not affect it, as shown by the pattern being unaffected by the particle intensity (other than the speed of getting a pattern). Of course, if you do not actually accept there is a wave, the explanation presumably gets somewhat more convoluted and/or mystical.
Entire space is filled with a universal medium that is made of quanta of matter. Universal medium creates photons from free quanta of matter and sustains them in stable states. Photons (corpuscles of radiation - light) are the most basic 3D matter-particles. Each photon has a disc-shaped 3D matter-core that spins about one of its diameters at spin speed (frequency) proportional to its 3D matter-content and moves at the highest possible linear speed with respect to surrounding universal medium. Movements of 3D matter-cores of photons are initiated and sustained by moving structural distortions in universal medium. These moving structural distortions in universal medium have many similarities with electromagnetic waves, in each plane. Structural distortions in universal medium surrounding 3D matter-cores of photons provide their wave-natures and their 3D matter-cores provide their particle-nature. All superior objects are made of photons. Hence, wave-particle duality of constituent photons (up to a certain extent) are carried over to smaller bodies.
Nainan
A number in a Galois field (see previous posts here) can have any, fixed precision one desires! It does not have to be 0, 1, or even 8.
It can be as high as desired, or seems possible naively. We are talking about Z/Zp. It can be 2, or 27, or 271, ore 2718, or 27182, or 2718281828459045235360287.
And one will calculate using the ONLY four operations of arithmetic (+-x ÷), they can be performed EXACTLY and are CLOSED in Z/Zp. We don't need the reals anymore, with numbers that cannot be even counted (the irrationals). And they are MUCH, MUCH faster (check with the x of two primes, like 13 and 47, in Reals and in Galois fields).
And then one will do derivatives (two - and one ÷ operation) and anti-derivatives (used for integrals) as arithmetic, like one's own computer does. And, the calculations are MUCH faster! One will be happy -- infinitesimals or continuity did NOT even come up! The computer can do algebra too.
And one now can go further, and faster. One realizes that physics, engineering, CS, and other sciences are not based on error, uncertainty, noise... but certainty. One no longer accept the Heisenberg principle... THE QUANTUM COMPUTER IS BORN TODAY! FIAT!
I ran a C++ program (code below) that compared the default multiplication method with multiplication as extended addition, obtaining an improvement of about 3,000%. According to [1], it should be even faster with Galois fields.
double timei, timed;
clock_t START;
int x;
double y;
const double M = 10000000;
int k = 0;
START=clock();
while(k
George makes some good points here. I've recently encountered comments similar to his "sophisticated philosopher" in regards to our implicit assumptions we make when interpreting data. But to my knowledge, science is the only human endeavor that actively strives to identify and eliminate those biases. This is a particularly relevant point today, when the concept of scientific objectivity has recently come under attack by vocal but influential activists.
Ed
You dont make to much sense,, you cannot always find an integral or anti derivative of any arbitrary function. Exactly what do you propose the computer to do in that case?? Algebraically or numerically??
@ Ian Miller
Space is an imaginary container of infinite expanse, envisaged by rational beings whenever they think of real entities. Space becomes real only when it is filled entirely by a real medium, made of matter.
Nainan
Nainan Varghese Are you now saying that fields, such as an electric or magnetic fields that have specific values at any point in space are imaginary?
@ Ian Miller
No Sir. Magnetic, electric and nuclear fields are structurally distorted regions in universal medium, which is real and is made of quanta of matter. Fields are classified according to nature of distortions, which are indicated by imaginary 'lines of force'. Linear lines of force indicate magnetic fields, circular lines of force indicate electric field and radial lines of force indicate nuclear field.
Nainan
If there is a universal media filled with quanta of matter, then there should be a very large cosmological constant, and there isn't.
@ Ian Miller
It is the space that is filled with universal medium. Universal medium is a combination of structures by quanta of matter, separately in all possible planes.
Energy is an undefined functional entity that may be used as a cause of action, where no logical cause is obvious. Cosmological constant that indicates ‘energy density of space’, or ‘vacuum energy’ is an unnecessary and redundant functional entity.
Okay, This bothered me enormously (and still does), I had to think about this. Interesting concept. Traditional views see fields as entities in an of themselves, Nainans concept, as I understand it, is that the universe is filled with an invisible ether, which we can not see as a cosmological constant because, well, it is invisible., that is, beyond our ability to perceive or measure. We do see however, where it is not. Where it is not is created by energy, which we can measure.
it seems, if I understand this, like a sand mold, the mould is composed of the ether, it is not visible by definition. if it is filled with a visible substance, in this case, that which is not ether, we can see that which is not ether, because ether is displaced by energy which we can see, and so, we see in the invisible sand mold a ball if we filled that space with the visible {energy} to form a ball in it, a ball is the space in the sand mold where the ether was displaced by energy, the mold itself is ether, so we can not see the sand mold surrounding the ball, we can see the ball inside which is not_ether. so, where the space is created by energy and so there we see the form of the energy, which we can measure and perceive, where it has created a space in the sand mold and exists within that sand mold.
Why is the ether needed, I suppose it The ether mold presents a counterforce to contain the energy, which is configured by the relative distributions of the energy itself as it opposes the counterforce of the invisible_ether and so the energy is seen as having form and function with nothing around it.
Then again maybe both are needed and neither can exist without the other. Each being the conjugate of the other, something we see all through creation of course. So I suppose it does fit.
To expand on this hypothetical illustration, maybe:
Suppose the sand mold is made of monotonic invisible either. we fill it with a visible material that expands into a ball shape, pushing against the either and therefore contained by the ether. So we see a ball floating in mid air.
So
visible material or energy is something we can perceive.
invisible material or energy (also referred to as ether) is something we can not see or perceive
Visible material or energy is able to see or perceive invisible energy or material through a force we can not see or easily measure, such as perhaps one of the forces such as gravity or something as yet unknown (because perhaps we can not see it directly) , which, therefore, may or may not be visible to us, but must be visible to that which is ether and to that which we perceive as energy or matter (maybe I should just call this, our own selves, since this is where we exist and by which we exist). then again, maybe I misapprehended all of this.
So what do you do with this, other than saying.... interesting concept.
I suppose that if the ether is a counter force containing the energy (?), we ask...., we already know how to manipulate and view energy , is there a way to manipulate the counterforce that holds the energy, even though we can not see it, we can see the effect on the energy shape and format. The hard part is separating these two stimulus and measurement responses in an experiment since they are intimately coupled to each other, one visible and one not.
Well, that is certainly counter-intuitive and interesting, of course, the universe is a very strange place. So amazing to read about such new concepts like this, very enjoyable. Thank you both. I can meditate on this when I am idle.
Dennis P. Allen Jr.
@Nainan Varghese
@Laird Snowden, Dennis P. Allen Jr.,
Energy is an undefined functional entity. It is no form, structure or constituents. Although this imaginary entity has no objective reality, it is believed to act like a physical entity. It can transform, transfer, change states of matter-bodies and cause other physical actions. In short, even without physical existence, energy can perform any action that the observer wishes. It is very convenient to have such an entity, so that we can assign illogical or apparent phenomena to it with impunity.
My concept relies solely on real entities with objective reality and positive existence in space. Hence, it is in no way founded on energy or related phenomena. Universal medium is structured by quanta of matter. ‘Structural distortions’ in universal medium is work. Stress, formed in universal medium due to work, is energy. Energy has neither independent existence nor ability to act. It appears wherever and whenever work is done in universal medium. Energy has no specific measurement scale, it is quantified in terms of work related to different phenomena. In contemporary physics, energy has usurped rightful place of work in all theories.
