Notices
Results 1 to 38 of 38
Like Tree2Likes
  • 1 Post By Markus Hanke
  • 1 Post By JonG

Thread: Wave/Particle Duality

  1. #1 Wave/Particle Duality 
    The Doctor Quantime's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    4,546
    Is it possible that a particle that is entangled with another that behaves like a wave, is it possible to say that you know for sure now that the other will behave like a particle? Not sure if this is hocum, can anyone clarify this?

    Thanks!


    "If you wish to make an apple pie from scratch, you must first invent the universe". - Carl Sagan
    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,302
    It doesn't really make much sense, because quantum objects have characteristics of both particles and waves. Which one is observed depends solely on the experimental detection method.


    Strange likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Manchester, UK
    Posts
    236
    Quote Originally Posted by Markus Hanke View Post
    It doesn't really make much sense, because quantum objects have characteristics of both particles and waves. Which one is observed depends solely on the experimental detection method.
    An instance of this is to be found in laser science - an area which I have spent much of my career in. The things which arise in the amplifying medium are photons. But as soon as they escape into the laser cavity, they become electromagnetic waves. The reason is that describing modes of oscillation within a laser cavity in terms of waves is much easier than attempting to do it in terms of photons - the reasons are pragmatic.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    Forum Bachelors Degree Kerling's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Copenhagen
    Posts
    440
    Quote Originally Posted by JonG View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Markus Hanke View Post
    It doesn't really make much sense, because quantum objects have characteristics of both particles and waves. Which one is observed depends solely on the experimental detection method.
    An instance of this is to be found in laser science - an area which I have spent much of my career in. The things which arise in the amplifying medium are photons. But as soon as they escape into the laser cavity, they become electromagnetic waves. The reason is that describing modes of oscillation within a laser cavity in terms of waves is much easier than attempting to do it in terms of photons - the reasons are pragmatic.
    Then what is your opinion about ultrashort pulsed lasers?
    In the information age ignorance is a choice.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    690
    quantum boom? a particle moving faster than its wave is forced into a linear motion light has a wave particle duality
    Last edited by fiveworlds; February 3rd, 2013 at 02:09 PM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    The Doctor Quantime's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    4,546
    Quote Originally Posted by JonG View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Markus Hanke View Post
    It doesn't really make much sense, because quantum objects have characteristics of both particles and waves. Which one is observed depends solely on the experimental detection method.
    An instance of this is to be found in laser science - an area which I have spent much of my career in. The things which arise in the amplifying medium are photons. But as soon as they escape into the laser cavity, they become electromagnetic waves. The reason is that describing modes of oscillation within a laser cavity in terms of waves is much easier than attempting to do it in terms of photons - the reasons are pragmatic.
    What's going on then? Is there any benefit to always describing them one way? Or is it ok that they be described as both?
    "If you wish to make an apple pie from scratch, you must first invent the universe". - Carl Sagan
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Manchester, UK
    Posts
    236
    Quote Originally Posted by Quantime View Post
    What's going on then? Is there any benefit to always describing them one way? Or is it ok that they be described as both?
    The simple fact is that we have no direct experience of photons or electrons, or subatomic particles of any kind. It makes no sense to ask what shape they are or to wonder what they would "look like". All we can do is list their properties as far as they are known. Some properties will be wavelike and some particle-like. In some situations it is more convenient to focus on the particle-like characteristics and in other situations on the wavelike characteristics.
    Strange likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    963
    Quote Originally Posted by JonG View Post
    [


