Particle motion ?'s

[jajrussel]

If a particle presents as both a particle and a wave. Doesn't this mean that as a particle it has to be under constant acceleration?

Would an expanding universe have anything to do with it?

Note- I am not thinking that I am suddenly going to puff up like a balloon, but I am thinking that if the universe is expanding then I and everything in it must be constantly accelerating. Just wondering if the thought is correct?

I also am seem to be thinking that acceleration generally presents as a curve thus a wave? The greater the curve the more gravity displayed, more interaction. Essentially, slowing down. Until there is equilibrium, no more exchange.

The smaller the curve essentially, speeding up. Less interaction. Equilibrium percents as an increase in velocity. The attempt at equilibrium is made but is never achieved thus faster and faster, until what?

The thought I am thinking seems to require both, or there is no wave?

I know weird thoughts... This probably belongs in speculations. So if a moderator would kindly move it for me so I won't be forced to figure out how to get it their I would be thankful...

The first paragraph did include a question though. The rest are thoughts I had that I pretty much question the sense of, and am hoping that someone will tell me why they are nonsense.

[koti]

 

Quote

Note- I am not thinking that I am suddenly going to puff up like a balloon, but I am thinking that if the universe is expanding then I and everything in it must be constantly accelerating. Just wondering if the thought is correct?

The distances between matter increase in our expanding/accelerating universe but it's space, the volume itself which expands. When you look at Earth relative to say the Andromeda galaxy, they both experience an increase in distance...because there is more and more space between Earth and Andromeda.

[jajrussel]

2 hours ago, koti said:

 

The distances between matter increase in our expanding/accelerating universe but it's space, the volume itself which expands. When you look at Earth relative to say the Andromeda galaxy, they both experience an increase in distance...because there is more and more space between Earth and Andromeda.

If we use a relative point of view wouldn't the distance remain unaffected with an increase of spacial volume?

[koti]

17 minutes ago, jajrussel said:

If we use a relative point of view wouldn't the distance remain unaffected with an increase of spacial volume?

That relative point of view will also be affected, everything will be because everything is "inside" that expanding volume.
Think of the distance itself being expanded...like a ruler stretching out and increasing the distances on its scale.

I put the „inside” in quotes because when using this rhetoric it implies there is an outside. But there isn’t an outside...everything there is ( as far as we know) expands. 

Edited November 1, 2018 by koti

[Strange]

5 hours ago, jajrussel said:

If a particle presents as both a particle and a wave. Doesn't this mean that as a particle it has to be under constant acceleration?

Like anything else, a single particle can be stationary (relative to you), moving at a steady velocity or accelerating.

5 hours ago, jajrussel said:

Would an expanding universe have anything to do with it?

Locally (where "locally" can mean up the scale of galaxy clusters) there is no effect of the expanding universe, because things are held together by gravity and inter-atomic forces.

5 hours ago, jajrussel said:

Note- I am not thinking that I am suddenly going to puff up like a balloon, but I am thinking that if the universe is expanding then I and everything in it must be constantly accelerating. Just wondering if the thought is correct?

Not really.

But here is a weird thing: according to GR, acceleration and gravity are indistinguishable. That means that when you are sitting still in your chair you are, according to GR, accelerating upwards (because you feel a force pushing you into the chair). And when you are in freefall from an airplane, and your speed constantly increases, you are not accelerating (because you feel no forces on you).

[jajrussel]

3 hours ago, koti said:

That relative point of view will also be affected, everything will be because everything is "inside" that expanding volume.
Think of the distance itself being expanded...like a ruler stretching out and increasing the distances on its scale.

I put the „inside” in quotes because when using this rhetoric it implies there is an outside. But there isn’t an outside...everything there is ( as far as we know) expands. 

I was basically implying that relativity doesn't apply. Trying to put it in a way that would seem obvious.

We know that the universe is expanding, how? Is it just the blue shift, or is it because we know that the nuances of relativity are not going to effect our measure as you put it, from the inside. The universe is expanding the distance is increasing. It's not like your watching my clock run differently and me not knowing that my clock is running differently because it is my clock. For me my measure is accurate. If I determine that the universe is expanding at an exponential rate then distances increase unless there is a reason why they don't. Like say, the Andromeda Galaxy is moving toward me. Here I'm tempted to make an assumption because I really don't know the answer, I assume that the red shift means that the Andromeda Galaxy is moving toward us faster than the universe is expanding otherwise it would show a blue shift, but like I said I'm making an assumption. I'm also assuming that the Andromeda Galaxy isn't the best Galaxy to use to present an expanding universe.

I need to stop for a bit. I have forgotten my original thought. I'm afraid that if  just keep going on without looking at everything again as a whole I'll end up way off of my original thinking. There was a reason for my madness. It's just that I have forgotten what it was. 

