Wave-particle duality

[chandragupta]

Individual quantum is a particle but it moves forward in a wave-like manner, a wave which has a crest & a trough,just like a sea wave.This nature of the individual quantum is in total contradistinction to what happens in the macro world where a bullet moves forward in a straight line.your thoughts?

[Anders Hoveland]

I think to understand how a particle behaves as a wave, you have to go outside conventional notions of cause and effect.

Personally, I do not believe in the wave concept, at least not philosophically.

 

I believe that "when" the universe formed in space-time, there was reason for it to form in such a way as to avoid any actual destructive interference. If you want to think of it this way, if two "strings" of matter going through time ever destructively interferred, even for a single moment, it would effectively "cut" the strings, and their tension would send them flying back like elastics. In other words, destructive interrference is a forbiden state.

 

In other words, to understand why matter seems to behave as a wave in many situations, you must understand why the matter is laid out in space-time the way it is, and why matter/energy in different configurations does not exist. To understand this. you must see all particles as simply existing in time, rather than moving through time.

 

However, I also do not believe in particles in the sense that I do not believe they are actually point-like objects. I believe they have finite volume (again this is philosophical, as it has not been directly supported by any experimental evidence). But I believe that the composition of such particles is indeed a wave, which again is composed of even smaller component particles, somewhat anologous to quarks inside a hadron.

 

To more clearly address the question: I believe that the true fundamental particles do indeed exist as particles, but as part of a composition of a larger wave. The two are inseparable. However, until physicists devise a way of peering inside at the constituents of the electron, this will just have to remain speculation. Bashing two electrons together at high speeds is just problematic, for other reasons. At such speeds, there are relativistic effects, and any particle (whether electrons or photons) begins to behave as if it has a quark-like constituency. But then again, perhaps these "quarks" they see inside the electrons really are these fundamental particles I am referring to.

 

Well actually everything in the universe is entangled

 

It is just that some particles are more entangled to eachother than others. To understand entanglement, you have to go back to the whole "wave-particle" duality thing, and your views on entanglement will be dependant on your philosophical views on the explanation for the double slit experiment.

 

Just my personal opinion, but science educators seem to do a really confusing job of trying to explain entanglement. Basically, entanglement is similar to the phenomena of interference, but is through a duration of time. The interference a particle will experience in the future will affect its intereference in the present. The two are intertwined.

 

There are several different views on this of course; all of them are basically correct, but I prefer this one.

Edited October 21, 2012 by Anders Hoveland

[StringJunky]

This section is not the place for beliefs.

[swansont]

!

Moderator Note

Yes. Answers should be based on mainstream science and not conjecture, philosophy or personal belief.

[chandragupta]

Individual quantum is a particle which moves in a wave like manner. My question is: DOES THIS WAVE LIKE MOTION OCCURS IN AN UP & DOWN FASHION I.e. in the manner of a sea wave OR DOES IT OCCUR IN A SIDE TO SIDE FASHION I.e. in the manner of a side winder snake.your thoughts?

[juanrga]

Individual quantum is a particle which moves in a wave like manner. My question is: DOES THIS WAVE LIKE MOTION OCCURS IN AN UP & DOWN FASHION I.e. in the manner of a sea wave OR DOES IT OCCUR IN A SIDE TO SIDE FASHION I.e. in the manner of a side winder snake.your thoughts?

 

Wave-particle duality is a misnomer. Quantum particles do not move in wavelike manner but in a quantum manner.

 

In fact albeit earlier fathers of quantum mechanics as DeBroglie and Schrödinger incorrectly believed that [math]\Psi[/math] is a wave, [math]\Psi[/math] it is not a wave but a mathematical function defined in an abstract Hilbert space. The correct interpretation of [math]\Psi[/math] was given by Born as wavefunction as amplitude of probability.

 

The quantum motion of quantum particles is completely different to the motion of sea waves (which is purely classical motion).

[chandragupta]

Quantum manner is a Mathematical concept & this Mathematical concept is arcane & abstract. My question is: can this Mathematical concept be put in a pictorial manner? For example Richard Feynman's 'Feynman diagram' is very helpful in expressing his Mathematical concept. Your thoughts?

[derek w]

All oscillations have a point of equilibrium,an oscillation can be considered as moving from a negative point to a positive point through the point of equilibrium at zero.

Even a wave function as amplitude of probability has a point of equilibrium.

A photon can be considered as an oscillation from negative to positive about the point of equilibrium.

Where as an electron can be consider as an oscillation on the negative side of equilibrium and a positron as an oscillation on the positive side of equilibrium.

[Zvonko]

I have a question regarding how many different ways the slit experiment was conducted. Were a range of frequencies used? If so, did they take a snapshot of each and compare to see if there was any difference. My idea was consider if the refractive index made any noticeable difference. In the main, I'm trying to find ways to understand the duality paradox more by process of elimination.

Appreciate your assistance here.

[Strange]

Individual quantum is a particle but it moves forward in a wave-like manner

 

Particles like photons are electrons move in straight lines. Their wavelike properties are nothing to do with the way they move.

I have a question regarding how many different ways the slit experiment was conducted. Were a range of frequencies used?

 

The experiment can be done with any frequency or with electrons and even with large molecules (e.g. C60 "buckyballs"). The same effect is observed in every case.

 

I assume that if electrons or molecules are used, the experiment is done in a vacuum so the idea of refractive index is obviously irrelevant.

 

 

I'm trying to find ways to understand the duality paradox

 

There is no paradox.

Edited November 27, 2013 by Strange

[Enthalpy]

 

Particles like photons are electrons move in straight lines. Their wavelike properties are nothing to do with the way they move.

Photons and electrons diffract because they're waves. Straight propagation is an extreme case when the effects of diffraction aren't noticed.

