Wave-Particle Duality Theory

[keyboard45]

I remember about 5 years ago i was reading a book on quantum physics on a holiday, it mentioned wave-particle duality, that light was a wave and a particle, but nothing could explain how it could be both at the same time. so i asked myself how it could be possible.

I think i came up with a good theory, but my knowledge on physics and quantum physics is somewhat poor. i am good with chemistry, atoms, protons, electrons, neutrons etc, but when things get smaller, photons, quarks, mass and energy etc, my terminology gets a bit lost. anyway, i will give you my basic idea of how a particle can behave like a wave and particle, and you can laugh and shut me down, but it would be nice if at least one person can see where im coming from.

My theoretical rules of light...

My theoretical light particle, has a positive and a negative charge, a bit like a magnet

Here is my positive charge = I

Here is my negative charge = o

Here is the particle, when both charges meet each other = Φ

One of the charges (for the purpose of this diagram, i am going to say the positive charge), moves twice as fast as the negative charge.

Once a charge has occupied a space, it cannot occupy the same space again.

The two charges like to stay as close together as possible, without occupying the same space twice.

Unfortunately, it is not easy to see what's going on, try to just pay attention to the final pattern, where the positive and the negative charge meet

Here is a step by step guide on how i achieved this diagram

Here are the steps somewhat explained...

Step1 positive charge (pos) and negative charge (neg) exist.

Step2 pos moves 2 steps away from occupied space (as stated earlier, positive charge moves twice as fast as neg charge), pos moves 1 step down away from original space, and 1 step to the right to stay close to the other charge.

Step3 neg moves 1 step away from occupied space, but remains close to pos, so therefore moves 1 space down.

Step4 pos moves 1 step left and occupies space where neg is, however has to move one space down, as it travels 2 steps for every 1 step the pos moves as stated earlier (my twice as fast rule), but can't occupy its previous space (also stated earlier).

Step5 neg moves 1 step down, to meet pos charge, now both charges are occupying the same space.

Step6 pos moves 1 space down (or right) away from previously occupied space, then moves 1 more space trying to remain close to neg.

Step7 neg moves inbetween the space which has been occupied by pos, as this area has the most charge.

Step8 pos moves 2 spaces around neg remaining close

Step9 neg follows pos moving 1 space to the rights, occupying space with the pos again.

Please note, that when the pos moves 2 spaces, and the neg then moves 1 space, it is happening simultaneously, but it is easier to explain when broken down into smaller steps.

Edited April 11, 2013 by keyboard45

[beefpatty]

Light is not both a particle and a wave, but is instead something completely different that exhibits properties of waves and particles.

[keyboard45]

Light is an electro-magnetic force. It is made up of particles called photons. Is it possible that a photon exists as a lepton and a tau particle, and isn't made up of a boson, but simply occupies a field of bosons.

In which case, my positive and negative charge as mentioned earlier, are leptons amd tau particles. A lepton exerting a charge of -1 and a tau particle also exerting a charge of -1, however being the antimatter of a electron and being much heavier, it may exert a gravitational force of +2, creating a particle with no mass, the photon?

[imatfaal]

!

Moderator Note

 

moved to speculations.

 

 

Please take a moment to read the rules of the speculations forum

 

[keyboard45]

Thankyou Mod

[swansont]

Light being made up of charges would give it a dipole moment. We don't observe this.

[keyboard45]

I don't understand, Light is EMR, and EMR is produced by moving charges. So therefore Light is made up of moving charges?

[swansont]

"Produced by" is not the same as "made up of". Even if your charge isn't accelerating (which is how you can make EMR; it's not simply motion) you have a field. The field itself is not made up of charges.

[keyboard45]

Could a Photon be a Baryon made of 4 quarks? Like a Proton and a Neutron, but not one or the other? A Baryon that is made up of UUDD quarks, constantly swapping one of its U quarks for a D quark and vice versa, instantaneously.

The resultant Charge, Mass and Spin of a UUDD baryon would be:

 

Charge 0

Mass 0

Spin +/- 1

 

The same as a Photon, a seemingly "Vacant" Boson.

 

Charge

 

Charge of Quarks

 

up + up + down

2/3 + 2/3 + -1/3 = 1

 

up + down + down

2/3 + -1/3 + -1/3 = 0

 

Charge of Antiquarks

 

up + down + down

-2/3 + -2/3 + 1/3 = -1

 

up + down + down

-2/3 + 1/3 + 1/3 = 0

 

Overall Charge = (1 + -1) or (0 + -0) = 0

 

Mass

 

Mass of Quarks

 

up + up + down

2.4 + 2.4 + 4.8 = 9.6

 

up + down + down

2.4 + 4.8 + 4.8 = 12

 

Mass of Antiquarks

 

 

up + up + down

-2.4 + -2.4 + -4.8 = -9.6

 

up + down + down

-2.4 + -4.8 + -4.8 = -12

 

Overall Mass = (9.6 + -9.6) or (12 + -12) = 0

 

Spin

 

Spin of Quarks

 

up + up + down

1/2 + 1/2 + -1/2 = 1/2

 

up + down + down

1/2 + -1/2 + -1/2 = -1/2

 

Spin of Antiquarks

 

up + up + down

-1/2 + -1/2 + 1/2 = -/12

 

up + down + down

-1/2 + 1/2 + 1/2 = 1/2

 

Overall Spin = (1/2 + 1/2) or (-1/2 + -1/2) = +/- 1

[swansont]

A photon is always spin 1. A composite system of 4 quarks can have spin 0, 1 or 2, along with the possibility of orbital angular momentum states. There's also the issue of photons being massless.

[keyboard45]

You are probably right, but i have read that a photon has a spin of +/- 1, not just 1.

 

If (uud+_udd) or (udd+_uud) = something with the properties: charge 0, mass 0, spin +/-1. Then could it be said that this is what a photon is made of?

 

Note: _udd and _uud are antiquarks.

Note2: the above "equation" is what i was trying to show in my previous post, all the math is there also i accept that my wild speculation is most likely flawed and incorrect. But its a good way to learn more about quantum physics so makes me happy!

Edited April 12, 2013 by keyboard45

[swansont]

Spin 1 refers to the magnitude (s), not the projection of the spin vector (m). It could be spin "up" (m=1) or spin "down" (m=-1). For photons the is no option for zero projection, but that's not the case for a composite system.

 

Quarks have mass. How do you get a massless particle by combining them?

[keyboard45]

Because antiquarks will have a negative mass wont they?

[swansont]

Because antiquarks will have a negative mass wont they?

 

No, antiparticles have regular mass. Mesons, which are made up of quark/antiquark pairs, have mass. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mesons

[keyboard45]

I am slightly confused how, say: a proton and a antiproton can annihilate each other, but there would be mass left over? Surely if they can annihilate each other to produce a photon. There will be no mass left over.

[swansont]

I am slightly confused how, say: a proton and a antiproton can annihilate each other, but there would be mass left over? Surely if they can annihilate each other to produce a photon. There will be no mass left over.

 

They will produce two photons (or more) and no, there's no mass left over. The mass is converted into another form of energy. This would not happen if the antiproton had a negative mass, because then the system would have no net mass, so there would be no photons.

[keyboard45]

Thankyou for your insight on net mass, i have been doing some more light reading on mass and systems, and how "mass and energy exist alongside each other", that net mass and energy, do not change into each other relatively, rather; both are bames for the same thing. So, now it has me thinking...

 

When the baryon and its antiparticle are annihilated and the photons are produced, the mass of the baryons are converted into energy (light), but as mass and energy are the "same thing", as stated above, then maybe a photon does indeed have a mass, or there is something else working alongside the proton, hidden, that is acquiring mass. I feel as if there is something missing from the equation...

 

On the other hand, i am starting to doubt that a antiproton, or any antiparticle or antiquark, has a positive mass. A net mass of 0, is still mass. If one object has 1 mass and the other has -1 mass, there is still mass, but there is a net mass of 0, and there is nothing wrong with that.

 

However, please recommend some more reading material to convince me otherwise.

[swansont]

Thankyou for your insight on net mass, i have been doing some more light reading on mass and systems, and how "mass and energy exist alongside each other", that net mass and energy, do not change into each other relatively, rather; both are bames for the same thing. So, now it has me thinking...

 

When the baryon and its antiparticle are annihilated and the photons are produced, the mass of the baryons are converted into energy (light), but as mass and energy are the "same thing", as stated above, then maybe a photon does indeed have a mass,

 

No, it does not. If it moves at c, it can't have mass.

 

or there is something else working alongside the proton, hidden, that is acquiring mass.

 

Hidden?

 

 

I feel as if there is something missing from the equation...

 

What is missing? How would you test for this mystery particle?

 

On the other hand, i am starting to doubt that a antiproton, or any antiparticle or antiquark, has a positive mass.

 

You mean, other than the experiments that measured the mass? Such as the measurement that shows (pdf) the fractional mass difference of a positron vs electron is no larger than 8 x 10^-9?

 

A net mass of 0, is still mass. If one object has 1 mass and the other has -1 mass, there is still mass, but there is a net mass of 0, and there is nothing wrong with that.

 

Yes, there is. If there's no net mass and the system is at rest, there is no energy to create photons in the annihilation. You've tossed conservation of energy out the window.

 

However, please recommend some more reading material to convince me otherwise.

 

They're called physics textbooks. That way you could see why your idea is wrong before you waste more time trying to flesh it out.

[keyboard45]

One question. If a photon moves at c, and therefore cant have mass, then does that also mean that if it moves at c, it cant have energy? As energy, mass and c are all part of the same equation.

 

If the mass is 0...

E=mc2

= 0 x (3 x 108 ms-1)2

E= 0?

 

Or, if a photon IS 3 x 108 ms-1

And there is NO mass. Then is the equation:

E = (3 x 108 Ms-1)

 

I am very lost.

 

Note: 2 represents "squared"

Edited April 13, 2013 by keyboard45

[Przemyslaw.Gruchala]

Current physics energy equation is:

 

E^2 = p^2 * c^2 + m^2 * c^4

 

for particles with m>0 and v=0 it simplifies to

 

E = m * c^2

 

for particles with m=0 and v=c it simplifies to

 

E = p * c

[keyboard45]

What would p = in the case of a photon? Doesnt p = mv? and with a mass of 0, p would also = O, and therefore E would = 0. Going round in circles here!

[Przemyslaw.Gruchala]

p = h / wavelength

 

so

 

E = h * c / wavelength

 

and f = c/wavelength (frequency)

 

so

 

E = h * f

[keyboard45]

When a photon is absorbed by an atom, does the atom lose some of its mass? Or does it keep its mass, as the electron hasn't left the atom, but just jumped to a higher energy level?

 

Could something with a mass travel at the speed of light, or is that scientifically impossible?

 

I am still hung up on how a particle like object can travel in a wave like fashion, without having any charge or mass. Does light still move as a wave in a vacuum?

 

Sorry its alot of questions.

[swansont]

What would p = in the case of a photon? Doesnt p = mv? and with a mass of 0, p would also = O, and therefore E would = 0. Going round in circles here!

 

p=mv is a classical equation, much like KE=1/2 mv^2 is. What we're discussing is some physics learned last century, not the century before that.

[howlingmadpanda]

Light IS EMR therefore it does NOT produce EMR therefore we cannot observe light in the manner of charges as you put, nor could we do this with matter waves as all matter waves are either molecules or one type of particle - so we cannot have waves being of both charges. As far as we know in science your speculations have been disproved.

 

[Edit] Changed spelling error observer to observe

Edited April 15, 2013 by howlingmadpanda