swansont Posted August 18, 2020 Posted August 18, 2020 On 8/17/2020 at 3:56 PM, martillo said: The "wave-particle duality" concept for instance. The topic of this thread. Expand What, specifically, needs to be “solved”?
martillo Posted August 18, 2020 Posted August 18, 2020 (edited) On 8/18/2020 at 12:16 AM, swansont said: What, specifically, needs to be “solved”? Expand Particularly here? Light, a particle or a wave? Cannot be both at the same time. What needs to be found is a solution to the weird duality. I have worked a solution for the particle model of light with a special structure for the photon (the photon as an "electromagnetic particle") which explains its wave-like behavior. It also works for electrons with a compatible structure for them. I'm an electrical engineer, I think it deserves an análisis by physicists but many things need to be questioned, reviewed, and re-solved in a different way. Is not so easy but it can be done. I have found a solution to many things, others remains to be solved. A start-point is needed and that is what I have, a start-point a good start-point I think. I try to show it sometimes but gets hard, too hard sometimes... Edited August 18, 2020 by martillo
Janus Posted August 18, 2020 Posted August 18, 2020 On 8/18/2020 at 12:41 AM, martillo said: Particularly? Light, a particle or a wave? Cannot be both at the same time. Expand Or maybe it is just that the classical concepts of "particle" and "wave" aren't truly descriptive of the real universe.
martillo Posted August 18, 2020 Posted August 18, 2020 (edited) On 8/18/2020 at 1:26 AM, Janus said: Or maybe it is just that the classical concepts of "particle" and "wave" aren't truly descriptive of the real universe. Expand Any case the thing must be reviewed... Which concepts would you suggest? Edited August 18, 2020 by martillo
Bufofrog Posted August 18, 2020 Posted August 18, 2020 On 8/18/2020 at 1:33 AM, martillo said: Any case the thing must be reviewed... Expand Why? It seems like you are saying we need a definite answer to the question is a quantum particle really a wave or a particle. If that is the question I'm afraid you simply won't ever be satisfied with the answer, because it is neither.
martillo Posted August 18, 2020 Posted August 18, 2020 On 8/18/2020 at 1:53 AM, Bufofrog said: Why? It seems like you are saying we need a definite answer to the question is a quantum particle really a wave or a particle. If that is the question I'm afraid you simply won't ever be satisfied with the answer, because it is neither. Expand I'm very satisfied to have found a particle structure for the photon that explains the wave-like behavior... What it is for you then?
Markus Hanke Posted August 18, 2020 Posted August 18, 2020 On 8/18/2020 at 2:12 AM, martillo said: What it is for you then? Expand Consider this: In the same way, a quantum object is neither particle nor wave, nor both - but it may appear as either one of these, depending on how you look at it. Note that the 'either-or' categories do not apply here, because that duality belongs into the classical world; but a quantum object is not classical. So there is not actually any problem here that needs to be solved. 1
geordief Posted August 18, 2020 Posted August 18, 2020 (edited) On 8/18/2020 at 2:42 AM, Markus Hanke said: Consider this: In the same way, a quantum object is neither particle nor wave, nor both - but it may appear as either one of these, depending on how you look at it. Note that the 'either-or' categories do not apply here, because that duality belongs into the classical world; but a quantum object is not classical. So there is not actually any problem here that needs to be solved. Expand I thought there was a well known description by (was it Feynman?) that if you did not find Quantum Mechanics confusing , you didn't understand it Your illustration is an analogy ,isn't it ? Very ehnlightening but doesn't it still beg the question? What does that "composite truth" look like under deeper analysis? Edited August 18, 2020 by geordief
swansont Posted August 18, 2020 Posted August 18, 2020 On 8/18/2020 at 12:41 AM, martillo said: Particularly here? Light, a particle or a wave? Cannot be both at the same time. What needs to be found is a solution to the weird duality. Expand It’s not a classical particle, so why must it conform to classical descriptions and behaviors? On 8/18/2020 at 2:51 AM, geordief said: I thought there was a well known description by (was it Feynman?) that if you did not find Quantum Mechanics confusing , you didn't understand it Your illustration is an analogy ,isn't it ? Very ehnlightening but doesn't it still beg the question? What does that "composite truth" look like under deeper analysis? Expand Physics makes no claim to tell you truth, or reality. It describes how nature behaves, not what it is. To quote Dr. Jones, “If it's truth you're interested in, Dr. Tyree's philosophy class is right down the hall.”
