Particles / waves

[swansont]

8 hours ago, martillo said:

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

What, specifically, needs to be “solved”?

[martillo]

41 minutes ago, swansont said:

What, specifically, needs to be “solved”?

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]

40 minutes ago, martillo said:

Particularly? Light, a particle or a wave? Cannot be both at the same time.

 

Or maybe it is just that the classical concepts of "particle" and "wave" aren't truly descriptive of the real universe.

[martillo]

7 minutes ago, Janus said:

Or maybe it is just that the classical concepts of "particle" and "wave" aren't truly descriptive of the real universe.

Any case the thing must be reviewed...

Which concepts would you suggest?

Edited August 18, 2020 by martillo

[Bufofrog]

8 minutes ago, martillo said:

Any case the thing must be reviewed...

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]

15 minutes ago, 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.

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]

24 minutes ago, martillo said:

What it is for you then?

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.

[geordief]

9 minutes ago, 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.

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]

12 hours ago, 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.

It’s not a classical particle, so why must it conform to classical descriptions and behaviors?

 

10 hours ago, 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?

 

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]

1 hour ago, 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.”

 

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)

[jajrussel]

On 8/7/2020 at 3:44 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😲

 

 

 

🤔🧐 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 6:31 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.

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]

On 8/17/2020 at 10:42 PM, 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.

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]

On 8/18/2020 at 3:41 PM, swansont said:

Physics makes no claim to tell you truth, or reality. It describes how nature behaves, not what it is.

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 5:25 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.

+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]

2 hours ago, jajrussel said:

Maybe something like “single quantum particle detection processes” will do the trick. Maybe?

Wiki is always a good place to start

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double-slit_experiment

2 hours ago, jajrussel said:

The rest I don’t remember ever reading about.

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.

[jajrussel]

3 minutes ago, 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.

Thanks.

I’ll start checking this all out now. My mind needs the break.