    The simple fact is that we have no direct experience of photons or electrons, or subatomic particles of any kind. It makes no sense to ask what shape they are or to wonder what they would "look like". All we can do is list their properties as far as they are known. Some properties will be wavelike and some particle-like. In some situations it is more convenient to focus on the particle-like characteristics and in other situations on the wavelike characteristics.
    I agree we have "no direct experience" of these subatomic entities.
    Can you explain further why it makes no sense to wonder about their physical "appearance"?
    Is it because we lack, or possibly always will lack, the technological tools needed or is there some "deeper", more fundamental reason?
    I ask because if it was simply a matter of the limitations of early 21st century technology then it would be more accurate to say it was pointless, at present, rather than senseless, to wonder about their physical appearance. I'm being clumsy here, but the phrase "it makes no sense" to undertake some task implies the task is not only extremely difficult, but that success, even in the long term, is an impossibility.
    Maybe all this is down to the nature of subatomic particles and all we can expect is a fuller understanding of their properties or behaviour.
    The science fiction writer, Brian Stableford, described the electron as "an idea, not an object". It sounded good at the time!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9  
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Manchester, UK
    Posts
    236
    Quote Originally Posted by Halliday View Post
    .... the phrase "it makes no sense" to undertake some task implies the task is not only extremely difficult, but that success, even in the long term, is an impossibility.
    It is an impossibility. "Seeing" would not be possible because the wavelength of visible light is far greater than the size of the particles concerned. Equipment could not compensate for this. Using radiation of much shorter wavelength (e.g X-rays) so as to get a higher resolution image would significantly disturb the particle being observed, as short wavelength photons carry more energy than long wavelength photons. It would be like firing a canon at an egg in the hope of observing the egg. This latter effect is bound up with the uncertainty principle.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Posts
    11
    Quote Originally Posted by Markus Hanke View Post
    It doesn't really make much sense, because quantum objects have characteristics of both particles and waves. Which one is observed depends solely on the experimental detection method.
    It does make indeed alot of sense. When you take a picture of a small peice of matter being thrown towards a two slits, was is going to happen is the localisation principle. When electrons are orbiting around the nucleus of the atom, the motion of the electron must be matched with a time factor. But when you take a picture, time=0, wich means that the electron can no longer be just to one place, since it is property disabled. Every thing that possess a mass possess only a matter property, wich is the opposite of a wave, meaning the matter is not flowing. So look at what happen to the electron when pictured, the electron is going to wave! But here is the correct interpretation: Reality contains a flow of time, without it, electrons or any mass would simply wave, and there would be no reality as we live into. Interesting question that I already know the answer: What is more accurately representing reality between a picture of myself, and myself asking that question? I know the answer, it is myself asking the question, since the picture of myself is frozen in time, thus not representing the reality i live in.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #11  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    17,036
    Quote Originally Posted by painwithoutloveisenough View Post
    It does make indeed alot of sense. When you take a picture of a small peice of matter being thrown towards a two slits, was is going to happen is the localisation principle. When electrons are orbiting around the nucleus of the atom, the motion of the electron must be matched with a time factor. But when you take a picture, time=0, wich means that the electron can no longer be just to one place, since it is property disabled. Every thing that possess a mass possess only a matter property, wich is the opposite of a wave, meaning the matter is not flowing. So look at what happen to the electron when pictured, the electron is going to wave! But here is the correct interpretation: Reality contains a flow of time, without it, electrons or any mass would simply wave, and there would be no reality as we live into. Interesting question that I already know the answer: What is more accurately representing reality between a picture of myself, and myself asking that question? I know the answer, it is myself asking the question, since the picture of myself is frozen in time, thus not representing the reality i live in.
    Wow. A whole new level of incoherent nonsense. Well done.

    p.s. Did you start this thread under a different name: http://www.thescienceforum.com/new-h...ue-theory.html
    ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #12  
    Anti-Crank AlexG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    2,809
    Quote Originally Posted by painwithoutloveisenough View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Markus Hanke View Post
    It doesn't really make much sense, because quantum objects have characteristics of both particles and waves. Which one is observed depends solely on the experimental detection method.
    It does make indeed alot of sense. When you take a picture of a small peice of matter being thrown towards a two slits, was is going to happen is the localisation principle. When electrons are orbiting around the nucleus of the atom, the motion of the electron must be matched with a time factor. But when you take a picture, time=0, wich means that the electron can no longer be just to one place, since it is property disabled. Every thing that possess a mass possess only a matter property, wich is the opposite of a wave, meaning the matter is not flowing. So look at what happen to the electron when pictured, the electron is going to wave! But here is the correct interpretation: Reality contains a flow of time, without it, electrons or any mass would simply wave, and there would be no reality as we live into. Interesting question that I already know the answer: What is more accurately representing reality between a picture of myself, and myself asking that question? I know the answer, it is myself asking the question, since the picture of myself is frozen in time, thus not representing the reality i live in.
    Just more nonsense from the newest Painintheass.
    Its the way nature is!
    If you dont like it, go somewhere else....
    To another universe, where the rules are simpler
    Philosophically more pleasing, more psychologically easy
    Prof Richard Feynman (1979) .....

    Das ist nicht nur nicht richtig, es ist nicht einmal falsch!"
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #13  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Posts
    11
    I am really sorry for your misunderstanding of the universe, rather more should i say i am sorry for your illusion of knowledge that is worst than ignorance itself.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #14  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Posts
    11
    What a lack of intellectual capacity there is in the air. Anyways half of the guys are narrow minded and half are open minded or something like that. That means in other words that i can t give more of an importance to your pathetic ignorant state of intellectual rationnalisation, but yet satisfied with your low capacities. Long life to difference between same species!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #15  
    Anti-Crank AlexG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    2,809
    Quote Originally Posted by painwithoutloveisenough View Post
    I am really sorry for your misunderstanding of the universe, rather more should i say i am sorry for your illusion of knowledge that is worst than ignorance itself.
    This is a science forum. Perhaps you've mistaken it for someplace else.
    Its the way nature is!
    If you dont like it, go somewhere else....
    To another universe, where the rules are simpler
    Philosophically more pleasing, more psychologically easy
    Prof Richard Feynman (1979) .....

