Notices
Results 1 to 17 of 17

Thread: light as wave and particle

  1. #1 light as wave and particle 
    Forum Bachelors Degree Shaderwolf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    OPSEC, baby. Sorry.
    Posts
    425
    How can "observation" collapse the pattern in the double slit experiment? It's crazy!
    Explain the background on the "wave/particle" phenominon. How can we explain it? I hate not knowing things.


    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    223
    SO DO I!

    My question is is it our perception that makes it collapse or does it collapse anyway? Do we make it collapse by looking at it? Does this thing know we are looking at it? Do particles have a conscience?

    The closer i look the world just get's more and more weird and so the more the more fascinating.


    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    223
    I mean a conscious not a conscience. (note to myself - do not contribute to forums after 12pm GMT and after a glass of wine)

    Maybe they do have conscience? Maybe they feel bad about collapsing. Hey that's it maybe when they collapse it is an act of definition, that they have ended their usefulness in being potential and now we have witnessed them, they collapse. Perhaps holding themselves together as a particle takes alot of effort and strain and they are just holding in there quite bursting at the seems waiting for us to notice them and then when we do they can kind of exhale and burst into a wave?

    Well good ideas can come from spelling mistakes as well as fireside dreams
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    Moderator Moderator AlexP's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    NY
    Posts
    1,838
    The far-from-expert thought I had on this is that perhaps particles only collapse to us, because of our limited capabilities of observing particular aspects of the world around us.
    "There is a kind of lazy pleasure in useless and out-of-the-way erudition." -Jorge Luis Borges
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    Forum Professor sunshinewarrior's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    London
    Posts
    1,525
    The notion that sentient observation collapses a wave form is only one of three available hypotheses regarding waveform collapse, but it's the one they favoured in the Copenhagen interpretation.

    It unfortunately, via Schrodinger's famous thought experiment, appears to lead to the infinite regress of "who is watching the watcher".

    Another popular one is the many-worlds notion that any interaction creates one universe for each possible outcomes thereby realising every possible outcome.

    As I've said earlier here I prefer the decoherence idea that I picked up in Where does the Weirdness Go.

    As for the wavicle/conceptual problem, I prefer to think that every interaction is between particles, but its location is defined by wavelike motion between interactions. It's crude and inaccurate, but it's just about good enough to help prevent my brain seeping out through my ears when I have to think about the subject.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    20
    Is it the particles (photons?) that move in a wave like manner or are they two separate things working together?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    223
    For a couple of years now have i been interested in frequencies in sound light and matter, producing simple experiments of my own but mostly as a keen observer of new evidence.

    A photon is a particle of light

    All matter, as well as sound and light, seems to emit frequencies. These frequencies appear to be produced through the interaction of the particles of matter with each other which produce a vibration which is measured as a frequency. Even a piece of rock emits frequencies in this way. The inherent frequency seems to depend on the shape and density of the object as well as the structure of its particles and the way they fit together.
    So for example a quartz crystal will emit a particular frequency or 'signal' due to it's structure.

    We emit frequencies and our brains are renowned as powerful frequency machines. Everything our brains do and every thought we have emits frequencies.

    Therefore it doesn't suprise me in the least that our interraction through perceiving an object, atom, photon or sound will interfere with that frequency and change it's nature.

    The idea that the experimenter interferes with the experiment simply through perceiving the experiment makes alot of sense.

    Frequencies are wave forms and are not confined within a particular object, and because they are waves they travel outwards through space, unless blocked by an object or material which absorbs the wave.

    When we fix our attention on something, even if that something is not in our field of vision or aural perception, we can still influence that particular object by fixing our attention on that particular thing.
    By doing this we are orchestrating a particular brain frequency which is focused onto that particular object.

    Now i may be thrown into the vat of pseudoscientific theory and forever deemed a wacko with this belief, but from the evidence, and i tentatively add, not just from science, i will adamantly stand by this belief until evidence shows it to be absurd. And something can only be outrightly absurd in science if there is no possibility whatsoever that it could be true.

    Science is only just beginning to grapple with the possibility that the human brain 'mysteriously' seems to be able to influence it's surroundings simply through perception and thought. Yet since the dawn of time civilisations and particular groups seem to have known this to be true and have acted upon it. These people have been known as 'magicians', 'shamans,' 'occultists,' or 'mystics'.
    Science has deemed these people as charlatans or freaks simply because it has been difficult to prove and record such evidence of it's possibilities until now.

    I believe the double slit experiment is evidence of this 'possibility'.

    Yet is more of a probability due to the nature of our brains and the way it operates beneath our understanding of how it works based on our own perception of it.

    We still base all our evidence on what we perceive or what our machines can pick up. Yet we know that all our senses are very limited in their capabalities of perceiving the whole vista and range of what's possible or even the machines we construct. Unfortunately we still stubbornly refuse to admit further than our own very limited fields or advances in technology.

    Is it too 'far-out' to think that there is much more 'intelligence' on this planet than what our own brains are capable of? Is it not a possibility that the photon changes to a particle due to being influenced by our own brain frequencies and the act of concentrating on it, and it does this because this is it's very nature. That's what it's supposed to do. Otherwise it remains as a wave awaiting this potential. Perhaps our frequencies or waves interract with the photon and 'fix' it into being what it's own intention is, to become a particle or photon.

    I believe science needs to look closer at what human 'consciousness' is doing in this. The photon is just doing what a photon does.
    I also believe that this research will lead to a deeper understanding at just what the human mind is capable of.

    I do hope so, because i think this will lead to certain revelations that will force us to re-examine our selves and just what we are capable of. It will lead people to think carefully about our own thoughts, our feelings and especially what nature they undertake and where and how we focus them.

    If i think ill of someone who has done me wrong and wished bad things to happen to them, could i possibly cause that person harm through my thoughts and perception of them?

    This idea has always been fantasy, fiction and cast in the realm of the egotistical charlatan who call themselves 'magicians' but with new evidence and research this is becoming a possibility and now deserves serious study.

    Yet if this possibility is confirmed it could lead humans to a crisis. The potential to do good or harm through our thoughts and intentions.

    Ref:

    Popp, Fritz-Albert
    Sheldrake, Rupert
    Mitchell, Edgar
    Targ, Russell
    Puthoff, Hal
    Jahn, Robert
    Radin, Dean
    Pribram, Karl
    Frohlich, Herbert...........for starters, there are many other scientists, often called 'fringe' scientists who have explored these ideas

    Science has been tethered at the nose too long by the military and industry, thankfully many of the above scientists have took it on themselves to fund an explore these ideas.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    Forum Professor leohopkins's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Dulwich, London, England
    Posts
    1,418
    Quote Originally Posted by Chemboy
    The far-from-expert thought I had on this is that perhaps particles only collapse to us, because of our limited capabilities of observing particular aspects of the world around us.
    Well yeah, we may have two eyes, but we only have one brain !!

    We as a human race can only see or detect with our detection equipment, that which we CAN detect. We know from calculations that 99% of the universe is missing. Is it ? or are we just completely unable to detect it !?
    The hand of time rested on the half-hour mark, and all along that old front line of the English there came a whistling and a crying. The men of the first wave climbed up the parapets, in tumult, darkness, and the presence of death, and having done with all pleasant things, advanced across No Man's Land to begin the Battle of the Somme. - Poet John Masefield.

    www.leohopkins.com
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9  
    Moderator Moderator Janus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    2,239
    Quote Originally Posted by leohopkins
    Quote Originally Posted by Chemboy
    The far-from-expert thought I had on this is that perhaps particles only collapse to us, because of our limited capabilities of observing particular aspects of the world around us.
    Well yeah, we may have two eyes, but we only have one brain !!

    We as a human race can only see or detect with our detection equipment, that which we CAN detect. We know from calculations that 99% of the universe is missing. Is it ? or are we just completely unable to detect it !?
    If you are refering to dark matter, then we do detect it. We detect it by its gravitational influence on other matter. We just don't detect it via electromagnetic interaction, because it does not interact in that way.

    If we were completely unable to detect it, we wouldn't be aware of it by any means and we wouldn't even suspect its existance.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,035
    I'm not sure if the philosophical implications of the experiment are necessarily proven by the experiment. If light truly is a wave (maybe a disturbance of space-time, like gravity), then it would travel through both slits whenever it is un-impeded. The perception of photons could just mean there's a minimum threshold of energy that has to be reached before the wave actually does anything to matter.

    The whole experiment is interesting largely because it straddles the fence between observable and unobservable phenomena. We've pushed so far into a scale we can never fully interact with, that we're tempted to believe whatever we can't see isn't there, instead of just accepting that we're at our limit. (For now, anyway. There may be more such ingenious experiments thought of in the future.)

    It's frustrating not knowing, and not having any way to find out either. The philosophical question becomes one of how to deal with not being able to know something. Or maybe the question is whether passive observation is ever possible. The experiment seems to indicate that it is not.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #11  
    Forum Professor leohopkins's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Dulwich, London, England
    Posts
    1,418
    Quote Originally Posted by Janus
    Quote Originally Posted by leohopkins
    Quote Originally Posted by Chemboy
    The far-from-expert thought I had on this is that perhaps particles only collapse to us, because of our limited capabilities of observing particular aspects of the world around us.
    Well yeah, we may have two eyes, but we only have one brain !!

    We as a human race can only see or detect with our detection equipment, that which we CAN detect. We know from calculations that 99% of the universe is missing. Is it ? or are we just completely unable to detect it !?
    If you are refering to dark matter, then we do detect it. We detect it by its gravitational influence on other matter. We just don't detect it via electromagnetic interaction, because it does not interact in that way.

    If we were completely unable to detect it, we wouldn't be aware of it by any means and we wouldn't even suspect its existance.
    No. im not referring to dark matter. Scientists have taken dark matter into account when calculating the total mass of the universe; and they still come up 99% short.
    The hand of time rested on the half-hour mark, and all along that old front line of the English there came a whistling and a crying. The men of the first wave climbed up the parapets, in tumult, darkness, and the presence of death, and having done with all pleasant things, advanced across No Man's Land to begin the Battle of the Somme. - Poet John Masefield.

    www.leohopkins.com
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #12  
    Moderator Moderator Janus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    2,239
    Quote Originally Posted by leohopkins
    Quote Originally Posted by Janus
    Quote Originally Posted by leohopkins
    Quote Originally Posted by Chemboy
    The far-from-expert thought I had on this is that perhaps particles only collapse to us, because of our limited capabilities of observing particular aspects of the world around us.
    Well yeah, we may have two eyes, but we only have one brain !!

    We as a human race can only see or detect with our detection equipment, that which we CAN detect. We know from calculations that 99% of the universe is missing. Is it ? or are we just completely unable to detect it !?
    If you are refering to dark matter, then we do detect it. We detect it by its gravitational influence on other matter. We just don't detect it via electromagnetic interaction, because it does not interact in that way.

    If we were completely unable to detect it, we wouldn't be aware of it by any means and we wouldn't even suspect its existance.
    No. im not referring to dark matter. Scientists have taken dark matter into account when calculating the total mass of the universe; and they still come up 99% short.
    99% short of what?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #13  
    Forum Freshman IrishStu's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    62
    In quantum mechanincs, light comes in packets of particles called "Quanta" but Heisenberg's uncertainty principle says that particles can behave like waves. So... particles and waves are the same, if not very similar???

    Confusing...

    P.S. I just realized that the above dose not have anything to do with your question...
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #14  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    223
    Quote Originally Posted by Janus
    Quote Originally Posted by leohopkins
    Quote Originally Posted by Janus
    Quote Originally Posted by leohopkins
    Quote Originally Posted by Chemboy
    The far-from-expert thought I had on this is that perhaps particles only collapse to us, because of our limited capabilities of observing particular aspects of the world around us.
    Well yeah, we may have two eyes, but we only have one brain !!

    We as a human race can only see or detect with our detection equipment, that which we CAN detect. We know from calculations that 99% of the universe is missing. Is it ? or are we just completely unable to detect it !?
    If you are refering to dark matter, then we do detect it. We detect it by its gravitational influence on other matter. We just don't detect it via electromagnetic interaction, because it does not interact in that way.

    If we were completely unable to detect it, we wouldn't be aware of it by any means and we wouldn't even suspect its existance.
    No. im not referring to dark matter. Scientists have taken dark matter into account when calculating the total mass of the universe; and they still come up 99% short.
    99% short of what?

    Oh dear, didn't any of you people have a good Christmas. Perhaps all that dark matter and empty space was where you presents should have been?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #15  
    Moderator Moderator Janus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    2,239

    Oh dear, didn't any of you people have a good Christmas. Perhaps all that dark matter and empty space was where you presents should have been?
    I'm just simply trying to clarify what Leohopkins means by "99% of the universe is missing".

    If we can't detect it, how would we even suspect that it was there, let alone calculate how much of it there is?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #16  
    Forum Professor leohopkins's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Dulwich, London, England
    Posts
    1,418
    Quote Originally Posted by Janus

    Oh dear, didn't any of you people have a good Christmas. Perhaps all that dark matter and empty space was where you presents should have been?
    I'm just simply trying to clarify what Leohopkins means by "99% of the universe is missing".

    If we can't detect it, how would we even suspect that it was there, let alone calculate how much of it there is?
    My point is. If you add up all of th mass of the universe, you are still around 99% short of what you need for A) the standard inflationary model and B) the amount you need for gravity to hold the galaxies together.
    The hand of time rested on the half-hour mark, and all along that old front line of the English there came a whistling and a crying. The men of the first wave climbed up the parapets, in tumult, darkness, and the presence of death, and having done with all pleasant things, advanced across No Man's Land to begin the Battle of the Somme. - Poet John Masefield.

    www.leohopkins.com
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #17  
    Moderator Moderator Janus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    2,239
    Quote Originally Posted by leohopkins
    Quote Originally Posted by Janus

    Oh dear, didn't any of you people have a good Christmas. Perhaps all that dark matter and empty space was where you presents should have been?
    I'm just simply trying to clarify what Leohopkins means by "99% of the universe is missing".

    If we can't detect it, how would we even suspect that it was there, let alone calculate how much of it there is?
    My point is. If you add up all of th mass of the universe, you are still around 99% short of what you need for A) the standard inflationary model and B) the amount you need for gravity to hold the galaxies together.

    Let's take B first. Then you [i]are[i/] talking about dark matter. One of the ways the amount of Dark matter in the universe is calculated is by how much extra mass in needed to hold the galaxies together.

    Most estimates place the amount of dark matter at about 95% (not 99%) of the universe.

    As far as A is concerned: Yes, it is true that that the combined estimated amount of visible matter and dark matter combined comes up short of that thought needed for critical density. But it is nowhere near 99% short, it is more like 73%.

    But even this doesn't mean that this mass is "missing". The critical density problem can be solved by assuming a non-zero Lambda. This results in what is termed as "dark energy". This is what makes up for that 73%.

    Interesting enough, one of the things a non-zero Lambda does is predict that the universal expansion accelerates. Some recent observations seem to bear that prediction out.
    Reply With Quote  
     

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
  •