Particle duality? Etc.

[jajrussel]

I was thinking about something I read about massive dark matter causing light to bend/gravitational lensing.

How do we know that the wave effect is absolutely related to the particle? As in not related to space itself? Say, interacting with a particle? A space that can bend/be effected by mass etc.

Appearances can be deceiving?

How does light flow backwards? Apparently another trendy unbelievable scientific Discovery, but then I remembered something I read or heard about the expanding universe where with a little imagination maybe you don't actually have to create the situation then have some writer declare it a scientific Discovery? Hmm?

Like the universe headed one way while a photon is headed the opposite way through a dense medium, if you can imagine a universe moving faster than light? I guess you could (still) say that nothing moves faster than light in a vacuum, assuming that space is nothing, and if I understand that what they mean by an expanding universe?

If they actually mean space itself, which I believe they do because they usually emphasize the term space, and spacial expansion with hand gestures, so we know that Keppler didn't actually mean that objects at the edge weren't/aren't actually exceeding the speed limit because it is space itself that is expanding,so the speed limit isn't actually getting broken?

Anyway, what did they do that determines absolutely particle duality? Or is it that we simply see two things and assume a relationship of particle duality?

 

Edited April 5, 2019 by jajrussel
Rhetorical rendering :)

[swansont]

3 hours ago, jajrussel said:

I was thinking about something I read about massive dark matter causing light to bend/gravitational lensing.

How do we know that the wave effect is absolutely related to the particle? As in not related to space itself? Say, interacting with a particle? A space that can bend/be effected by mass etc.

We notice light bending near mass, but not bending elsewhere.

3 hours ago, jajrussel said:

 How does light flow backwards? Apparently another trendy unbelievable scientific Discovery, but then I remembered something I read or heard about the expanding universe where with a little imagination maybe you don't actually have to create the situation then have some writer declare it a scientific Discovery? Hmm?

Reference? It's hard to amplify or clarify details when they aren't given.

3 hours ago, jajrussel said:

Like the universe headed one way while a photon is headed the opposite way through a dense medium, if you can imagine a universe moving faster than light? I guess you could (still) say that nothing moves faster than light in a vacuum, assuming that space is nothing, and if I understand that what they mean by an expanding universe?

Speeds don't add linearly. The photons will all move at c relative to the observer.

3 hours ago, jajrussel said:

 Anyway, what did they do that determines absolutely particle duality? Or is it that we simply see two things and assume a relationship of particle duality?

Experiments where it has been shown that particles will exhibit wave characteristics, such as diffraction and interference, that are inconsistent with classical particle behavior.

[jajrussel]

2 hours ago, swansont said:

We notice light bending near mass, but not bending elsewhere

 as in the shape of space changes and the photon follows the path change. Actually I prefer to think that gravity is a force acting between two objects rather than the curved space thing, but my understanding is that the shape of space is changed. Actually I can't seem to understand why space has to curve when two interacting forces seemed to work fine. Wasn't there some problem with Mercuries orbit that I can't remember?

2 hours ago, swansont said:

Speeds don't add linearly. The photons will all move at c relative to the observer

Yes, but they always have the outer edge of the universe expanding away from the observer faster than than light so effectively you can not measure the speed of light from that distant object. My understanding is that the particle itself pretty much has to hit the sensor? Which is why even with the best of sensors we can only observe but so far? What between 13.8 an 14 Billion Light Year"s

 

2 hours ago, swansont said:

Reference? It's hard to amplify or clarify details when they aren't given.

https://phys.org/news/2019-04-researchers-develop-way-to-control.html

It could be that I have overexaggerated what it seems to say, but initially all I read was the one liner introduction.

2 hours ago, swansont said:

Experiments where it has been shown that particles will exhibit wave characteristics, such as diffraction and interference, that are inconsistent with classical particle behavior.

Generally the screen itself acts as a sensor. We see lines and spaces, lines and spaces. The lines usually represent reflected light? Possibly, emitted like on the observer side of a TV screen, or a prism? But there is absolutely no way overlapping waves can peak, then reflect, refract, or be absorbed then cause a photon emission that can be observed?

Note the rather long last sentence is actually a question... And I followed the link to make sure it went to the article... it did, but I had a difficult time getting back to SFN. It kept trying to reload the article page.

Edited April 5, 2019 by jajrussel

[Strange]

51 minutes ago, jajrussel said:

Actually I prefer to think that gravity is a force acting between two objects rather than the curved space thing, but my understanding is that the shape of space is changed. Actually I can't seem to understand why space has to curve when two interacting forces seemed to work fine. Wasn't there some problem with Mercuries orbit that I can't remember?

As both of these are just mathematical models, and the "fore" (Newtonian) model is probably good enough for anything you will ever need, there is no problem with you deciding to think of gravity as a force.

But there are a few cases where that model gives inaccurate results: calculating the precession of Mercury is one, the amount that light is deflected by gravity is another.

53 minutes ago, jajrussel said:

Yes, but they always have the outer edge of the universe expanding away from the observer faster than than light so effectively you can not measure the speed of light from that distant object.

There is no "outer edge". But as the (apparent) speed of separation is proportional to distance, there will always be points that are far enough apart that they are moving apart at more than the speed of light.

[swansont]

1 hour ago, jajrussel said:

 as in the shape of space changes and the photon follows the path change. Actually I prefer to think that gravity is a force acting between two objects rather than the curved space thing, but my understanding is that the shape of space is changed. Actually I can't seem to understand why space has to curve when two interacting forces seemed to work fine. Wasn't there some problem with Mercuries orbit that I can't remember?

The Newtonian calculation doesn't quite give the right answer for the advance of the precession. It's a small effect; the two models agree when gravity is weak (on the scale of gravitational interactions). So conceptually, there's not an issue if you think of it as a force. As long as you don't worry why photons are feeling the force.

1 hour ago, jajrussel said:

Yes, but they always have the outer edge of the universe expanding away from the observer faster than than light so effectively you can not measure the speed of light from that distant object. My understanding is that the particle itself pretty much has to hit the sensor? Which is why even with the best of sensors we can only observe but so far? What between 13.8 an 14 Billion Light Year"s

We can detect to something like 45 billion LY because of this, but those objects are less than 13.8 billion years old.

Superluminal expansion is because space is expanding. Space isn't an object that is limited by c. If you add space between to objects, it looks like they are moving apart, but that motion is not what we normally think of as motion.

 

1 hour ago, jajrussel said:

 

https://phys.org/news/2019-04-researchers-develop-way-to-control.html

It could be that I have overexaggerated what it seems to say, but initially all I read was the one liner introduction.

I was reading this earlier, trying to figure out how they had exaggerated in the press release.

If other experiments are a guide, they are playing fast and loose with their definitions, and this is due to pulse reshaping. If that's it, then they measured the center of the pulse in one instance, and the front of the pulse in the other, so even though no photon exceeded c, the pulse velocity looks like it has. But I haven't confirmed that's what is happening here.

 

 

[jajrussel]

4 minutes ago, Strange said:

As both of these are just mathematical models, and the "fore" (Newtonian) model is probably good enough for anything you will ever need, there is no problem with you deciding to think of gravity as a force.

 Thanks, but now what about all the things I seem to be able to invision/imagine with space being pliable and subject to density due to intense gravity?

Here I was trying to devise a way to divide space/nothing into really tiny energy packets that are the result of accumulative overlapping energy field peaks which acts as virtual particles, well maybe not so much space/nothing as much as space/field energy that presents as a wave, that can peak through interaction forming a virtual particle that so long as it exist can act like a particle. Hmm, the wind kind of got taken out of that sail.      Maybe.... Maybe not...

Now I'm wondering how heat energy is transfered across space from one object to effect another object? Does the heat transfer rely entirely on the particle? I guess I'll need to read up.... on how it works. For some reason I keep thinking that there should be some kind of grey area around the particle That interacts before the particle. Kind of like an imagined force field that interacts with other grey areas that would behave more fluid like than the particle is allow to behave. Unless of course many grey areas overlap and enough energy peaks to present as a virtual particle.

I see that Swansant has posted. I would like to read it before I post this, but the last time I tried that everything disappeared, surely I could go see his post then decide to edit on the fly, but no. It feels like I've been typing forever. Id rather post it even if it is nonsense, then change my tune later if it needs a changing... thank you...

[Strange]

48 minutes ago, jajrussel said:

Here I was trying to devise a way to divide space/nothing into really tiny energy packets that are the result of accumulative overlapping energy field peaks which acts as virtual particles, well maybe not so much space/nothing as much as space/field energy that presents as a wave, that can peak through interaction forming a virtual particle that so long as it exist can act like a particle. Hmm, the wind kind of got taken out of that sail.

I think that visualisations like that are really only useful when based on an underlying "realistic" (ie. tested) model. And even then they can be of limited use: many people jump to erroneous conclusions because they rely on the "rubber sheet" analogy, rather than the underlying model.

 

[swansont]

3 hours ago, jajrussel said:

 Now I'm wondering how heat energy is transfered across space from one object to effect another object?  

Electromagnetic radiation. Photons.

[jajrussel]

1 minute ago, swansont said:

Electromagnetic radiation. Photons.

Which if I remember correctly Einstein described as steam of particles... And I cannot remember the rest of the statement, something about the color? Hmm? I'll have to look it up. Does the heat come from just particle interaction? Which in atmosphere might not sound so strange to me because there are a lot of particles to interact with but in space would sound strange to me because if particles alone act as carrier the space in between should be cold so I would expect if there is duality the wave would in part carry some of the energy, which might make for a more even distribution, or which might be a completely erroneous thought on my part, because maybe I am completely wrong in my understanding of particle, wave duality. But I'm not really sure either way, unless someone who does know tells me where my thinking is wrong or at least points me in the right direction.

It is embarrassing, but usually it would never occur to me that my understanding is completely wrong, maybe partially, but not completely, unless someone tells me the whole of how I'm wrong. Embarrassing it might be, but I then gain a chance to not to continue to be wrong by looking at what I thought from a more correct perspective. Then? Who knows? I'll still might question, but maybe they'll be better questions, or I'll realize I'm so wrong that I'll go research, which actually acts as a break from thinking for me. Actually I usually go research regardless then if I'm just having trouble explaining the thought I can try using a found reference for example, provided I find what I'm looking for. Then sometimes I just realize it is time to stop, "sometimes".