scifimath Posted August 26, 2019 Share Posted August 26, 2019 First, are you claiming they are both at the same time or not? What started this assumption? In what world is an electron equivalent to a whole atom? So, I'll take this to mean we haven't tested two unobserved atom matter waves interacting? Oh, we have, but it does the typical thing of a fringe pattern. They don't ever bounce off each other like they were physical at the time. hmmm I'll bite, what does your electron experiment look like? Does it somehow display the electron and wave version at the same time while it propagates on its path? Why would orbitals have anything to do with what I'm asking for? I'm not interested in atoms exchanging electrons. You are assuming they are both at the same time because you are not taking observation into account. You wouldn't catch a quantum wave being a wave before it went through a detector (that it was moving towards). The particle is likely pre-set to be physical or a wave before it starts moving. This is what the experiments are showing us, no? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
studiot Posted August 26, 2019 Share Posted August 26, 2019 Quote Help me understand your POV of Duality Duality has many guises and forms over a very wide range of situations. It is instructive to study some simple types of duality to gain understanding of the phenomenon. This picture, for instance, offers a simple type of duality applicable to the property of shape. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strange Posted August 26, 2019 Share Posted August 26, 2019 25 minutes ago, scifimath said: In what world is an electron equivalent to a whole atom? No world. 25 minutes ago, scifimath said: I'll bite, what does your electron experiment look like? Who are you talking to? What experiment are you talking about? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scifimath Posted August 26, 2019 Author Share Posted August 26, 2019 Previous threads that were shut down prematurely. yes, the illustration is clever, but I don't think it applies. I'm fine with duality ..just not at the same time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strange Posted August 26, 2019 Share Posted August 26, 2019 5 minutes ago, scifimath said: I'm fine with duality ..just not at the same time. If it weren't at the same time, it wouldn't be duality. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scifimath Posted August 26, 2019 Author Share Posted August 26, 2019 then why did swansont say this Quote This makes no sense. Wave-particle duality does not say that wave and particle behavior will be observed at the same time. If you tell me it’s a matter wave, I can’t show you particle behavior. But in interference, you get the wave behavior, and later on, when you detect, you get particle behavior. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strange Posted August 26, 2019 Share Posted August 26, 2019 7 minutes ago, scifimath said: then why did swansont say this Because <sigh> as with the picture above, you can either see a candlestick OR faces, not both. Similarly, you can either measure wave-like properties or particle-like properties, not both. Maybe it's just me, but perhaps it might be a good idea to learn a little basic physics before going off and making up your own "theories". I know it is so much easier to make stuff up from a position of ignorance, because you don't have to worry about all the complicated details and the mathematics, but it is a rather futile pursuit. The only person who will be impressed by the power of your imagination is yourself. 43 minutes ago, scifimath said: Oh, we have, but it does the typical thing of a fringe pattern. They don't ever bounce off each other like they were physical at the time. Waves cause interference patterns but don't bounce off one another. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scifimath Posted August 26, 2019 Author Share Posted August 26, 2019 You aren't taking observation seriously, because if you did, you would know duality (at the same time) is nonsense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strange Posted August 26, 2019 Share Posted August 26, 2019 1 minute ago, scifimath said: You aren't taking observation seriously, because if you did, you would know duality (at the same time) is nonsense. This was all about observation: "Similarly, you can either measure wave-like properties or particle-like properties, not both." Observation is an important part of quantum theory. It is taken into account all the time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