geordief Posted August 18, 2020 Posted August 18, 2020 On 8/18/2020 at 1:41 PM, swansont said: Physics makes no claim to tell you truth, or reality. It describes how nature behaves, not what it is. To quote Dr. Jones, “If it's truth you're interested in, Dr. Tyree's philosophy class is right down the hall.” Expand Don't think I was suggesting anything other than staging posts. It was the image /analogy provided by Markus that used the truth terminology or metaphore. But truth is a fine aim to have in mind so long as one is prepared to change one's mind as new facts are revealed. You can be truthful in your methods (as far as possible) and you can be truthful in your motives (as some scientists have shown themselves not to be) 1
jajrussel Posted August 20, 2020 Author Posted August 20, 2020 (edited) On 8/7/2020 at 7:44 AM, nec209 said: 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😲 Expand 🤔🧐 I would assume using the stated outcome that my particle gun was actually a ray gun and that in reality I was firing a ray of energy that presents as a wave until you interfere with the wave by observing it as a particle. Then I would have to assume that the ray only carried enough energy to create the one particle expected to present thus when detected the wave form formally collapses. I could make one more assumption that it would have to be a complete collapse of the wave, otherwise residual energy would either interfere with oncoming waves fired from the ray gun or be absorbed by them creating a sense of structure. I’m only making assumptions. Some thoughts get confusing for me, when they speak of accelerating particles like they are accelerating ping pong balls in a lottery tube, when my understanding is that it shouldn’t exactly work like that. Apparently, I’m playing catch up again. 🙁 On 8/17/2020 at 10:31 PM, MigL said: 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. Expand The first sentence is positively obvious. The rest I don’t remember ever reading about. Thanks... I’ll google it, but I’ll be googling blind since I can’t even imagine what the process might be called. Maybe something like “single quantum particle detection processes” will do the trick. Maybe? Google has a way of giving my research skills a workout... 🤔🙂 Edited August 20, 2020 by jajrussel
jajrussel Posted August 20, 2020 Author Posted August 20, 2020 On 8/18/2020 at 2:42 AM, Markus Hanke said: Note that the 'either-or' categories do not apply here, because that duality belongs into the classical world; but a quantum object is not classical. Expand Love the illustration, and somewhat agree with parts of this statement. I’m assuming that the, either or reference, applies to the illustration, and that, either or, need not always apply. Quantum physics certainly is not classical physics, but how is duality specific to the classical world? If by quantum object you mean objects described by the standard model, I don’t understand why duality would not apply to any part of the standard model that presents as a particle? . It could be that I have simply misunderstood the statement? Thank you for the illustration. 🙂
joigus Posted August 20, 2020 Posted August 20, 2020 (edited) On 8/18/2020 at 1:41 PM, swansont said: Physics makes no claim to tell you truth, or reality. It describes how nature behaves, not what it is. Expand I completely agree with your point about reality. Also about your summarizing the concern of physics. In fact, I think what you said isn't nearly enough insisted upon in classes and seminars. But I don't completely agree with the point about truth. I think it's just the statements involving truth in physics are conditional, or graded, or constraining the mental space of possibilities, if you want. Not absolute. So my phrasing would be, and I hope you agree and it's no moot point, physics is not concerned with any absolute truth, or absolute certainty, but with degrees of certainty (truth). On 8/18/2020 at 3:25 PM, geordief said: But truth is a fine aim to have in mind so long as one is prepared to change one's mind as new facts are revealed. Expand +1. Has Nature no final truth in store for us? Maybe so. But true or false are states of our knowledge that necessarily affect our statements about the world. So maybe the proposition is (rephrasing @Strange's rephrasing of Feynman some days ago): Photons are not particles. Photons are not waves. They are what they are, something else: photons, wavycles, whatever. I see some value of truth in that. If only to say what definitely they are not. Edited August 20, 2020 by joigus
MigL Posted August 20, 2020 Posted August 20, 2020 On 8/20/2020 at 4:21 PM, jajrussel said: Maybe something like “single quantum particle detection processes” will do the trick. Maybe? Expand Wiki is always a good place to start https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double-slit_experiment On 8/20/2020 at 4:21 PM, jajrussel said: The rest I don’t remember ever reading about. Expand And this excerpt from the above link should explain "An important version of this experiment involves single particles (or waves—for consistency, they are called particles here). Sending particles through a double-slit apparatus one at a time results in single particles appearing on the screen, as expected. Remarkably, however, an interference pattern emerges when these particles are allowed to build up one by one (see the adjacent image). This demonstrates the wave–particle duality, which states that all matter exhibits both wave and particle properties: the particle is measured as a single pulse at a single position, while the wave describes the probability of absorbing the particle at a specific place on the screen.[26] This phenomenon has been shown to occur with photons, electrons, atoms and even some molecules, including buckyballs.[27][28][29][30][31] So experiments with electrons add confirmatory evidence to the view that electrons, protons, neutrons, and even larger entities that are ordinarily called particles nevertheless have their own wave nature and even a wavelength (related to their momentum)." When these single particle detections are taken multiple times, either at different time, or at different locations, and then overlaid, an interference pattern is evident, exactly the same as firing multiple quantum particles at the same time. I still remember being amazedwhen I first learned of this. 1
jajrussel Posted August 20, 2020 Author Posted August 20, 2020 On 8/20/2020 at 7:01 PM, MigL said: Wiki is always a good place to start https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double-slit_experiment And this excerpt from the above link should explain "An important version of this experiment involves single particles (or waves—for consistency, they are called particles here). Sending particles through a double-slit apparatus one at a time results in single particles appearing on the screen, as expected. Remarkably, however, an interference pattern emerges when these particles are allowed to build up one by one (see the adjacent image). This demonstrates the wave–particle duality, which states that all matter exhibits both wave and particle properties: the particle is measured as a single pulse at a single position, while the wave describes the probability of absorbing the particle at a specific place on the screen.[26] This phenomenon has been shown to occur with photons, electrons, atoms and even some molecules, including buckyballs.[27][28][29][30][31] So experiments with electrons add confirmatory evidence to the view that electrons, protons, neutrons, and even larger entities that are ordinarily called particles nevertheless have their own wave nature and even a wavelength (related to their momentum)." When these single particle detections are taken multiple times, either at different time, or at different locations, and then overlaid, an interference pattern is evident, exactly the same as firing multiple quantum particles at the same time. I still remember being amazedwhen I first learned of this. Expand Thanks. I’ll start checking this all out now. My mind needs the break.
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now