    Das ist nicht nur nicht richtig, es ist nicht einmal falsch!"
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #16  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    17,036
    Quote Originally Posted by painwithoutloveisenough View Post
    I am really sorry for your misunderstanding of the universe, rather more should i say i am sorry for your illusion of knowledge that is worst than ignorance itself.
    So you don't have anything useful to contribute? Just a lot of unsubstantiated waffle about electrons and your superior intelligence. And here we were hoping for a theory of everything...
    ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #17  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Posts
    11
    So you don't have anything useful to contribute? Just a lot of unsubstantiated waffle about electrons and your superior intelligence. And here we were hoping for a theory of everything...[/QUOTE]

    "Trying to reason with delusional people is impossible, otherwise there would be no delusional people"
    Reply With Quote  
     

  19. #18  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    17,036
    That will be a no, then.
    ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
    Reply With Quote  
     

  20. #19  
    Anti-Crank AlexG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    2,809
    Pain just got banned over at Scienceforums.net in what I believe to be record time.

    Looks like he's trying to break that record here.
    Its the way nature is!
    If you dont like it, go somewhere else....
    To another universe, where the rules are simpler
    Philosophically more pleasing, more psychologically easy
    Prof Richard Feynman (1979) .....

    Das ist nicht nur nicht richtig, es ist nicht einmal falsch!"
    Reply With Quote  
     

  21. #20  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Posts
    11
    This is a science forum. Perhaps you've mistaken it for someplace else.[/QUOTE]

    This is exactly where i should post my thoughs, being scientific where you consider science by its own definition, and not by the definition of what circulates in your brain, emptyness i could say.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  22. #21  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    17,036
    I guess turning up, contributing nothing useful, creating a sock puppet, and insulting people at random is a good start.
    ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
    Reply With Quote  
     

  23. #22  
    Anti-Crank AlexG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    2,809
    Pain, if you go to unexplainedmysteries.com, you'll find a lot of the same kind of empty nonsense as you post.
    Its the way nature is!
    If you dont like it, go somewhere else....
    To another universe, where the rules are simpler
    Philosophically more pleasing, more psychologically easy
    Prof Richard Feynman (1979) .....

    Das ist nicht nur nicht richtig, es ist nicht einmal falsch!"
    Reply With Quote  
     

  24. #23  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Posts
    11
    Quote Originally Posted by AlexG View Post
    Pain just got banned over at Scienceforums.net in what I believe to be record time.

    Looks like he's trying to break that record here.
    I said to iodine, the staff, that she was a sucking bitch that likes it in the ass, i guess she needed to banned me due to the fact that she was getting horny over my speech
    Reply With Quote  
     

  25. #24  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    17,036
    Quote Originally Posted by painwithoutloveisenough View Post
    This is exactly where i should post my thoughs, being scientific where you consider science by its own definition, and not by the definition of what circulates in your brain, emptyness i could say.
    OK. You said you had a theory of everything. Why not (in that thread) present the theory, the evidence and the supporting mathematics. Ideally, with a way to test your ideas. You know, get all sciency about it. (I assume you know what "science" means?)

    Oh. Apparently you are just a troll. <shrug>
    ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
    Reply With Quote  
     

  26. #25  
    Anti-Crank AlexG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    2,809
    Quote Originally Posted by painwithoutloveisenough View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by AlexG View Post
    Pain just got banned over at Scienceforums.net in what I believe to be record time.

    Looks like he's trying to break that record here.
    I said to iodine, the staff, that she was a sucking bitch that likes it in the ass, i guess she needed to banned me due to the fact that she was getting horny over my speech
    And it looks like he will break that record.
    Its the way nature is!
    If you dont like it, go somewhere else....
    To another universe, where the rules are simpler
    Philosophically more pleasing, more psychologically easy
    Prof Richard Feynman (1979) .....

    Das ist nicht nur nicht richtig, es ist nicht einmal falsch!"
    Reply With Quote  
     

  27. #26  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Posts
    11
    Well what is a proof for you anyways? You know, the two things a gave to Einstein works was to agree that 1. Relativity is a real concept. 2. time is a second dimension if agreeing on space as being one. So what is proof in your eyes?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  28. #27  
    Anti-Crank AlexG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    2,809
    2. time is a second dimension if agreeing on space as being one.
    More ignorant babbling.
    Its the way nature is!
    If you dont like it, go somewhere else....
    To another universe, where the rules are simpler
    Philosophically more pleasing, more psychologically easy
    Prof Richard Feynman (1979) .....

