Only the one wave?

[OneSpace]

If everything is a wave and particles are only the wave being observed, is the whole universe just one single wave? If every particle is every other particle because there is only the wave is there only one coordinate where every particle exists?

[ecoli]

the first statement is wrong. Objects act both as waves AND particles.

[OneSpace]

swansont (Knight who says, "Ni!") 03-12-2008, 03:04 PM #2

Everything is actually waves, and the waves — which represent things like the position/momentum/energy of the entity in question — must conform to boundary conditions.

 

Klaynos (Most Nagging Member) 03-12-2008, 04:43 PM #4

Everything, as in everything, photons, electrons, buckminster fulleries.... everything is a wave (and a particle)

 

The waves don't represent the things, they are the things!

 

Thanx for your response ecoli, could you expand a little please.

[swansont]

Objects behave as waves, but sometimes the wave behavior is relatively unimportant, so you can assume particle-like behavior, e.g. ballistic trajectories. The energy is quantized (as are other properties) so certain interactions also seem like they involve particles.

 

IOW, treating some things as particles is reasonable under many circumstances, and that often makes the math simpler.

[thedarkshade]

Objects act both as waves AND particles.

Behave like waves and hit like particles! (I've said this so many times)

[OneSpace]

I apoligise for that the darkshade, i have five kids, i know what it's like.

Starts and finishes as a particle and travels as a wave.

The question is was it ever really a particle?

 

"so certain interactions also seem like they involve particles." seem?

[iNow]

"so certain interactions also seem like they involve particles." seem?

 

Here's a source which makes it pretty clear for the non-expert:

 

http://www.colorado.edu/physics/2000/quantumzone/photoelectric.html

[OneSpace]

Excellent response inow, i see there are conflicting experiments showing both particle and wave evidence. I did notice this and confess i don't know how much this assumption matters.

 

From your attachment.

"but the formula only made sense if he assumed that the energy of a vibrating molecule was quantized--that is, it could only take on certain values."

 

Added edit:

I notice with the double slit that the particle being fired is a measured quantity of one, and that the hit is also a measured result of one, it is measured at both ends. If the measure is just before the slits it also is a quantity of one. The unmeasured quantity is also one if by one i mean there is only one wave that all particles are. Hence the wave is every particle and can take on all values.

[Riogho]

Everything isn't one giant wave, but it is definitely a giant field. Through which waves propogate.

[OneSpace]

That is a failing of my language, the beach is made of one sand, not meaning one giant grain of sand.

 

There are many waves but are they all the same wave, that which creates the field?

[thedarkshade]

There are many waves but are they all the same wave, that which creates the field?

I wouldn't say all are the same waves, but they indeed are all waves.

[Klaynos]

Everything isn't one giant wave, but it is definitely a giant field. Through which waves propogate.

 

Would you care to state references for this?

[OneSpace]

And what are waves? In water they are not the water but only the up down movement of it as the wave travels. Seems to me if this is the nature of waves then they are all the same thing.

[Riogho]

Would you care to state references for this?

 

Are you being serious?

[Klaynos]

Are you being serious?

 

Yes, it's a statement, presented as fact, which people might like to read further about, therefore I think it needs a reference.

[thedarkshade]

In water they are not the water but only the up down movement of it as the wave travels..

In this case a wave means the spread of shakes in a elastic medium.

[OneSpace]

yes i understand that, but what are they, what makes them, how are they created, are they a thing or are they what moves through a thing? Most importantly are there any differences between one wave and another, if so, how? Of course the answer may be height and frequency but do these features stop the wave from actually being a wave?

 

Am i out of line asking these questions?

[Riogho]

Yes, it's a statement, presented as fact, which people might like to read further about, therefore I think it needs a reference.

 

I'm sorry, I thought you knew all about this stuff:

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Field_%28physics%29

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_field_theory

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_field_theory

[Zephir]

is the whole universe just one single wave

Yes, the universe can be considered as a single quantum wave, just in infinite number of dimensions, therefore we can see it as a random chaos. If you project the harmonic motion in many dimensions into 2D plane, it will appear chaotic, therefore the projection of harmonic motion in infinite number of dimensions into 3D space-time would appear like quantum chaos as well.

 

 

The quantum wave isn't completely harmonic wave, though, by AWT it's the wave of foam, i.e. the string, whose mass density is proportional the energy density in each time and space interval, because what we can see from Universe is just random foam of chaos and the foam gets more dense under shaking temporarily.

 

Therefore the observable Universe can considered to be a dense blob simmilar to black hole, which is undulating like single quantum wave, so it has an character of both wave, both particle at the same time like every piece of it.

[OneSpace]

Many phenomena are better understood by describing their causes and effects. When scientists see a connection between one fact and another, they try to show a cause-and-effect relationship. The cause explains why something happens. The effect describes what happens.

 

So if the wave is the effect, what is the cause?

[thedarkshade]

So if the wave is the effect, what is the cause?

In mechanics the cause would be a vibration or the rotation of a molecule(s) and as molecules are tied together then this vibration is transported creating so the effect - wave.

[OneSpace]

The molecules themselves are a result of the wave i thought, so how can something that is created from the wave also be that which causes the wave?

 

When you say that the whole universe is a wave/s then wouldn't everything inside the universe be an effect of the wave and not the cause?

 

Of course that is unless everything in the universe is that thing which caused it.

 

Is there no answer, are there only theories?

[Zephir]

...so if the wave is the effect, what is the cause?

I answered this question here. You can see the vacuum as a system of many virtual particles, where the perturbations are propagating. After then only the periodic response has a chance to propagate at the distance, the chaotic fluctuations will compensate less or more soon undeniably. But we can see as well, the particles are chaotic clusters filling whole Universe, so we can interact just with the subtle deterministic portion of each chaos.

 

We cannot realize the chaos by using of limited set of states/numbers, which is fully aperiodic. Even in most random system some dependencies should exists: for example the clusters of the similar numbers are the more sparse, the more these numbers are similar - this is the apparent dependence, on which Perlin noise function is based.

[OneSpace]

This left me with many more questions than it answered Zephir, the fault lying with me not you though.

You can see the vacuum? This vacume of many virtual particles is the cause of the wave/s that is eveything in the universe?

Where the what are whatagating? (i understood propagating BTW)

I can understand basic science and even fairly complex ideas but this is way out of my scope of understanding without a lot of time spent looking things up. I could but i won't.

You don't have to give total LAYMAN answers, but just be a little more clear-cut.

[Zephir]

..You don't have to give total LAYMAN answers, but just be a little more clear-cut...

The problem is, if I answer by more clear & conscious way, I would receive warning, because the mainstream science doesn't know answer, so that every unique way means, I'm forced to propose some personal theory. But the thread with my personal theory was locked, even in Pseudoscience thread, which is full of informational garbage. The mainstream science proponents apparently wants to keep their informational monopoly by the same way, like Holy Church - even at the era of Internet.

 

Any idea?