Particles / waves

[jajrussel]

Particle wave duality. I can’t remember where, book or video, probably video maybe both, but it was presented amazingly that a particle could pass through two slits at the same time. To me that would be amazing.

So, I question it.

It’s difficult for me to accept, as I understand the concept. Of course it could be my understanding.

 I read that for what seems the most part particles only exist for a short time. Also, amazingly presented as popping in and out of existence. Then there is my understanding of  Heisenberg‘s uncertainty principle. Note, I am not questioning it. I am accepting it as true to a point, and that point is that you can’t measure both at the same time. To me that seems  awkward if not amazing.

So, I question it.

Then there was the concept of ether. That was shown to be not true. I am not saying that it is, but the fact that it was shown to be not true seems amazing. No I’m not going to question it, except to ask that if the universe is full of continuous particles why was it so easily shown that the ether does not exist.

Then there is solid to somewhat solid matter. Why do I exist? No, I am not asking a  philosophical question. Why am I  cohesive? Do all particles pop in and out of existence? I am aware that it doesn’t quite happen that way though I do not exactly understand how it does happen. In a sense I’m parroting another amazing  rhetoric. I am however wondering given my somewhat limited understanding of quantum physics, if I am solid, or is anything else for that matter?

My mind can be changed, even taught, but I am not going to simply accept what seems incomprehensible. So, I think about some apparently amazing presentations and think there must be some other explanation. 

With  Heisenberg, the presentation, pick a book or video it really doesn’t matter, comes across as you can not measure both as related to an it. You can measure it’s momentum, you can measure it’s position, but when it comes down to (it) you can’t do both.

Realistically, I accept particle wave duality, but have trouble accepting that a particle can travel through two slits at the same time, but I can accept that a wave can. I also understand from different diagrams that some don’t agree as to how a wave propagates. Which can really muddy up a thought. It seems to get more difficult, at least for me to mentally picture such thing, spherically. So, I prefer the presentation where you are looking down on  presumably  a wave capable medium that upon disruption attempts to  propagate in the allowed directions. The produced wave/s go through both slits.

 I have trouble with analogies, but opposing waves can peak in various places. Like particles popping in and out of existence. The wave is an analogy of energy propagation through a/various fields of energy/energies. The medium, well for lack of a best definition, is simply vast.

Back to  Heisenberg and the inability to measure both of (it’s) momentum, or it’s position. I’m suggesting that is because it is not an it but rather two peaks created by the act of measuring. The wave peaks when it interacts with the measuring devices. In essence the wave peaks every time you take a measure. 

I don’t think the particle is amazingly going through both slits. What is seen is/are peaks of a propagating wave/s where it interacts with opposition. For a moment of time a particle is created and observed. Among other things the photon is not displaying a gravitational attraction or reaction to an intense gravitational field. The energy waves created by the distant star are going around. The observed photon does not exist until the wave/s interacts with the observer.

 I can’t think of any reason why these thoughts might be seen as an attempt to dismantle physics. To me they just seem to be a rational way for someone who is not an expert to grasp the reality of  a few things often presented as amazing, but true! 

(Among other things the photon is not displaying a gravitational attraction or reaction to an intense gravitational field). This part I am still thinking about? I have another thought that requires gravity, that possibly comes from particles that pop in and out of existence due to opposing energy fields, but that is another thought.

Edited July 25, 2020 by jajrussel

[dimreepr]

26 minutes ago, jajrussel said:

Particle wave duality.

Doesn't that answer your question?

[joigus]

When it's being a particle, it's not being a wave; when it's being a wave, it's not being a particle.

It's like a writer who plays golf. When she's playing golf, she's not writing; when she's writing, she's not playing golf.

Unlike businessmen, who can play golf and do business at the same time.

Edit: If you're puzzled by QM, you're in very good company. +1

Edited July 25, 2020 by joigus
Addition

[jajrussel]

7 minutes ago, joigus said:

When it's being a particle, it's not being a wave; when it's being a wave, it's not being a particle.

It's like a writer who plays golf. When she's playing golf, she's not writing; when she's writing, she's not playing golf.

Unlike businessmen, who can play golf and do business at the same time.

Edit: If you're puzzled by QM, you're in very good company. +1

My first serious girlfriend would on occasion point out my unintentional  tendency  toward male chauvinism. With those memories in mind I am almost afraid to 😊 in what is likely be a mixed  environment...

Oh... what the hell! 😂😂😂

[MigL]

Oh, I thought you were going to say "If you're puzzled by women, you're in good company"
( nothing better than a complicated woman )

[joigus]

Complicated women are the best.

[Markus Hanke]

16 hours ago, jajrussel said:

a particle could pass through two slits at the same time

I don’t think this is a good way to look at it at all, and it is also not what the formalism of QM actually says. If the particle did pass through both slits simultaneously (according to who’s notion of simultaneity?), then you should be able to show this by simply bringing the detection screen close enough to the slits. But no matter how close the screen is, you always get exactly one hit, never two. Crucially, you also don’t get an interference pattern from a single particle - you get a only a single hit on the screen, as one would expect. It is only when you have an ensemble of many individual hits, that you will observe them to be distributed as an interference pattern.

So the crucial aspect here is not that it goes through both slits simultaneously (a highly dubious and ill-defined concept), but that there is no information available about which slit it went through; and since the respective probability distributions are wave-like, an ensemble of many successive hits will give an interference pattern. Conversely, if you amend the setup so that it can tell you which of the slits the particle goes through (and you will find it will always go through exactly one slit, and one slit only), then the interference pattern disappears, because there is now certainty about the state of the system, and thus no longer a basis for any interference.

So the central concept here is superposition, and thus the availability of information. A superposition does not mean that somehow two states physically occur simultaneously; it’s rather more subtle than that. Even the very notion of the particle taking any trajectory at all between emitter and screen is no longer a trivial thing.

Edited July 26, 2020 by Markus Hanke

[Dord]

40 minutes ago, Markus Hanke said:

A superposition does not mean that somehow two states physically occur simultaneously

Ahh. Now I get it. Thank you +1

[jajrussel]

5 hours ago, Markus Hanke said:

I don’t think this is a good way to look at it at all, and it is also not what the formalism of QM actually says. If the particle did pass through both slits simultaneously (according to who’s notion of simultaneity?), then you should be able to show this by simply bringing the detection screen close enough to the slits. But no matter how close the screen is, you always get exactly one hit, never two. Crucially, you also don’t get an interference pattern from a single particle - you get a only a single hit on the screen, as one would expect. It is only when you have an ensemble of many individual hits, that you will observe them to be distributed as an interference pattern.

So the crucial aspect here is not that it goes through both slits simultaneously (a highly dubious and ill-defined concept), but that there is no information available about which slit it went through; and since the respective probability distributions are wave-like, an ensemble of many successive hits will give an interference pattern. Conversely, if you amend the setup so that it can tell you which of the slits the particle goes through (and you will find it will always go through exactly one slit, and one slit only), then the interference pattern disappears, because there is now certainty about the state of the system, and thus no longer a basis for any interference.

So the central concept here is superposition, and thus the availability of information. A superposition does not mean that somehow two states physically occur simultaneously; it’s rather more subtle than that. Even the very notion of the particle taking any trajectory at all between emitter and screen is no longer a trivial thing.

Okay, this makes sense. It eliminates the apparent same particle going through both slits simultaneously, and to a degree explains the reason for the magic recombination statement that I remember reading somewhere, and simultaneity isn’t necessary for a wave/s to pass through both slits since everything tends to move at odds to everything else, even if only slightly. The wave diagrams, generally provided present what is apparent simultaneity. Thank you...

Edited July 26, 2020 by jajrussel

[jajrussel]

I read things then forget most of what I read. The same goes for videos. Then occasionally, something becomes trendy so an article is written where emphasis on the amazing is placed. These amazing emphasis stressed articles and videos are created, and presented.

But in the background of what is my mind all those things I assumed forgotten start to poke and point out that I need to question, apparently everything. So, I try to make it make sense. What is amazing to me, is that some of the, said, trendy is old news. A rehash of what the thinking of the subject used to be. The things nagging started piecing things together and I had my eureka moment. Still I didn’t  trust that I had  it right and since it is not exactly a question I posted it in speculation, assuming someone will help to clarify. Again 🙏 !

Then I started the reinforcement process which for some subjects is an  immediate rapid subject cram fest. So yesterday morning I posted this  then by yesterday afternoon I found a YouTube video presented by Arvin Ash that basically said to me;  “Alright Joseph, once again you are a day late and a dollar short.”

I apparently have read about this in the past. Upon putting the pieces together, I still managed to get some of it wrong, but there is this, pre-surgery I would have been annoyed by the trendy rehash of old views, but would have been clueless as to why.

 😊

[nec209]

On 7/26/2020 at 8:26 AM, jajrussel said:

Okay, this makes sense. It eliminates the apparent same particle going through both slits simultaneously, and to a degree explains the reason for the magic recombination statement that I remember reading somewhere, and simultaneity isn’t necessary for a wave/s to pass through both slits since everything tends to move at odds to everything else, even if only slightly. The wave diagrams, generally provided present what is apparent simultaneity. Thank you...

Have a look at the experiments carried out when particles are fired at a card with 2 slits , even when just 1 particle is fired at a time you STILL build up an interference pattern on the other side and  this can ONLY happen when 1 particle interferes with another!!

BUT you only fired 1 particle at the card - so where did the other particle come from?

Problem is- when you try to see what happened you do NOT get the interference pattern😲

 

 

 

[martillo]

jajrussel:

For me the "wave-particle duality" concept is just the top of the iceberg of the not well solved things in Physics. Something only an schizophrenic "out of the box" one could solve. I think I'm the one. I think I did it. But with the forum's rules to not post links to personal pages and to not promote any book or something like that impossible to show you my approach. Just to have an idea about, a structure must be given to the elementary particles and that is only the beginning... Impossible to explain just posting. 🤷‍♂️ 

Some day my manuscript will fall in the right hands, someday...

Edited August 17, 2020 by martillo
comment

[joigus]

28 minutes ago, martillo said:

jajrussel:

For me the "wave-particle duality" concept is just the top of the iceberg of the not well solved things in Physics. Something only an schizophrenic "out of the box" one could solve. I think I'm the one. I think I did it. But with the forum's rules to not post links to personal pages and to not promote any book or something like that impossible to show you my approach. Just to have an idea about, a structure must be given to the elementary particles and that is only the beginning... Impossible to explain just posting. 🤷‍♂️ 

Some day my manuscript will fall in the right hands, someday...

It doesn't have to "fall" in any hands. It could be sent to the right hands tomorrow. Several publications allow you to register as an author for free. They've got templates in LaTeX with their format on them. Write an abstract as brief and clear as possible, presenting your results and conclusions, as well as your references. Go through the peer-reviewing process and you may get lucky, who knows.

Maybe you are "the one".

PD.: Try to avoid presenting yourself as an "schizophrenic out of the box".

[martillo]

8 minutes ago, joigus said:

It doesn't have to "fall" in any hands. It could be sent to the right hands tomorrow. Several publications allow you to register as an author for free. They've got templates in LaTeX with their format on them. Write an abstract as brief and clear as possible, presenting your results and conclusions, as well as your references. Go through the peer-reviewing process and you may get lucky, who knows.

Maybe you are "the one".

PD.: Try to avoid presenting yourself as an "schizophrenic out of the box".

Thanks for the comment but that way will not work. You know, to solve the things you must question everything. I mean question "Quantum Physics" Theory, Relativity Theory, the "Standard Model" of elementary particles, the "electromagnetic waves" existence, the classical definition of the Electric and Magnetic Fields and even new interpretations must be given in the results of well known experiments. Where do you think I could present something like that? 

[swansont]

53 minutes ago, martillo said:

jajrussel:

For me the "wave-particle duality" concept is just the top of the iceberg of the not well solved things in Physics.  

What needs to be "solved"?

[joigus]

1 minute ago, martillo said:

Thanks for the comment but that way will not work. You know, to solve the things you must question everything. I mean question "Quantum Physics" Theory, Relativity Theory, the "Standard Model" of elementary particles, the "electromagnetic waves" existence, the classical definition of the Electric and Magnetic Fields and even new interpretations must be given in the results of well known experiments. Where do you think I could present something like that? 

Maybe even question your own assumptions, or would that just be too much questioning?

[martillo]

21 minutes ago, swansont said:

What needs to be "solved"?

The "wave-particle duality" concept for instance. The topic of this thread.

Making an analogy that concept is like to say in Biology that a being was found that sometimes behaves like a fly, sometimes like a whale, and to stay with that concept without asking anything else...

 

21 minutes ago, joigus said:

Maybe even question your own assumptions, or would that just be too much questioning?

I do that everyday...

Edited August 17, 2020 by martillo

[joigus]

3 minutes ago, martillo said:

I do that everyday...

And what conclusion do you draw from your perennial questioning?

[martillo]

4 minutes ago, joigus said:

And what conclusion do you draw from your perennial questioning?

That I'm an schizophrenic (true by the way) "out of the box" one which has found some amazing truths...

Edited August 17, 2020 by martillo

[Strange]

3 hours ago, martillo said:

But with the forum's rules to not post links to personal pages and to not promote any book or something like that impossible to show you my approach.

!

Moderator Note

You are free to provide your "explanation" on the forum. You can even link to resources to support what you say. What you cannot do is just say "go and read this book/website".

However, there is nothing that needs to be "solved". Just because you don't understand it, doesn't mean it isn't understood.

 

[martillo]

2 hours ago, Strange said:

!

Moderator Note

You are free to provide your "explanation" on the forum. You can even link to resources to support what you say. What you cannot do is just say "go and read this book/website".

However, there is nothing that needs to be "solved". Just because you don't understand it, doesn't mean it isn't understood.

 

I will think in a way to show my approach…  May be I could upload some things as attached pdfs… Give me some time...

By the way let me say I disagree with your comment "However, there is nothing that needs to be "solved". ".

One thing to be solved is the subject of this thread, the "wave-particle duality" concept. As I said in a previous post you might have not read: "Making an analogy that concept is like to say in Biology that a being was found that sometimes behaves like a fly, sometimes like a whale, and to stay with that concept without asking anything else... ". Sorry but I cannot just stay with that concept in mind and I think many others also won't.

Other thing would be "dark matter". Something necessary to match General Relativity Theory with the dynamics of galaxies as observed in the telescopes but something that hasn't been experimentally detected anyway. Same thing happening with the "virtual particles" transmitting forces in Quantum Physics…

I mean, Physics is not a "closed case"...

 

[Strange]

18 minutes ago, martillo said:

I will think in a way to show my approach…  May be I could upload some things as attached pdfs… Give me some time...

!

Moderator Note

Start a new thread in Speculations if you want to present your ideas

 

19 minutes ago, martillo said:

One thing to be solved is the subject of this thread, the "wave-particle duality" concept.

!

Moderator Note

There is nothing there that needs to be "solved"

 

20 minutes ago, martillo said:

As I said in a previous post you might have not read: "Making an analogy that concept is like to say in Biology that a being was found that sometimes behaves like a fly, sometimes like a whale, and to stay with that concept without asking anything else... ".

!

Moderator Note

If you don't understand things, it might be better not to post nonsensical comments like this. Why not ask for people to explain things to you instead.

 

21 minutes ago, martillo said:

Other thing would be "dark matter". Something necessary to match General Relativity Theory with the dynamics of galaxies as observed in the telescopes but something that hasn't been experimentally detected anyway. Same thing happening with the "virtual particles" transmitting forces in Quantum Physics…

!

Moderator Note

This is off topic.

If you want to ask about the evidence for dark matter, please start a new thread on it.

Any more off-topic posts will be removed.

 

[martillo]

Got it.

You know, too hard to explain myself…

Better to not post anymore. 

Thanks for your comments anyway.

[MigL]

We insist on applying common descriptors to 'quantum particles', like particle or wave, where it actually may be neither.
As a matter of fact, you can repeat a single 'quantum particle' detection ( giving a single dot on the detector ), and when all the detector screens are overlaid, an interference pattern appears. You can even perform single particle detections at widely separated places around the World, and when overlaid see an interference pattern.

The fact is, if you set up an experiment to detect the wave nature of a 'quantum particle' , that is what you'll detect.
If you set up to detect the particle nature of a 'quantum particle', that is also what will be detected.

So, if your experiment detects the DNA of a fly and a whale, you will find that they are about 60% the same. If your experiment determines similarity by size or mass, then they are different by several orders of magnitude.
Is that what you mean with your whale/fly example ???

 

 

[joigus]

20 minutes ago, martillo said:

Better to not post anymore. 

Nobody said that.