    Das ist nicht nur nicht richtig, es ist nicht einmal falsch!"
    Reply With Quote  
     

  29. #28  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Posts
    11
    Quote Originally Posted by AlexG View Post
    2. time is a second dimension if agreeing on space as being one.
    More ignorant babbling.
    What you just did, is to insult Einstein on his understanding of the universe, how shameful should you be right now
    Reply With Quote  
     

  30. #29  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    17,036
    Pain, do you have a point you want to make?
    ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
    Reply With Quote  
     

  31. #30  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Posts
    1,620
    Quote Originally Posted by painwithoutloveisenough View Post
    I said to iodine, the staff, that she was a sucking bitch that likes it in the ass, i guess she needed to banned me due to the fact that she was getting horny over my speech
    Oh how eloquent!That is quite sufficient for a banning
    Reply With Quote  
     

  32. #31  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Posts
    11
    OK. You said you had a theory of everything. Why not (in that thread) present the theory, the evidence and the supporting mathematics. Ideally, with a way to test your ideas. You know, get all sciency about it. (I assume you know what "science" means?)

    Oh. Apparently you are just a troll. <shrug>[/QUOTE]

    You say you want evidence, but tell me what kind? Do you want me to prve that the speed of light is infinite and adapting on the distance it needs to travel? Do you want me to prove that wave and matter doesn t share the property of one another? What exactly do you want me to prove you? Yes there is an theory unifying the very small to the very large, yet i don t think you can understand it. Actually i don t know and i don t care anyways.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  33. #32  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Posts
    11
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    Pain, do you have a point you want to make?
    You don t care anyways, all i know is that there is a way of explaining the universe that is more representing the reality than GR and QM, but anyways, who am i to make such statements? Nobody.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  34. #33  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Posts
    11
    [/QUOTE]Oh how eloquent!That is quite sufficient for a banning[/QUOTE]

    I got nothing to lose, nothing to prove.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  35. #34  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Posts
    2
    You wan me to prove the light speed thing? Easy. The proof of the speed of light being 300 000 km/sec. is an observation of jupiter. When scientists made the prediction of where jupiter would be in relation with the earth on paper, it wouldn t match the observation with telescope. They concluded that it was because the light has a constant speed wich makes the ilusion of a different positionning of jupiter in relation with the earth. But that is only an interpretation, just like quantum theory, the light speed is a theory. Jupiter is in calculation to one place, and when observed in another one ( double slit experiment?!?!), so that to happen means that the light is infinite, when reaching both objects at the same time, it ultimately means that in calculation,(time disabled) the coordinates won t be the same. But in reality, there is no such thing as measuring the position of A and B without taking into account the time factor. Anyways, to prove what i m saying: here s some numbers you might like to consider: sun's luminosity or radiation towards the earth is of 3.5exponent23 Kjoules per sec.: space ( distance cubed) between sun and earth is 3.5exponent23 Kmeters, where space equals as we all know the volume. The radiation per second or the light's photon amount equals the space in Km per sec. [ Amazing proof] Now apologies would be great.
    Last edited by Cookies; February 6th, 2013 at 07:55 PM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  36. #35  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Posts
    2
    hello
    Reply With Quote  
     

  37. #36  
    Forum Isotope
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Western US
    Posts
    2,854
    Oh how eloquent!That is quite sufficient for a banning[/QUOTE]

    I got nothing to lose, nothing to prove.[/QUOTE]

    Post after post reveals that you can't even master the proper use of quote tags. I doubt you possess sufficient mental endowment to create a theory of everything.

    Buh-bye.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  38. #37  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    17,036
    Quote Originally Posted by Cookies View Post
    hello
    Quote Originally Posted by Cookies View Post
    You got something to say maybe? Maybe something against what i stated?
    Desperate for attention are we?
    ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
    Reply With Quote  
     

  39. #38  
    Anti-Crank AlexG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    2,809
    We seem to have been infected by a troll.

    Again.
    Its the way nature is!
    If you dont like it, go somewhere else....
    To another universe, where the rules are simpler
    Philosophically more pleasing, more psychologically easy
    Prof Richard Feynman (1979) .....

    Das ist nicht nur nicht richtig, es ist nicht einmal falsch!"
    Reply With Quote  
     

Similar Threads

  1. Wave-Particle Duality
    By guymillion in forum Physics
    Replies: 14
    Last Post: May 25th, 2012, 05:39 PM
  2. Replies: 7
    Last Post: April 2nd, 2012, 03:51 AM
  3. Wave-Particle Duality...
    By x(x-y) in forum Physics
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: August 7th, 2010, 07:12 AM
  4. wave particle duality
    By shawngoldw in forum Physics
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: July 8th, 2007, 10:08 AM
  5. Wave/particle duality
    By Stranger in forum Physics
    Replies: 54
    Last Post: August 6th, 2006, 03:35 AM
Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •