Wave particle duality

[AbstractDreamer]

 

Because that is the way the theory is constructed. Do you have an alternative theory? No.

 

There is the Bohm Pilot Wave interpretation which, as far as I understand it (which isn't much), attempts to treat the wave and the particle separately. But this is just an interpretation, not a different theory.

 

Do I need to have an alternate theory before I start trying to formulate a theory, or before i start asking questions about the current theory? That would make it paradoxically impossible for the first theory to have been formulated.

 

Im not even sure what the current interpretations are or what my interpretation is, only that i keep reading the wave-like property belongs to the particle, and that there is some duality of behaviour that is logicially not obvious and requires maybe a waveform collapse or other interpretation.

 

 

 

 

That is exactly what it is. As is the particle.

 

 

The particle is a consequence of quantising the field. So how can you have a particle not mediated by the field?

 

 

It seems too vague and unscientific to be refuted. What testable (i.e. quantified, precise, mathematical) predictions does your idea make that would allow it to be falsified?

 

I have a heavy, small, circular, yellow, wooden table. Its duality in weight, size, shape, colour and material is undeniable. Yet each of these "behaviours" is just how the object is manifested under varying criteria. When weighed, its behaviour is heavy. When shaped, its behaviour is circular. There may be an infinite number of measuring criteria, and therefore an equal number of properties. When materialised its behaviour is wooden. When metallised it exhibits no behaviour as it is not metallic. Its also not blue, not square, not fish-like.

 

So, for a given EM radiation, when quantised (as you put it), its behaviour for motion is particle-like. If you have the EM field present, without any form of radiation within the field, can you observe a particle through quantisation? If not, can you then say the particle is a property of the radiation, and not the field.

 

Is there a particle that is immune from the effects the electromagnetic field for its motion? Such as a particle belonging to another field? A graviton?

 

Or can you negate or manipulate the EM field for a time period smaller than it would take for a radiation to traverse the affected volume/distance (or affect a distance larger than radiation could traverse, within the time taken for an observation to be made)? If so, the radiation might then be observed whilst its mediating field is manipulated, and observations made.

If the wave-like behaviour alters with the manipulation of the field, without quantisation of the radiation in to a particle, how can you then attribute the wave-like behaviour to the particle, and could then the wave-like behaviour only be a property of the field?

 

If you can differentiate between the radiation and the field, then why cant you differentiate between the particle and the wave?

 

What other properties are observable from EM radiation/field other than the behaviour of its motion?

 

What version of interpretation best describes my perspective, other than simply confused and unscholarly?

[Strange]

Do I need to have an alternate theory before I start trying to formulate a theory, or before i start asking questions about the current theory?

 

 

I would say you need to have a very good understanding of the current theory before attempting to come up with a modified or new theory.

 

Maybe you are just asking why current theory is they way it is. If so, that is mainly because it describes what we observe.

 

 

 

Im not even sure what the current interpretations are or what my interpretation is, only that i keep reading the wave-like property belongs to the particle, and that there is some duality of behaviour that is logicially not obvious and requires maybe a waveform collapse or other interpretation.

 

There is not really a duality - that is often presented as a paradox or as the photon switching between being a particle and a wave, which is not the case.

 

The waveform that collapses (in the Copenhagen interpretation) is not the same thing as the electromagnetic waveform of light.

 

 

 

So, for a given EM radiation, when quantised (as you put it), its behaviour for motion is particle-like. If you have the EM field present, without any form of radiation within the field, can you observe a particle through quantisation? If not, can you then say the particle is a property of the radiation, and not the field.

 

I don't really understand the question. We observe quantised ("particle-like") behaviours when there is electromagnetic radiation present. With no radiation there is no change in the field and therefore no particle (apart from the virtual particles crated by the Heisenberg uncertainty principle and the resulting non-zero energy of the field).

 

 

Is there a particle that is immune from the effects the electromagnetic field for its motion? Such as a particle belonging to another field? A graviton?

 

Neutrinos, for example, do not interact with the electromagnetic field to any significant extent.

 

 

 

Or can you negate or manipulate the EM field for a time period smaller than it would take for a radiation to traverse the affected volume/distance (or affect a distance larger than radiation could traverse, within the time taken for an observation to be made)? If so, the radiation might then be observed whilst its mediating field is manipulated, and observations made.

 

I'm not sure what you are asking. The Heisenberg uncertainty principle relates the time and energy, if that is what you are thinking of.

 

 

 

If the wave-like behaviour alters with the manipulation of the field, without quantisation of the radiation in to a particle, how can you then attribute the wave-like behaviour to the particle, and could then the wave-like behaviour only be a property of the field?

 

Electromagnetic radiation is always quantised.

 

 

What other properties are observable from EM radiation/field other than the behaviour of its motion?

 

Energy, momentum, wavelength (which are all inter-related) and spin ... maybe others I can't think of right now.

[studiot]

 

Is there a particle that is immune from the effects the electromagnetic field for its motion? Such as a particle belonging to another field? A graviton?

 

Do you have any idea of the difference between an electric field, a magnetic field and an electromagnetic field?

 

Do you have any idea how a neutron would interact with any of these fields, if at all?

[AbstractDreamer]

 

Do you have any idea of the difference between an electric field, a magnetic field and an electromagnetic field?

 

Do you have any idea how a neutron would interact with any of these fields, if at all?

 

I can picture 1 apple + 1 apple = i got 2 apples

Everything at the atomic level or smaller is simply modelling through interpretation of observations.

 

Atoms can have a net electric charge, and the range of its affect is an electric field. What gives electrons and protons charge? I dont know other than quark stuff.

Magnetic matter can affect stuff, and its range is a magnetic field. What causes magnetism? electrons have a magnetic field and something to do with alignment of "spinning" electrons. Though i recall that "spin" is not an accurate description.

Electric and magnetic fields interact, effect and are affected by each other but produce different forces. But the fact they can both be unified means they are one and the same thing at a deeper level.

 

A neutron has no charge but is made up of the same stuff that makes protons. So i guess it could be magnetic but not electric.

 

As far as equations go ,whilst they can be followed and used in the perfect mathematical work of theory and modelling, I cannot visualise interactions like i can when i have 1 apple and what i need to get 2 apples.

 

A footballer does not need to understand anything about physics to have a great idea of how to kick and pass a ball.

A goalkeeper does not need to know how to score goals to win a game.

 

Likewise, I dont need to understand something more than someone else, before I can help that someone else who understands more than i do understand more than he/she did before.

[Strange]

Atoms can have a net electric charge, and the range of its affect is an electric field.

 

 

No they can't. If they have a net charge they are ions and, under normal circumstances, unstable.

 

 

A footballer does not need to understand anything about physics to have a great idea of how to kick and pass a ball.

A goalkeeper does not need to know how to score goals to win a game.

Likewise, I dont need to understand something more than someone else, before I can help that someone else who understands more than i do understand more than he/she did before.

 

So you think you could help a professional football player improve his game even if you know nothing at all about the rules of the game, the strategy and tactics used and how the team plays together? Shouting "just kick the ball" at him is not going to help.

 

Similarly, you are not going to contribute anything to physics until you learn a lot more than you appear to know at the moment.

[swansont]

 

Why must the wave like nature of particles belong to the particle.

 

 

It doesn't. You are approaching this with a flawed assumption.

 

As I said before, it is the phenomenon of light (for example) that has a wave-particle duality (as described in introductory QM, at least). You can describe it as a wave, or as a particle, as circumstances dictate.

[adwtokoroa]

In some articles on Quantum Theory regarding the Double Slit experiment, I have seen statements to the effect that "diffraction is observed even when only one photon is used". So how is the diffraction pattern observed if each part of it must consist of fractions of the one photon? Also, how does one ensure that only a single photon is launched toward the double slit?

[swansont]

In some articles on Quantum Theory regarding the Double Slit experiment, I have seen statements to the effect that "diffraction is observed even when only one photon is used". So how is the diffraction pattern observed if each part of it must consist of fractions of the one photon? Also, how does one ensure that only a single photon is launched toward the double slit?

 

 

 

The pattern is observed when you have detected many photons, one at a time. No fractions of a photon.

 

You attenuate the light by a lot, so that the flux is consistent with much less than one photon existing in the path in the time it takes to get from source to detector. e.g. if the detector is ~1/3 of a meter away, that takes about a nanosecond. So the light is attenuated such that the emitted flux is significantly less than 10^9/second in that direction.

[Strange]

The pattern is observed when you have detected many photons, one at a time. No fractions of a photon.

 

 

So the thing that makes this interesting (from a classical point of view) is that it is the probability of an individual photon being detected at each position that is affected by the slits.

[AbstractDreamer]

 

 

No they can't. If they have a net charge they are ions and, under normal circumstances, unstable.

 

If you're just going to be pedantic and argue over semantics, that game is easy to play.

You're wrong. Atoms DO have a net charge. Their net charge is ZERO.

 

 

So you think you could help a professional football player improve his game even if you know nothing at all about the rules of the game, the strategy and tactics used and how the team plays together? Shouting "just kick the ball" at him is not going to help.

 

Wrong again. Football is a lot more than just the players. It consists of physios, scouts, coaches, sponsors, lawyers, groundsmen, fans. Shouting "just kick the ball", perhaps would only make a player laugh. But 60,000 people shouting might inspire him. Certainly 60,000 fans paying his wages might motivate him.

 

So just because you have undoubted knowledge in one field, doesn't mean you can carry that confidence into areas you clearly do not understand.

 

Moreover, be mindful not to let your confidence in your superior knowledge blind you and lock you into a local maxima in the solution landscape, or to allow your confidence to overspill into complacency and arrogance, because that is easy for others to notice and is not becoming.

 

 

Similarly, you are not going to contribute anything to physics until you learn a lot more than you appear to know at the moment.

Again you seem convinced that it is impossible to apply cognitive processes learnt from different fields of study and be able to contribute to another field of study (physics).

I can only guess at why you are taking such an exclusionist stance.

 

I have made a sincere attempt to improve my understanding of something which i know is out of my depth.

Yet i feel most of the responses are overly keen on simply pointing out where I am wrong, and probing my knowledge until i make a mistake and then pointing it out.

If putting me off is your intention its working.

Edited November 15, 2016 by AbstractDreamer

[Strange]

I have made a sincere attempt to improve my understanding of something which i know is out of my depth.

 

 

I would have more sympathy if you were asking questions and attempting to learn, rather than making up your own, baseless "theories".

[imatfaal]

If you're just going to be pedantic and argue over semantics, that game is easy to play.

You're wrong. Atoms DO have a net charge. Their net charge is ZERO.

Who is being pedantic? Strange made a perfectly valid physics point - atoms have no net charge; your point would stand only if the assertion was that atoms do not have a defined charge.

 

Moreover, be mindful not to let your confidence in your superior knowledge blind you and lock you into a local maxima in the solution landscape, or to allow your confidence to overspill into complacency and arrogance, because that is easy for others to notice and is not becoming.

This is fairly unseemly and insulting

I have made a sincere attempt to improve my understanding of something which i know is out of my depth.

Yet i feel most of the responses are overly keen on simply pointing out where I am wrong, and probing my knowledge until i make a mistake and then pointing it out.

 

 

If putting me off is your intention its working.

It is the insistence that a sincere attempt has been made, that hard work has been put in, or that an assertion is the endpoint of many hours of thinking and thus it should be taken with all due seriousness which tends to aggravate an already bad situation. Quantum mechanics is normally a grad-school level course - ie the preparatory work is a physics degree. Much can be gained without that level of study and dedication - but if one has knowledge of only pop-science then to presume to teach those who have done the hard hours of study is hubris.

[AbstractDreamer]

 

 

I would have more sympathy if you were asking questions and attempting to learn, rather than making up your own, baseless "theories".

Wow so you admit you have already made a judgement on me whereby you feel less willing to be helpful.

This is getting bad. I never wanted an argument.

You have managed to demonise me.

Apologies for being a demon. I guess physics is not for me.

[swansont]

 

I guess physics is not for me.

 

Physics, like many endeavors, is not something where you can jump in at an advanced level and expect things to be fine.

[Mordred]

Even with years of study, one still makes mistakes. Which is something I discovered reviewing the Higgs field last night. Still kicking myself on that lol.

 

Strange earlier posted one of the better sites to understand wave particle duality. However it takes reading each individual article on that site. As he has taken key lessons and seperated them.

 

This particular page included.

 

https://profmattstrassler.com/articles-and-posts/particle-physics-basics/fields-and-their-particles-with-math/7-particles-are-quanta/

 

Read the entire site but this article is of particular importance.

Edited November 15, 2016 by Mordred

[Klaynos]

 

 

Physics, like many endeavors, is not something where you can jump in at an advanced level and expect things to be fine.

I've been studying physics fulltime for more than 12 years. The list of things I don't understand is much much longer than the things I do. Even in the field I now work I have a spreadsheet of research projects we need to do to answer various questions.... It only ever gets longer not shorter.

[Strange]

Wow so you admit you have already made a judgement on me whereby you feel less willing to be helpful.

 

 

I am only responding to the posts you have made here. I have made no judgment about you. If you ask questions, I will attempt to answer them to the best of my (limited) ability. And I will probably learn something from the answers made by those more expert than me.

 

If you make claims that are contradicted by current science, I will point that out.

 

Sorry if my attempt to be helpful (to you and other readers) upsets you.

This particular page included.

 

https://profmattstrassler.com/articles-and-posts/particle-physics-basics/fields-and-their-particles-with-math/7-particles-are-quanta/

 

Read the entire site but this article is of particular importance.

 

 

Yes, I had forgotten what a good summary that is. I think one can get something from it, even without working through all the previous steps.

[AbstractDreamer]

 

Who is being pedantic? Strange made a perfectly valid physics point - atoms have no net charge; your point would stand only if the assertion was that atoms do not have a defined charge.

 

 

You cant question me on my apparent hypocrisy in being pedantic, when i had already pre-stated that game is easy to play.

Strange's point might be perfectly valid, but does that mean its OK to be pedantic when pointing out a mistake to a newbie (me), but its not OK for a newbie to be pedantic when trying to defend his position?

Yet you have stated his point is perfectly valid, and admitted my point is only conditionally valid, when really both points are equally conditionally valid depending on your perspective; only you have chosen only one perspective. Its not obvious why your judgement is so complete and so biased, though it does put to question your ability to think objectively as an individual and actually have your own beliefs instead of just siding with the safest bet. You strike me as a person who would sacrifice truth for comfort, sacrifice principle for acceptance. Not what i would expect from a physicist.

This is fairly unseemly and insulting

 

 

It's only insulting if you have an ego to protect, or in this case trying to protect someone else's ego. In hindsight, it has condescending tones, and I would take this statement back.

 

but if one has knowledge of only pop-science then to presume to teach those who have done the hard hours of study is hubris.

 

 

I made no such presumption. To presume that someone with knowledge of "only" pop-science cannot help those who have done the hard hours study. THAT is hubris.

Following the questions from Studiot #28, I made a series of statements #29 exposing my lack of knowledge of physics for which i am not ashamed. Someone had asked me questions and i had answered as truthfully as i could and as accurately as could remember.

Sorry if my attempt to be helpful (to you and other readers) upsets you.

To me, if there was a genuine desire from the responses to be helpful, i would expect not only that mistakes be pointed out, but also to tell me when I'm correct ( or at least along the right lines).

I have often been accused of setting my expectations too high. And I'm becoming increasingly aware I'm guilty of that again now.

 

Edited November 15, 2016 by AbstractDreamer

[MigL]

Originally there were two competing models for light. By models I mean mathematical descriptions of reality. One described light as a classical particle, while the other model described light as a classical wave. Both models worked, i.e. they made testable predictions and described reality, but only in specific circumstances; and sometimes the areas of applicability of the models even overlapped. But neither model was applicable 100% of the time ( circumstances ).

 

In the first half of the last century, QM introduced the concept of the quantum particle. Neither a classical particle or a wave. But a model of reality which has both a wave nature and a particle nature, and even describes quantum effects ( like the double slit ), but not to everyone's satisfaction as it involves a paradigm shift in the way we view reality ( probabilistic not deterministic ).

And although this is different than the wave particle duality you wish to discuss, the Pilot Wave hypothesis was first introduced by L. DeBroglie ( that was my recollection Strange, not D Bohm ) as a way to reconcile QM's wave particle duality. You'll have to look it up for specifics, but it created more problems that it solved and was ultimately abandoned.

 

So to recap, we make models which attempt to model reality. They will always be a model, and NOT the actual , real thing. As such they can never be 100% descriptive, but have certain areas of applicability. A good physicist is aware of those boundaries, and stays within those areas, otherwise his predictions are non-sensical.

 

Incidentally, we are all here to learn, even those with PhDs at the leading edge of their field. We can do that best by asking questions and carefully considering answers we are given. If someone asks you a question they are trying to understand your idea, not ridiculing it.

I'm sure we can all agree that squabbling doesn't lend itself to learning and understanding.

[Strange]

And although this is different than the wave particle duality you wish to discuss, the Pilot Wave hypothesis was first introduced by L. DeBroglie ( that was my recollection Strange, not D Bohm ) as a way to reconcile QM's wave particle duality.

 

 

You are right. Although Bohm's name is more commonly associated with it, it is an older idea. I will try to remember that!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stigler%27s_law_of_eponymy

[studiot]

 

abstract dreamer post#43

Following the questions from Studiot #28, I made a series of statements #29 exposing my lack of knowledge of physics for which i am not ashamed. Someone had asked me questions and i had answered as truthfully as i could and as accurately as could remember.

 

I'm glad my short post#28 gave you pause for thought.

Unfortunately your response was so disappointing I didn't feel like continuing the conversation.

 

Having reviewed the thread I do ,however, feel that you are right in saying that no satisfactory answer to your original question has been provided so perhaps I will try once more.

 

I asked if you knew the difference between electric and magnetic (and EM) fields and it is clear you do not so here is an answer to that.

 

Electric fields (ie the field lines) start and terminate on electric charges or extend out to infinity.

They never form loops.

 

Magnetic fields always form loops, they have no beginning or end.

The field lines always pass from one pole to the other outside the magnet and return through the body of the magnet to form the complete loop

 

All material magnets have two poles.

If you divide a magnet you get two magnets, each with two poles.

 

Material charges have one polarity.

They charges are indivisible.

 

I will not mention EM fields yet because we need to introduce another notion for this.

It is this notion that pertains to your original question.

 

Do you wish to continue?

[AbstractDreamer]

 

I'm glad my short post#28 gave you pause for thought.

 

I could have googled all the answers and pasted them in. That doesn't mean i understand, or can visualise, or "feel" any of it.

 

Unfortunately your response was so disappointing I didn't feel like continuing the conversation.

 

I could have also pointed out that your question was as poorly phrased to me as my answer was disappointing for you, but i was happy to stumble along.

I'm not really sure why you think my answer based on real things is so disappointing. In my innocence, I tried to describe what i knew (of why the fields were different) from a pragmatic, and realistic perspective. I would like to be corrected on anything i have said that is incorrect (other than calling an ion an atom)?

 

 

Electric fields (ie the field lines) start and terminate on electric charges or extend out to infinity.

They never form loops.

 

Magnetic fields always form loops, they have no beginning or end.

The field lines always pass from one pole to the other outside the magnet and return through the body of the magnet to form the complete loop

 

On the other hand, your answer uses fictitious concepts in an unrealistic static environment, without any reference to their imaginary nature. The field lines that you refer to, do they really exist in reality or even in mathematics? If not, then to use something that doesn't exist to describe a difference between two things is non-sequitur. How does something that does not actually exist have a start and termination, and be extendable, and/or loop? To convince me your wonderful tale is better than mine is bold to say the least. Is there anything you have said about these fields that can be measured or observed, and undisputedly considered as existing?

 

I will not mention EM fields yet because we need to introduce another notion for this.

It is this notion that pertains to your original question.

 

So you would fill my head with imaginary descriptions and fictitious models, before giving me a glimpse into some secret truth that would be made so much more difficult to understand after such abusive priming?

As i understand, as long as time exists (and continues to "move"), you cannot have the presence of one field without the other. If both fields are in perpetual interaction, then any attempt to describe one as different from the other is only a difference in how you choose to imagine it is modelled, rather than any description of observability or measureability. So arguing about whose imagination is correct is futile. What matters is the mathematics. Mathematically, in a dynamic environment, there is only a single EM field.

So whilst it is clear I do not know what I'm talking about, at the very least I'm not delusional, and more importantly i do not impose a false belief on others.

 

Do you wish to continue?

 

I am now classically groomed, for my virgin exposure to the quantum reality.

 

Edited November 16, 2016 by AbstractDreamer

[studiot]

 

 

I could have googled all the answers and pasted them in. That doesn't mean i understand, or can visualise, or "feel" any of it.

 

I could have also pointed out that your question was as poorly phrased to me as my answer was disappointing for you, but i was happy to stumble along.

I'm not really sure why you think my answer based on real things is so disappointing. In my innocence, I tried to describe what i knew (of why the fields were different) from a pragmatic, and realistic perspective. I would like to be corrected on anything i have said that is incorrect (other than calling an ion an atom)?

 

On the other hand, your answer uses fictitious concepts in an unrealistic static environment, without any reference to their imaginary nature. The field lines that you refer to, do they really exist in reality or even in mathematics? If not, then to use something that doesn't exist to describe a difference between two things is non-sequitur. How does something that does not actually exist have a start and termination, and be extendable, and/or loop? To convince me your wonderful tale is better than mine is bold to say the least. Is there anything you have said about these fields that can be measured or observed, and undisputedly considered as existing?

 

So you would fill my head with imaginary descriptions and fictitious models, before giving me a glimpse into some secret truth that would be made so much more difficult to understand after such abusive priming?

As i understand, as long as time exists (and continues to "move"), you cannot have the presence of one field without the other. If both fields are in perpetual interaction, then any attempt to describe one as different from the other is only a difference in how you choose to imagine it is modelled, rather than any description of observability or measureability. So arguing about whose imagination is correct is futile. What matters is the mathematics. Mathematically, in a dynamic environment, there is only a single EM field.

So whilst it is clear I do not know what I'm talking about, at the very least I'm not delusional, and more importantly i do not impose a false belief on others.

 

I am now classically groomed, for my virgin exposure to the quantum reality.

 

 

 

Well thank you for all that.

 

It makes it absolutely clear that not only do you you actually know more than you let on, you are misusing that knowledge for reasons of your own.

 

Knowing this enables me to waste no more of my time on your machinations.

 

Don't feed the trolls.

[swansont]

 

On the other hand, your answer uses fictitious concepts in an unrealistic static environment, without any reference to their imaginary nature. The field lines that you refer to, do they really exist in reality or even in mathematics? If not, then to use something that doesn't exist to describe a difference between two things is non-sequitur. How does something that does not actually exist have a start and termination, and be extendable, and/or loop? To convince me your wonderful tale is better than mine is bold to say the least. Is there anything you have said about these fields that can be measured or observed, and undisputedly considered as existing?

 

 

Most concepts in physics would fall under the umbrella of "fictitious" as you've used the term here. They are calculational conveniences. Physics describes how things behave, not what they are. It's not a search for reality.

 

Field lines are described by maths, which means that the "exists in mathematics" box can be checked; there's no legitimate objection to that. The termination and looping behavior (or prohibitions on them) are described by that mathematics. These equations have been successfully describing electromagnetic phenomena for more than a century; they've been used to make and improve motors and generators, power transmission lines, coils for stereo speakers and for noise reduction in signal lines, and many, many other things. It is a "wonderful tale" but in an historical rather than fairyland sense. To have insinuated the latter just shows a profound ignorance of the science. You do not appear to be in a position to assert that you have a better tale to tell, given that you don't seem to know much about the physics tale.

[Strange]

Is there anything you have said about these fields that can be measured or observed, and undisputedly considered as existing?

 

 

Of course they can be measured and observed. Do you really think that people made them up for no reason at all?

 

You may have heard of a guy called Faraday? And there are all sort of simple experiments you can do yourself. Go and buy a cheap compass or a magnet and some iron filings. And a battery and some wire. Or ...