studiot Posted August 26, 2019 Share Posted August 26, 2019 Thank you for your exceptionally rude response to a member who took your 'enquiry' at face value as genuine and offered serious discussion about your stated subject. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scifimath Posted August 26, 2019 Author Share Posted August 26, 2019 Observation gives one type of result ..a physical one. (unless you messing around with polarizers) Yes a parlor trick was going to pull me over to your side. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strange Posted August 26, 2019 Share Posted August 26, 2019 3 minutes ago, scifimath said: Observation gives one type of result ..a physical one. Observation can either show wave-like properties or particle-like properties. Both of which are physical. 4 minutes ago, scifimath said: Yes a parlor trick was going to pull me over to your side. What "parlour trick"? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scifimath Posted August 26, 2019 Author Share Posted August 26, 2019 when does observation show wave-like properties? The final screen of an experiment doesn't count as observation Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strange Posted August 26, 2019 Share Posted August 26, 2019 Just now, scifimath said: when does observation show wave-like properties? When you observe wave-like properties. Obvs. Measuring wavelength, is one obvious example. Interference is another (even though it seems to annoy you for some reason). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scifimath Posted August 26, 2019 Author Share Posted August 26, 2019 You can physically measure the wavelength of a matter wave? Interference is the final screen. Observation is only involved while the particle is in flight. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strange Posted August 26, 2019 Share Posted August 26, 2019 17 minutes ago, scifimath said: You can physically measure the wavelength of a matter wave? Yes. Obviously. 17 minutes ago, scifimath said: Observation is only involved while the particle is in flight. Obviously not as we observe where the photons/electrons/atoms etc “hit” to determine the interference pattern. So that observation happens when the particle is not in flight. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scifimath Posted August 26, 2019 Author Share Posted August 26, 2019 What instrument measures the wavelength of a matter wave? And don't say a calculator. The final screen doesn't count as observation because if it did ..the particle would not ever show fringe. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swansont Posted August 27, 2019 Share Posted August 27, 2019 37 minutes ago, scifimath said: What instrument measures the wavelength of a matter wave? And don't say a calculator. The details of an interference pattern gives you the wavelength. e.g. the separation of the fringes. We use the same/similar method with light. Quote The final screen doesn't count as observation because if it did ..the particle would not ever show fringe. Bollocks. The final screen shows the position of the particles. The interference happened at the slits. There’s no conflict. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
uncool Posted August 27, 2019 Share Posted August 27, 2019 39 minutes ago, scifimath said: The final screen doesn't count as observation because if it did ..the particle would not ever show fringe. Are you asking for POV, or dictating it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scifimath Posted August 27, 2019 Author Share Posted August 27, 2019 So I guess I found the spot you guys don't want to let go of. It most certainly is not bollocks when it comes to what is counted as observation. Observation has to let the particle to continue moving or else it's void. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swansont Posted August 27, 2019 Share Posted August 27, 2019 2 hours ago, scifimath said: In what world is an electron equivalent to a whole atom? What nonsense is it that compels you to ask? 2 hours ago, scifimath said: So, I'll take this to mean we haven't tested two unobserved atom matter waves interacting? Oh, we have, but it does the typical thing of a fringe pattern. They don't ever bounce off each other like they were physical at the time. hmmm Observed vs unobserved is a non-issue. Why do you keep bringing it up? Just now, scifimath said: So I guess I found the spot you guys don't want to let go of. It most certainly is not bollocks when it comes to what is counted as observation. Observation has to let the particle to continue moving or else it's void. You aren’t exactly in a position to say, seeing as how you clearly don’t understand the physics. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scifimath Posted August 27, 2019 Author Share Posted August 27, 2019 Someone was trying to claim the matter wave of an election should hold the results as an atom. Fringe is not evidence of physical objects interacting. knaww, I think I got you guys on this one. You are kidding yourself if you see the final screen as observation ..the particle didn't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
uncool Posted August 27, 2019 Share Posted August 27, 2019 (edited) 6 minutes ago, scifimath said: Observation has to let the particle to continue moving or else it's void. Again, are you asking for our POV or dictating? Edited August 27, 2019 by uncool Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scifimath Posted August 27, 2019 Author Share Posted August 27, 2019 well, say something Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
uncool Posted August 27, 2019 Share Posted August 27, 2019 I already have. To spell it out more clearly: You are attempting to impose an idiosyncratic definition of "observation" that does not match how it is used by physicists, and then spinning the refusal to accept your idiosyncratic definition as if it means they must be hiding something. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts