Wave-Particle Duality

[einsteinium99]

The singularity is a gravitational wave with no upwards limit in frequency.
Consequently, we measure the age of the Universe to be 13.8 billion years, and also the past is infinite.

This is the simple essence of wave-particle duality.

We observe what appears to be a point in space, and any point in space we observe can be traced back to the original singularity.

The point is what we conceive of in relation to our observation, and this is what we measure.

The singularity is the objective reality underlying all observational experience.

[Eise]

1 hour ago, einsteinium99 said:

The singularity is a gravitational wave with no upwards limit in frequency.
Consequently, we measure the age of the Universe to be 13.8 billion years, and also the past is infinite.

Please explain how the age of the universe follows from your first sentence. Show us the calculation.

1 hour ago, einsteinium99 said:

This is the simple essence of wave-particle duality.

How so? Please explain. And define clearly what 'wave-particle duality' exactly is. No citations. Your definition.

 

[swansont]

5 hours ago, einsteinium99 said:

This is the simple essence of wave-particle duality.

As Eise has hinted, this is not what folks versed in physics call the wave-particle duality.

[Mordred]

5 hours ago, swansont said:

As Eise has hinted, this is not what folks versed in physics call the wave-particle duality.

Not even close.

11 hours ago, einsteinium99 said:

The singularity is a gravitational wave with no upwards limit in frequency.

Not possible,the BB singularity if you run expansion  backwards you would hit a volume roughly one Planck length at 10^-43 seconds.

 At this volume even curvature has no meaning nor does a GW wave. For that matter as there is no curvature term due to the miniscule volume you wouldn't even have gravity.

[mistermack]

4 hours ago, Mordred said:

At this volume even curvature has no meaning nor does a GW wave. For that matter as there is no curvature term due to the miniscule volume you wouldn't even have gravity.

Or there could be no gravitons to carry it?

[Mordred]

All particles have pointlike characteristics as well as wavelike that is what specifically is described by wave particle duality. In thermal equilibrium however all particles are indistinct from one another. In essence they all would have identical wavefunctions as well as pointlike properties. So you could have gravitons as well as the SM particles however you wouldn't be able to tell them apart. 

Keep in mind though it's feasible we still have no evidence of a graviton. Gravity is well described without it however via spacetime curvature.

 

 

Edited June 26, 2023 by Mordred

[einsteinium99]

15 hours ago, Eise said:

Please explain how the age of the universe follows from your first sentence. Show us the calculation.

How so? Please explain. And define clearly what 'wave-particle duality' exactly is. No citations. Your definition.

 

 

11 hours ago, swansont said:

As Eise has hinted, this is not what folks versed in physics call the wave-particle duality.

What we call wave-particle duality (the dual nature of all particles as both an observed particle and a wave of probability) is a simple consequence of what we observe as the origin of the Universe. Due to the limitations of human observation, a gravitational wave in spacetime increasing indefinitely in frequency would be virtually indistinguishable from a point. This is what we call "the singularity". Because we can not distinguish this wave from a point, we measure the age of the Universe relative to what we conceive of as an origin point, and we estimate that the Universe is approximately 13.8 billion years old.

Because the Universe as we observe it expands from what appears to be a common origin point, but what is actually a gravitational wave in spacetime with no upwards limit to its frequency, we observe the phenomenon that we call wave-particle duality.

6 hours ago, Mordred said:

Not even close.

Not possible,the BB singularity if you run expansion  backwards you would hit a volume roughly one Planck length at 10^-43 seconds.

 At this volume even curvature has no meaning nor does a GW wave. For that matter as there is no curvature term due to the miniscule volume you wouldn't even have gravity.

All of your assumptions follow from the assumption that theoretical units such as the Planck length, and observable measurements from which said theoretical units are extrapolated, are objectively accurate.

The reality is that all measurements derived from human observation inherit the intrinsic limitations of human observation relative to the singularity.

In Einstein's Relativity the singularity is incorrectly resolved as a point in spacetime, when in reality it should be thought of as a gravitational wave in spacetime with no upwards limit in frequency.

The limits of observation, and the assumptions derived thereof, exist relative to a pervasive gravitational wave in spacetime with no upwards or downwards limit to its frequency.

This can not be calculated in terms of standard point-based observational or theoretical measurements (such as planck units), because the objective nature of the phenomenon defies observation.

Edited June 27, 2023 by einsteinium99

[Mordred]

There is no assumption it is trivial to perform the calculations something you likely will not have for any of your declarations.

 You likely don't even know how spacetime via the Einstein field equations pertain mathematically to the GW wave. You cannot have GW waves without sufficient spacetime volume.

Go ahead I challenge you to mathematically prove me wrong. Those mathematics is part of our rules and regulations when it comes to rigor and testability.  Lol truth be told with your declarations above you likely have never bothered looking at the relevant mathematics  of a  QW wave. Those same mathematics involving Einsten field equations which you believe are wrong allowed us to predict the existence of GW waves long before we ever measured them.

Edited June 27, 2023 by Mordred

[einsteinium99]

37 minutes ago, Mordred said:

There is no assumption...

Implicit in your initial statement is the very assumption I already described, "the assumption that theoretical units such as the Planck length, and observable measurements from which said theoretical units are extrapolated, are objectively accurate."

38 minutes ago, Mordred said:

Go ahead I challenge you to mathematically prove me wrong. Those mathematics is part of our rules and regulations when it comes to rigor and testability.  Lol truth be told with your declarations above you likely have never bothered looking at the relevant mathematics  of a  QW wave. Those same mathematics involving Einsten field equations which you believe are wrong allowed us to predict the existence of GW waves long before we ever measured them.

Again, you affirm the basis of your opinion in said assumptions.

And if you understood what I am saying you would know I agree with and believe that Einstein's field equations have resulted in many predictions which have been proven to be accurate in accordance with observation, which we all know and no reasonable person would deny has intrinsic limitations (you can't observe the entire Universe at once, can you friend?). 

Because Einstein's field equations are built on observable measurements, and because observation is inherently limited, there is a conceptual flaw at the foundation of his theory that manifests in the form of a point in space that is irreconcilable with the observed measurements.

I believe I am proposing a novel way of conceptualizing this problem, and I would love your assistance in determining if that is correct without the pious diatribe about the sanctity of discrete mathematics.

[Mordred]

Not accepting my challenge? Proof yourself mathematically. This is physics derive a QW wave with its wavelength using the mass of the universe. Then run expansion backwards to \(10^{-43} \) seconds.

Let me know if you can fit the wavelength inside the observable universe at that time. Go ahead prove me wrong. In order to have a wave you must have a measurable wavelength

[swansont]

1 hour ago, einsteinium99 said:

What we call wave-particle duality (the dual nature of all particles as both an observed particle and a wave of probability)

That’s still not it. The wave part of the duality is the deBroglie wave, which is not the same as the wave function from the Schrödinger equation.

[einsteinium99]

1 minute ago, Mordred said:

Not accepting my challenge? Proof yourself mathematically. This is physics derive a QW wave with its wavelength using the mass of the universe. Then run expansion backwards to 10−43 seconds.

Let me know if you can fit the wavelength inside the observable universe at that time. Go ahead prove me wrong. In order to have a wave you must have a measurable wavelength

 

As I already said: "This can not be calculated in terms of standard point-based observational or theoretical measurements (such as planck units), because the objective nature of the phenomenon defies observation."

Again, I am suggesting that you consider that the fundamental assumptions under which you are operating are the source of the conceptual barrier theoretical physics has faced since the time of Einstein.

Planck units are theoretical units that were concocted in relation to observed physical constants, such that a unit of each constant would be equal to one, correct? I.e. light travels at a speed of one Planck length per Planck time?

It is assumed that measurements of these constants can be made objectively in relation to observation, even given what we all know to be the natural limitations of observation that can not be transcended.

If we acknowledge that observation is necessarily limited, it follows logically that any measurement derived from observation would inherit those limitations.

Again, consequently, it follows that no such thing as Planck units can be known objectively to exist (even given their obvious theoretical importance) because no objectively accurate measurement of said constants can be made in terms of observation. You are placing an artificial constriction on the origin of the Universe in terms of mathematics as you understand it, and you are declaring this to be objective when nothing could be further from the truth. As I have already explained and demonstrated, you are operating on a series of theoretical assumptions that you can not prove, and it seems furthermore that you do not comprehend the theoretical nature of the assumptions that you are making or even that these assumptions are implicit in your statements.

28 minutes ago, swansont said:

That’s still not it. The wave part of the duality is the deBroglie wave, which is not the same as the wave function from the Schrödinger equation.

But a DeBroglie wave still still describes probability, right? Specifically the relative probability of finding a particle at a given point within a configuration space?

Furthermore, as the velocity of a particle approaches zero (rest) the de Broglie wavelength approaches infinity, correct?

Now assume just for a moment that what I'm saying is correct, and the singularity is a gravitational wave in spacetime with no upwards limit in frequency.

As opposed to the Universe spontaneously emerging from a point, we now can see the universe as an infinite progression expanding from a common space (what we call "origin").

In this understanding it would follow that one could estimate the probability of finding a particle at a given point in space, but never measure with perfect accuracy where that point is, because there is no objectively real zero point ("origin point") to use as reference, even though there appears to be.

Am I missing something?

 

[Mordred]

1 hour ago, einsteinium99 said:

 

And if you understood what I am saying you would know I agree with and believe that Einstein's field equations have resulted in many predictions which have been proven to be accurate in accordance with observation, which we all know and no reasonable person would deny has intrinsic limitations (you can't observe the entire Universe at once, can you 

  We only examine our Observable universe. We can only conjecture based on what we learned from our Observable portion.

 However that Observable portion also equates to all forms of causality. That is a fundamental distinction. You agree that GR works great for describing what we can observe but that also applies to causality.

 In cosmology this defines the Cosmic event horizon aka our observable universe. GW waves have wavelengths that far exceed the size of our universe at the earliest stages ie inflation and prior. This has been calculated I recall Bardeen presented a solution for inflation giving the resulting wavelengths at \(10^3\) km for the quarterly wavelengths (needed detector length). Note that's well beyond the volume of the Observable  universe at that time.

 We look for the frozen in effects (that is the literal descriptive oft given ) with regards to traces of relic dynamics due to inflation etc. However those traces are incredibly difficult to detect (relevant wavelengths including redshift due to expansion).

I should add gravity waves only  result from anisotropic conditions.  That list includes mass/energy distribution. The EFE shows this. As you agreed it works well with observational evidence 

Edited June 27, 2023 by Mordred

[Bufofrog]

10 hours ago, einsteinium99 said:

a DeBroglie wave still still describes probability, right?

No.

[swansont]

10 hours ago, einsteinium99 said:

But a DeBroglie wave still still describes probability, right? Specifically the relative probability of finding a particle at a given point within a configuration space?

No. A deBroglie wave of a particle with momentum p has a wavelength of h/p. The probability of finding it would be the same over all space. 

Quote

Furthermore, as the velocity of a particle approaches zero (rest) the de Broglie wavelength approaches infinity, correct?

Yes. But the wave function is related to how well you know the velocity (i.e. the momentum), not the approximate value of it. 

[joigus]

As said by others, the probabilistic assumption is quite independent from the De Broglie assumption (relation between wavelength and momentum), and is called Born's postulate (from Max Born, one of the founders of quantum mechanics.)

As Swansont said, De Broglie waves are components of the quantum state, rather than the quantum state itself. Every one of these DB waves would be totally de-localised, and is not physical. So a more realistic quantum state has infinitely many DB waves in it, each with a different momentum.

So the logical build-up is:

Einstein relation: energy = h * (frequency)

De Broglie relation: momentum = h / (wavelength)

Infinitely many Einstein-De Broglie waves (principle of superposition) --> probabilistic interpretation (Max Born)

Something like that.

[Mordred]

 One trend I have noticed is the term wavefunction tends to indicate probability functions but the term wavelength tends to refer to physical waves such as Compton and DeBroglie.  Do not know if this has become a convention but as an avid reader of numerous physics theories its a trend I have noticed.

[Genady]

22 minutes ago, Mordred said:

 One trend I have noticed is the term wavefunction tends to indicate probability functions but the term wavelength tends to refer to physical waves such as Compton and DeBroglie.  Do not know if this has become a convention but as an avid reader of numerous physics theories its a trend I have noticed.

I think it is a convention, because in the last 15 or so years since I started to study this part of physics, I don't remember seeing a different use of these concepts.

[swansont]

!

Moderator Note

Inquiry about gravitational waves has been split

https://www.scienceforums.net/topic/131931-gravitational-waves-split-from-wave-particle-duality/