Thank you for replying...

See I am getting my reds and blues backwards, sorry time for a nap...

Edited November 1, 2018 by jajrussel

[koti]

6 minutes ago, jajrussel said:

I was basically implying that relativity doesn't apply. Trying to put it in a way that would seem obvious.

We know that the universe is expanding, how? Is it just the blue shift, or is it because we know that the nuances of relativity are not going to effect our measure as you put it, from the inside. The universe is expanding the distance is increasing. It's not like your watching my clock run differently and me not knowing that my clock is running differently because it is my clock. For me my measure is accurate. If I determine that the universe is expanding at an exponential rate then distances increase unless there is a reason why they don't. Like say, the Andromeda Galaxy is moving toward me. Here I'm tempted to make an assumption because I really don't know the answer, I assume that the red shift means that the Andromeda Galaxy is moving toward us faster than the universe is expanding otherwise it would show a blue shift, but like I said I'm making an assumption. I'm also assuming that the Andromeda Galaxy isn't the best Galaxy to use to present an expanding universe.

I need to stop for a bit. I have forgotten my original thought. I'm afraid that if  just keep going on without looking at everything again as a whole I'll end up way off of my original thinking. There was a reason for my madness. It's just that I have forgotten what it was. 

Thank you for replying...

No worries  

The galaxies are moving away from each other not towards each other. The acceleration of the Universe was discovered in 1998 by observing two distant supernovae. Here you can read how they came up with the measurments:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accelerating_expansion_of_the_universe

[jajrussel]

2 hours ago, koti said:

No worries  

The galaxies are moving away from each other not towards each other. The acceleration of the Universe was discovered in 1998 by observing two distant supernovae. Here you can read how they came up with the measurments:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accelerating_expansion_of_the_universe

Thanks I need the distraction. Reading it now...

[pavelcherepan]

9 hours ago, jajrussel said:

If a particle presents as both a particle and a wave. Doesn't this mean that as a particle it has to be under constant acceleration?

Those are both abstractions or methods of mathematical modelling. Sometimes it's easier to have particle behave as a particle, sometimes as a wave, sometimes as an excitation of some field. What a particle is "really" is a whole different question. 

[swansont]

19 hours ago, jajrussel said:

If a particle presents as both a particle and a wave. Doesn't this mean that as a particle it has to be under constant acceleration?

No.

[Silvestru]

13 hours ago, koti said:

No worries  

The galaxies are moving away from each other not towards each other. The acceleration of the Universe was discovered in 1998 by observing two distant supernovae. Here you can read how they came up with the measurments:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accelerating_expansion_of_the_universe

There are exceptions to this I guess:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andromeda–Milky_Way_collision

[Strange]

7 minutes ago, Silvestru said:

There are exceptions to this I guess:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andromeda–Milky_Way_collision

That’s because they are in a cluster of galaxies held together by gravity. 

[koti]

23 minutes ago, Silvestru said:

There are exceptions to this I guess:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andromeda–Milky_Way_collision

This is not an exception to accelerated Universe expasion, its a different phenomena affecting matter occurring due to gravity. 

[Silvestru]

56 minutes ago, koti said:

This is not an exception to accelerated Universe expansion, its a different phenomena affecting matter occurring due to gravity. 

 

1 hour ago, Strange said:

That’s because they are in a cluster of galaxies held together by gravity. 

Yeah, my bad. I expressed myself wrong but just wanted to mention the Milkdromeda. 

Some people look forward to the Superbowl. I look forward to this.  4 billion years to go!

[quiet]

On jueves, 01 de noviembre de 2018 at 12:09 PM, jajrussel said:

If a particle presents as both a particle and a wave. Doesn't this mean that as a particle it has to be under constant acceleration?

Hi, jajrussel. First you need to understand the following. The word particle, unfortunately, has been used as an official denomination for elementary quantum entities. One is the electron. Another word would have caused less confusion. I know that there are always people willing to point out that the electron does not meet the definition of something elementary because it is composed of quarks. I do not want to participate in that criticism, because it seems sterile to me. And I do not want to denominate particle to the electron, nor to other entities of that category. That's why I want to call it elementary quantum entities.

What properties does an elementary quantum entity have? When it is in motion, it differs very little from a group of electromagnetic waves that travels within a waveguide. And when it is at rest, it differs very little from an electromagnetic standing wave set within a waveguide. When you analyze the guide you get the basic equations of special relativity and quantum theory, including Louis de Broglie's equation referring to the phase wavelength. The mathematical development of all this is simple and very didactic.

What is the electromagnetic standing wave within the guide? Is it a resting particle? No. It is stationary wave energy, which exists locally without traveling. What is a group of waves within the guide? Is it a moving particle? No. It is wave energy that travels with a speed less than C. And without being a particle, does it comply with the basic laws of special relativity and quantum theory? Yes. These laws cover much more than particles. They cover the oscillating energy. Is it a common particle, for example a grain of pollen, oscillating energy? Yes, when you analyze the grain at the elementary level. And when you introduce the artifice of defining the center of mass, to formulate the movement as if all the energy / mass were concentrated at that point, the relativistic equations appear easily but not the quantum equations, because you are not contemplating the elementary level.

---------

I hope that the above has helped to eliminate the confusion regarding the use of the word particle at the elementary level. You can always think on the group of electromagnetic waves and the standing wave within the guide.

The group does not meander when it moves. If the guide is straight, the energy / mass travels rectilinearly while the electromagnetic field oscillates and is responsible for conserving the energy of the group. Without oscillating could not keep it. Something similar happens in the mass / spring system. If you do work to move the system from its relaxed position, the oscillation of the system is responsible for conserving the energy that you have delivered to the system. The friction, the heating of the spring and other effects make the oscillation of this system progressively decrease the amplitude, which does not allow to conserve all the energy delivered. In the elementary quantum entity there is no friction, no heating, no fatigue, no other effects that reduce the proportion of energy conserved by the oscillation. That is why the energy / mass of an elementary entity is constant when the entity remains at rest with respect to the observer.

Louis de Broglie, in his doctoral thesis, indirectly proposed a model of elementary entity. In one of the first paragraphs he wrote the following.

Suppose there is a periodic phenomenon linked to each particle.

This hypothesis is the basis to mathematically analyze the movement and obtain the same equations that are obtained in the electromagnetic waveguide. The wave group in the guide and the free particle do not meander when they move. In the group of waves and in the particle, the constitutive energy [math]m \ C^2[/math] is conserved by the presence of fields that oscillate at the elementary level.

For that reason there is no acceleration when the movement is rectilinear and the velocity is constant. It would be necessary a meandering for there to be permanent acceleration. And nothing menders when a particle moves in a straight line with constant velocity.

Edited November 3, 2018 by quiet

[StringJunky]

8 minutes ago, quiet said:

Hi, jajrussel. First you need to understand the following. The word particle, unfortunately, has been used as an official denomination for elementary quantum entities. One is the electron. Another word would have caused less confusion. I know that there are always people willing to point out that the electron does not meet the definition of something elementary because it is composed of quarks. I do not want to participate in that criticism, because it seems sterile to me. And I do not want to denominate particle to the electron, nor to other entities of that category. That's why I want to call it elementary quantum entities.

What properties does an elementary quantum entity have? When it is in motion, it differs very little from a group of electromagnetic waves that travels within a waveguide. And when it is at rest, it differs very little from an electromagnetic standing wave set within a waveguide. When you analyze the guide you get the basic equations of special relativity and quantum theory, including Louis de Broglie's equation referring to the phase wavelength. The mathematical development of all this is simple and very didactic.

What is the electromagnetic standing wave within the guide? Is it a resting particle? No. It is stationary wave energy, which exists locally without traveling. What is a group of waves within the guide? Is it a moving particle? No. It is wave energy that travels with a speed less than C. And without being a particle, does it comply with the basic laws of special relativity and quantum theory? Yes. These laws cover much more than particles. They cover the oscillating energy. Is it a common particle, for example a grain of pollen, oscillating energy? Yes, when you analyze the grain at the elementary level. And when you introduce the artifice of defining the center of mass, to formulate the movement as if all the energy / mass were concentrated at that point, the relativistic equations appear easily but not the quantum equations, because you are not contemplating the elementary level.

---------

I hope that the above has helped to eliminate the confusion regarding the use of the word particle at the elementary level. You can always think on the group of electromagnetic waves and the standing wave within the guide.

The group does not meander when it moves. If the guide is straight, the energy / mass travels rectilinearly while the electromagnetic field oscillates and is responsible for conserving the energy of the group. Without oscillating could not keep it. Something similar happens in the mass / spring system. If you do work to move the system from its relaxed position, the oscillation of the system is responsible for conserving the energy that you have delivered to the system. The friction, the heating of the spring and other effects make the oscillation of this system progressively decrease the amplitude, which does not allow to conserve all the energy delivered. In the elementary quantum entity there is no friction, no heating, no fatigue, no other effects that reduce the proportion of energy conserved by the oscillation. That is why the energy / mass of an elementary entity is constant when the entity remains at rest with respect to the observer.

Louis de Broglie, in his doctoral thesis, indirectly proposed a model of elementary entity. In one of the first paragraphs he wrote the following.

Suppose there is a periodic phenomenon linked to each particle.

This hypothesis is the basis to mathematically analyze the movement and obtain the same equations that are obtained in the electromagnetic waveguide. The wave group in the guide and the free particle do not meander when they move. In the group of waves and in the particle, the constitutive energy m C ^ 2 is conserved by the presence of fields that oscillate at the elementary level.

For that reason there is no acceleration when the movement is rectilinear and the velocity is constant. It would be necessary a meandering for there to be permanent acceleration. And nothing menders when a particle moves in a straight line with constant velocity.

They are not scientists then. An electron is not composed of quarks; it is elementary.

Edited November 3, 2018 by StringJunky

[Strange]

8 hours ago, quiet said:

The word particle, unfortunately, has been used as an official denomination for elementary quantum entities.

What do you mean by “official”? There are official definitions of words like “planet” or of the second and metre. I am not aware that “particle” has any such status. Can you provide a reference?

8 hours ago, quiet said:

I know that there are always people willing to point out that the electron does not meet the definition of something elementary because it is composed of quarks.

Wrong. 

8 hours ago, quiet said:

Another word would have caused less confusion.

At the time they were called particles, they were really thought to be particles; this predates an understanding of quantum theory.

8 hours ago, quiet said:

That's why I want to call it elementary quantum entities.

The normal terminology would be "quanta". Why not use that?

 

[jajrussel]

15 hours ago, StringJunky said:

They are not scientists then. An electron is not composed of quarks; it is elementary.

My Thanks to both you and Strange. I doubt I would have ever noticed the tree for the Forest. I would like to think I would have, but I didn't.

Whenever anyone starts off by saying first you have to understand, my gaurd immediately goes up. My first thought was, okay; why would de Broglie say this and what does it have to do with what I'm reading. It's like saying I'm going to hijack your thread so cleverly that you won't even notice. 

I did discover some interesting reading about de Broglie though. So it is okay, I have slight attention disorder, but maybe I'll even try to figure out what he is talking about and why he thinks what he thinks, hoping that his misunderstanding about electrons actually is the reason for the presented very wordy forest.

[jajrussel]

On 11/1/2018 at 8:35 PM, pavelcherepan said:

Those are both abstractions or methods of mathematical modelling. Sometimes it's easier to have particle behave as a particle, sometimes as a wave, sometimes as an excitation of some field. What a particle is "really" is a whole different question. 

Thanks,

I forgot about field excitation. I also read something I didn't know, yesterday. To the effect that it was waves first then Einstein introduced the Particle idea.

But now I'm wondering why anyone would have been surprised by waves. Isn't that how air behaves? Isn't that how water behaves? Why be surprised if you point a light at a photo electric plate when things start getting knocked around? If I have a ping pong ball on a table then blow at it and it moves what moves it? The wave I created by blowing, or the molecules I set in motion by blowing? So, I seem to be wondering why Duality is needed?

[jajrussel]

Okay I watched this video

My question is how did they observe the photon? Is there any chance that the method of observation created a polarizing effect?

[swansont]

2 hours ago, jajrussel said:

Okay I watched this video

My question is how did they observe the photon? Is there any chance that the method of observation created a polarizing effect?

You can observe it with a photodiode, photomultiplier tube, or photographic film, to name 3. No polarization is inherent in these methods.

[Strange]

20 hours ago, jajrussel said:

Thanks,

I forgot about field excitation. I also read something I didn't know, yesterday. To the effect that it was waves first then Einstein introduced the Particle idea.

But now I'm wondering why anyone would have been surprised by waves. Isn't that how air behaves? Isn't that how water behaves? Why be surprised if you point a light at a photo electric plate when things start getting knocked around? If I have a ping pong ball on a table then blow at it and it moves what moves it? The wave I created by blowing, or the molecules I set in motion by blowing? So, I seem to be wondering why Duality is needed?

So, back in the day, when Newton was a young man, it was not known whether light was a wave r a particle ("corpuscular" as they called it then). There were good arguments on both sides (I'm afraid it is too long since I did History of Science to clearly remember what these were). From what I recall, Newton originally favoured the corpuscular theory. It was the observation of effects like polarisation and diffraction (eg Young's original two-slit experiment) that led to the wave model to be generally accepted.

But then a couple of things happened. Planck found that the observed "black body" spectrum could only be explained if he assumed that light came in packets with discrete energy. And then Einstein came up with an explanation for the photoelectric effect based on the idea that light consisted of indivisible packets or "quanta". (And got a Nobel Prize for his efforts.)

So now we are in the position where we know light has some characteristics of waves (wavelength, polarisation, etc) and some properties of particles (indivisibility, etc). They are, however, neither one nor the other. They are what they are.