[DParlevliet]

Probably it is better to say that photons have classical particle- and wave properies, but it is unknow if those are really physical particle or wave. How the particle and wave connects is also unknow, only described by formula.

[Enthalpy]

Probably it is better to say that photons have classical particle- and wave properies, but it is unknow if those are really physical particle or wave. How the particle and wave connects is also unknow, only described by formula.

You have to think more deeply about how we decide something is a wave, a particle, whether we can decide if it's one or the other, and then whether the distinction is any sensible.

 

About really physical: we observe, measure, predict. Can anything be more physical than that?

 

Is there a more precise knowledge than a formula that works?

 

"How the particle and wave connects is also unknow": unknown by who?

[Strange]

Photons and electrons diffract because they're waves. Straight propagation is an extreme case when the effects of diffraction aren't noticed.

I wouldn't say it is an extreme case. Most of the time they are not diffracted.

 

p.s. my post should say "photons and electrons", not "are" but I can't edit it now...

[DParlevliet]

You have to think more deeply about how we decide something is a wave, a particle, whether we can decide if it's one or the other, and then whether the distinction is any sensible.

 

By what we measure, according Copenhagen

 

About really physical: we observe, measure, predict. Can anything be more physical than that?

 

That is not the meaning of physical in my text.

 

Is there a more precise knowledge than a formula that works?

 

There is no formalu that connects fully photon and wave.

 

"How the particle and wave connects is also unknow": unknown by who?

 

By us, by Science

[Sensei]

There is no formalu that connects fully photon and wave.

 

E = h * f

f - frequency of wave

E - energy of single photon particle

Is it not good enough?

[DParlevliet]

No, I mean fully.

 

The wave: where is the particle

The particle: how can it interfere

According the Copenhagen interpretation you cannot imagine both particle and wave at the same time, and is main stream QM.

[Sensei]

Photon is at time t at location x,

and at time t+1s at location x+c

how do you want to know its position, when it's constantly changing so fast?

 

The same thought experiment can be applied to any fast moving objects.. Even when you look at flying airplane - it's not where you are looking at. Flying at 900 km/h is 250 m/s.

 

You can learn exact position of object, only after slowing it down (f.e. catching particle in some kind of trap).

 

Let's consider c/c++ program:

 

for( ; ; )

{

printf( "CPU is here!\n" );

printf( "no, CPU is here!\n" );

printf( "no,no,CPU is here!\n" );

}

 

Please tell me where is CPU PC (program counter).. ?

Which instruction it's executing right now?

It has 3 GHz (3 billion instructions per second theoretically).

From human point of view, computer is executing everything simultaneously and PC is everywhere..

If it's executing loop, you can only tell probability where we can find it.

Edited November 30, 2013 by Sensei

[Enthalpy]

No, I mean fully.

 

The wave: where is the particle

The particle: how can it interfere

According the Copenhagen interpretation you cannot imagine both particle and wave at the same time, and is main stream QM.

Philosophy won't help you understand QM, rhetoric neither.

If you consider everything as waves that appear and disappear in discrete amount, it will be an excellent beginning.

[swansont]

No, I mean fully.

 

The wave: where is the particle

The particle: how can it interfere

According the Copenhagen interpretation you cannot imagine both particle and wave at the same time, and is main stream QM.

 

Actually that's more intro to quantum, to get you used to the idea that you aren't in Kansas anymore.

 

Light has properties of a wave, but it also has properties we associate with particles. Describing QM effects classically is always going to limit the comprehension of the concepts, as with any description by analogy.

[DParlevliet]

Isn't that the same as I said in my first post #12?:

 

Probably it is better to say that photons have classical particle- and wave properies, but it is unknow if those are really physical particle or wave. How the particle and wave connects is also unknow, only described by formula.

[Enthalpy]

My former answer wasn't constructive, sorry.

 

The wave: where is the particle

The particle: how can it interfere

 

"Where is the particle": if you stick to particles being points you'll necessarily get into bizarre representations. Admit instead that they are waves, and then "where" means "in that region". For instance an electron in an atom is centered around the nucleus and, for a valence electron, is as large as the atom.

 

But if you use the proper tool (beam of high energy particles) to determine more accurately the electron's position, then you'll get a probability density to find the electron, and the electron will react as a single particle however local your tool is.

 

Also, the electron can be counted. Once removed, it isn't there any more. In that sense, it does not behave like a traditional field or wave.

 

These two properties: as local as wanted, and countable, is what QM adds to traditional waves. To my understanding, it's all - or did I forget something? So when reading "particle as well", you should translate into "potentially local" and "countable" (you may add things like wave collapse). Just don't translate into "point", which would bring nonsense behaviour.

 

Then, you can formulate many experiments reasonably. For instance with two slits, the photon (or an electron) passes through both slits of course - and not something like "we must ignore through which slit it has passed". And then "the photon's position was the fringe, it has been absorbed by one small detector pixel, it had that much probability at this position resulting from the interference, and now the photon is gone".

[DParlevliet]

These two properties: as local as wanted, and countable, is what QM adds to traditional waves. To my understanding, it's all

 

Yes, that is the same as I mentioned: "that photons have classical particle- and wave properies, but it is unknow if those are really physical particle or wave."

Edited December 3, 2013 by DParlevliet

[Enthalpy]

Is he a troll?

[MigL]

I don't think he's a troll, I think he's absolutely right.

 

A quantum particle is not a wave or a classical particle.

When you do an experiment to detect wave-like behaviour, a quantum particle exhibits it.

When you do an experiment to detect particle-like behaviour it exhibits it also.

 

Is it a classical particle or a wave?

It could be a 'combination' of both... or neither !