In this concept, matter is the sole entity that exists. Matter provides substance to all real entities, which is required for their objective reality and positive existence in space. Matter, in its lower spatial status, forms universal medium that fills entire. Universal medium, in turn, creates, sustains, develops and destroys all 3D matter-particles and superior bodies.
Nainan
Does not matter what you call it, ether or vacuum. It is something that light beams move through at the speed of light. This speed does not depend on the speed of the source, its just intrinsic to the medium.
You could not have sound waves, because of hardly any matter there, but no bother for electromagnetic or gravity waves. Neutrinos are hardly stopped either.
People catch up to basics, matter is made out of atoms (about 110 different ones) or slightly larger molecules.
An atom in turn has protons, neutrons and electrons.
Protons and neutrons at the nucleous.
Atoms are nicely listed in a periodic table of elements.
hahahahahah, sure, and the question I asked in 6th grade is:
What is a Proton made of ?
What is a Neutron Made of ?
What is an electron made of ?
When Sister told me she would explain what the Universe was made of at the start of 6th grade, the time came and I got the 10 minute explaination you just gave. at the end of this simplistic explanation, she asked if there were any questions, I raised my hand and asked, "What is the universe made of"? She picked up an eraser to throw at me and responded "Were you not paying attention? I just told you"
All the little heads in class were now swiveling between myself and her in anticipation of a huge cloud of chalk dust appearing around my head"
Risking annihilation by chalk dust, I said, "no, you did not, you did not explain what neutrons are made of, you did not explain what electrons are made of, you did not explain what protons are made of."
She paused, put the eraser down and said, "well if you ever figure that out, you will be the most famous person in the world."
Sorry folks I am still not hearing the answer, not even close.
Of course the subject is wave/particle duality, true, that does not need to answer the basic questions, but at some level, it does need to tie into realistic concept of the Universe and Creation, mans primitive observations such as the periodic table, neutrons, protons and electrons aside... but at some point all this should touch on reality, maybe that is just a quaint notion I still hold onto. Its my curiosity you see.
But I suppose we all have different acceptance levels of depth and perception for explanations to such questions, as I learned in 6th grade.
Sorry if I duplicate someone's comment. IMHO, today the concept of WPD is very much of a historical interest. It is limited to matter-wave diffraction phenomena observed under macroscopic conditions. WPD does not explain anything in quantum-statitical phenomena. Its dominance in interpretation of QM was firstly shaken by Hanbury Brown and Twiss. Glauber and Bell put it out of service. It remains "correct" within its area of applicability, and useless without.
Correction: WPD does not clarify anything in quantum-statitical phenomena.
L. I. Plimak
SRT is completely erroneous since it is based on the wrong kind of transformations: they have lost the scale factor characterizing the Doppler effect. First, Lorentz considered a more general form of transformations (with a scale factor), but then he, and also Poincare and Einstein equated it 1 without proper grounds. Their form was artificially narrowed, the formulas became incorrect. This led to a logical contradiction of the theory, to unsolvable paradoxes. Accordingly, GRT is also incorrect. For more details, see my brochure "Memoir on the Theory of Relativity and Unified Field Theory" (2000): http://vixra.org/abs/1802.0136 I believe that divergences in QED are connected with this. My simple new interpretation of QM: https://vixra.org/abs/1801.0379
@Laird Snowden,
In the material world, existence of matter is nearest to absolute truth. All real entities, including us, are made of matter. In any system, it is impossible for the creation to know its creator. Hence, we do not know what matter is and it is not relevant. However, due to our rationality and intelligence, we may infer certain phenomena about the matter by observing our neighborhood.
Does the particle-wave duality represent two ways of observing particle behavior?
The answer to this question Is (in my opinion) No! because reality is one.
I think that the problem needs an understanding of what is the motion itself?
I propose that the motion is discontinuous, it is a sequence of appearances and disappearances events, then the continuous trajectory of the particle cannot exist!
We usually deal with the motion like it was related only with the particle itself, but based on this idea, this is not true, so we have two players in the motion:
1- The particle itself
2- The space-time itself
At each time, space itself allows the particle to appear in some multiple positions with certain preferences, so the wave is the action of space-time, and the particle (behavior) is the appearance event of the particle after it did its quantum jump.
For more information please see this paper:
Preprint The Theory of Universal Quantum Jump (revised version)
With best regards.
I do not believe in a continuous space. But if space is discrete how do you define a velocity?
Frank Close wrote in his book "The Void" on page 136 "...in the absence of the Higgs field particles could never be stationary but would all travel at the speed of light." Perhaps, Heisenberg's principle of uncertainty can't be fooled because there is nothing to fool. Matter is either resting as a particle or moving as a wave with the velocity of light. Velocity is not the rate of change of position, but the probability to travel with lightspeed (v=p*c). Somewhere in the definitions of physics must be a fundamental flaw; otherwise the great theories of quantum mechanics and relativity would have been unified a long time ago.
My proposal is that the definition of velocity is perhaps this flaw so many people are looking for so long. I wrote a paper on this gedankenexperiment including calculations I did in this strange new world with some interesting results. I can explain the summation of velocities and virtual increase of moving mass with similar results than special relativity but completely different formulas.
The paper is online available at
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/342329413
Surely velocity is the rate of change of position because we observe different velocities so defined. Defining v = p.c is not dimensionally correct.
Most of the mass of protons and neutrons comes from glouns and momentum, but not from the quarks.
In the standard model, yes, although the standard model does not really predict mass accurately.
The Standard Model is the best picture we have up until now. In regard to the double split experiment, it is worth to look at Bohm's interpretation (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_Broglie%E2%80%93Bohm_theory) explanation and lookup "Making nonlocal reality compatible with relativity" Article Making nonlocal reality compatible with relativity
Dear Ian Miller, in special relativity it is commonplace to use the abbreviation /beta=v/c; could you please elaborate why it is dimensional incorrect to interpret /beta as a probability?
Dear Klaus Loehnert, assuming a particel is either resting or moving with lightspeed, the total energy becomes E=1/2*p*m*v^2+(1-p)*m*c^2. Using this formula to calculate a virtual mass the results are astonishing close to the results provided by relativity.
Ian Miller
Light is a photon which excites waves in an ether (spacetime, plenum, etc.). The waves reflect off surfaces which then direct the particles direction. That is, like you, light is both.
Understanding interference experiments is important because it indicates the very foundations of the small (quantum) world.
Klaus Pourvoyeur In my comment on dimensional correctness, I took p as its usual meaning as momentum. If you mean p is probabality, a number, then yes v/c is a number.
Based on the space-time mapping structure, I reinterpreted the problem of wave-particle duality.I consider this to be the central, fundamental and most important problem of the whole of physics.
For a long time, the Copenhagen probabilistic interpretation has dominated quantum mechanics.They claim to have explained the problem, which in my view is only half solved.Because probability is only related to magnitude, but the importance of phase is not reflected.
The importance of phase, however, is extremely critical in particle physics
I just want to point out that frequency plays a fundamental role in Planck's basic formula.When I finally realized, after years of thinking about it, that frequency is related to time, all the doubts that had perplexed me for years were dissolved.
A key step in Einstein's formulation of the theory of special relativity was his recognition that speed is related to time.
Again, history repeats itself, that frequency is related to time, which is both obvious and deeply hidden.
Quantum physics is non-local (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_nonlocality) and must to be non local because the uncertainty principle (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncertainty_principle) tells us that we can only observe stuff that is extended in time and space. "Particals" are non-local exitations of quntum fields.
"Quantum nonlocality has been experimentally verified under different physical assumptions.[1][2][3][4][5] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_nonlocality)".
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Physical Sciences
- Electromagnetics
- Electromagnetic Fields