Particle / Wave Duality Revealed

Forums: Philosophy, Philosophy Of Science
Email this Topic • Print this Page

[CENTER][CENTER]Particle / Wave Duality Revealed

[/CENTER]
[/CENTER]
[CENTER][CENTER]There is much discussion in the area, especially by the unqualified minds. This is a simple explanation of the over-all process.[/CENTER]
[/CENTER]
[CENTER][CENTER]
Particle

[/CENTER]
[/CENTER]
[CENTER][CENTER]This is indeed a particle, it is light speed, you can't see it nor is it really there at the time of creation.[/CENTER]
[/CENTER]
[CENTER][CENTER]Since you are unable to see pure energy, you seeing a keying of a future event. Since this event happens before you time, at light-speed time is in a zero state[/CENTER]
[/CENTER]
[CENTER][CENTER]This keying of future event is indeed done at the quantum level, the c constant always remains. Directly due to the wake of the particles path, always done in the zero-state field. [/CENTER]
[/CENTER]
[CENTER][CENTER]
Wave

[/CENTER]
[/CENTER]
[CENTER][CENTER]A wave is exactly that, a wake of time in the future. Since we are not moving at all, we see the absolute motion of the particle's time-wake effect. Since we are able to stick it to a photon sensitive film, we see the particle like getting a fly caught in fly-paper. If you do not catch the particle you see the wake effect, again time-less. This way more than one photon is available for delivery, since there is no time effect to these particles, they remain in the universal-field for ever in time.[/CENTER]
[/CENTER]

Topic Stats
Top Replies
Link to this Topic

Type: Discussion • Score: 1 • Views: 2,403 • Replies: 21

No top replies

@BaCaRdi,

The phenomenon, in the quantum sense, is commonly now called a "particle-wave". At the quantum level, you only distinguish between "particle" and "wave" depending on how you make the measurement.

The Feynman Double Slit

1 Reply

@Pangloss,

Pangloss wrote:

The phenomenon, in the quantum sense, is commonly now called a "particle-wave". At the quantum level, you only distinguish between "particle" and "wave" depending on how you make the measurement.

The Feynman Double Slit

I think I lost you....

I just explained what is unknown....

The Dark-Axiom, Again these are everywhere, as macro / nano you wish to go.

There is not time, see what I am saying?

When you energize these particle they charge in the future of your time. Since they are always in the future to you, you will ALWAYS see the c
constant in your reality.

An no you don't really have a brain either......To be continued........

1 Reply

@BaCaRdi,

Bacardi,

I am a real noob when it comes to this sort of physics. I will be learning it in school soon by in the mean time I am curious as to what the differences are between the photon and the wave. I am also confused by your application of time to the wave phenomenon. Its interesting.

0 Replies

@BaCaRdi,

Bacardi, you are just talking nonsense, seriously...I have no idea what you are trying to say...

Holiday, if you want a good, short intro to interesting physics topics (including quantum physics), pickup "The Character of Physical Law" or "Six Easy Pieces", both by Richard Feynman. They are both easy to understand, without much math knowledge needed.

1 Reply

@Pangloss,

Pangloss - excellent but I've questions.
When it is known that everything is waves why should we expect anything to be straight forward when the experimental equipment is built of waves and even the observer is built of waves?
Is it even certain that the same particle generated is the one that arrives at the screen?
Why would a particle not retain wavelike properties when its source is always waves?
It seems much is made of a particle's bullet like qualities when it really never ever wholly behaves like one.

1 Reply

@Bracewell,

Bracewell;34529 wrote:

When it is known that everything is waves why should we expect anything to be straight forward when the experimental equipment is built of waves and even the observer is built of waves?

Hi Bracewell,

I don't know if anyone expects things to be straightforward- with experiments like the double slit, people found out that the act of making a measurement by observing a quantum event will alter the results of the experiment.

Quote:

Is it even certain that the same particle generated is the one that arrives at the screen?

Sure; these are highly controlled experiments, and have been repeated many times.

Quote:

Why would a particle not retain wavelike properties when its source is always waves?

It seems much is made of a particle's bullet like qualities when it really never ever wholly behaves like one.

The particle does retain wavelike properties; quantum physics principles restrict us to probabilities when dealing with particle-waves. The "bullet-like" qualities of a particle-wave can sometimes make it easier to understand what is going on, but is in no way a complete picture...

Quote:

In quantum mechanics, the particle is described by a wave. The position is where the wave is concentrated and the momentum, a measure of the velocity, is the wavelength. The position is uncertain to the degree that the wave is spread out, and the momentum is uncertain to the degree that the wavelength is ill-defined.

The only kind of wave with a definite position is concentrated at one point, and such a wave has an indefinite wavelength. Conversely, the only kind of wave with a definite wavelength is an infinite regular periodic oscillation over all space, which has no definite position. So in quantum mechanics, there are no states which describe a particle with both a definite position and a definite momentum. The narrower the probability distribution is for the position, the wider it is in momentum.

The uncertainty principle requires that when the position of an atom is measured, the measurement process will leave the momentum of the atom changed by an uncertain amount inversely proportional to the accuracy of the measurement. The amount of uncertainty can never be reduced below the limit, no matter what the measurement process.

Uncertainty principle - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

My knowledge on this subject is very limited, so I'm trying to explain it in the words of others that I have read/heard...even people with Phds in quantum physics will tell you that they don't really understand what is going on. If you really want to begin to understand quantum physics like a physicist, it requires knowledge of advanced math. If you want to understand the concepts and the philosophy issues implied by quantum physics discoveries, then the articles on wikipedia are pretty good, also the texts I mentioned by Richard Feynman (and others he has written), and various lectures available online (check out "berkeley physics" series of lectures on google video, and MIT's OCW).

0 Replies

@BaCaRdi,

I have a complete picture do you?

The Matter Wave Effective Principles

As depicted in my video demonstration, your seeing the Dark-Axiom at work, via the lacing of light / matter into the Carbon Lattice.

What you seem not to comprehend is there is NO TIME, your incomplete interpretations of the wiki frontiers', falls to ashes in the presence of Orion the Star Of GOD!

2 Replies

@BaCaRdi,

BaCaRdi;34568 wrote:

I have a complete picture do you?

The Matter Wave Effective Principles

As depicted in my video demonstration, your seeing the Dark-Axiom at work, via the lacing of light / matter into the Carbon Lattice.

What you seem not to comprehend is there is NO TIME, your incomplete interpretations of the wiki frontiers', falls to ashes in the presence of Orion the Star Of GOD!

Right...which science-fiction novel did you get this from? :sarcastic:

0 Replies

@BaCaRdi,

Pangloss and Bracewell; and Bacardi (without the ambiguity plz), is it possible that with the particle and the wave properties exhibited by the same "subject" (ex. electron), are really just different perceptions of the subject. The object is not changing but just appears differently in different perceptions that physicists overlook or underestimate. The subject is not really changing and doesn't have a wave state or particle state, but appears completely different in other perceptions.

When randomness or entropy increases as we get further into the micro level, I believe that the measurable difference between two perceptions of the subject would be allowed to be less and less while exhibiting the same perceived drastic differences.

2 Replies

@Holiday20310401,

Also, just to quickly note I have this crazy notion that the uncertainty principle suggests the universe monifies at some point if we get 'small enough'. I don't like to see it that way, I'd rather say when we get 'farther away from the normative perception', to account for the quadratical nature Laughing

(there's a new word) of what I'm thinking here, so as to account for the macro perception (because what's the difference, right.)

1 Reply

@BaCaRdi,

Lets take it to the valence ring?

State of Time Valence

Lets speak of the principles of the effect as noted a highest imaginable sky scraper.
The under and over laying effects are indeed Love and Trust. This affects the upper and lower particles via the TRoN ToN effect I have outlined many times.

As the states become higher the over and underlaying bound entities are also ascended in time. This is the time continuum you can't seem to let go. There are many incomprehensibly principles I can't go into at this time.. Please understand this is "Galactic Foot-Print".

-Orion Defenders' of the Frontiers' of Time................

Holiday20310401 wrote:

Also, just to quickly note I have this crazy notion that the uncertainty principle suggests the universe monifies at some point if we get 'small enough'. I don't like to see it that way, I'd rather say when we get 'farther away from the normative perception', to account for the quadratical nature (there's a new word) of what I'm thinking here, so as to account for the macro perception (because what's the difference, right.)

This is ToN TRoN bound by love for the ordinal values, below and above.
TRoN is the top ladder for mankind, ToN is the particle entry to space ordinals.

-Orion

0 Replies

@Holiday20310401,

Holiday20310401 wrote:

The object is not changing but just appears differently in different perceptions that physicists overlook or underestimate. The subject is not really changing and doesn't have a wave state or particle state, but appears completely different in other perceptions.

It is a very interesting comment.

If we do not observe which path a single electron takes through an interferomenter, it only makes sense to consider that the interference pattern on the screen is the single electron taking both paths and interferring with itself. This is so opposed to common sense it was worth checking. If we try to observe the electron taking both paths, the interference pattern is lost and we see a single electron hit the screen.

In this example, the design of the experiment determines the behaviour ie the way in which we gather information determines the outcome of the experiment.

If the subject is not really changing as we percieve it then what is it when we are not observing it?

2 Replies

@Holiday20310401,

Pangloss wrote:

Right...which science-fiction novel did you get this from? :sarcastic:

I think the literary nonsense is original

BaCaRdi wrote:

This is ToN TRoN bound by love for the ordinal values, below and above.
TRoN is the top ladder for mankind, ToN is the particle entry to space ordinals.

-Orion

0 Replies

@validity,

I suppose the most obvious question is, does the universe; actuality, reality.. the whole/everything, exist in our mind?

Also regarding the experiment, so the particle and the wave are observed by the same technique? Is there any difference that at least predictably establishes which outcome is observed; wave or particle. Actually... is technique even the right word?

1 Reply

@BaCaRdi,

0 Replies

@validity,

validity wrote:

If the subject is not really changing as we percieve it then what is it when we are not observing it?

Well I am getting the impression that the behaviour of the subject is just the change the subject undergoes.

So perhaps there is a reciprocal allocation as we get to the micro perception. I am not sure why I consider all universe-phenomenon to be like this but, I always consider (but not hold true to) things to have an inverse in which their existence is advantageous to such inversed tactics. It all started when I realized that infinity is the same as nothingness even with the opposing duality to the mind. So what we perceive of the subject might have some sort of reciprocal allocation as perceived when no change is really happening because the same thing is happening anyways. The mind just sees things binarically, dually. The reciprocal reciprocity and such other stuff.

Anyways...

So it is just changing the conditions that we observe, not really true motion. Change is change in conditions, and perhaps conditions work in a gradient that is proportional to information. The more into macro perception we get (because it is our normative perception of information) the more information we have so the more smooth the gradient is where change can apply in conditions. The changing of conditions can appear smooth in our normative, and in the micro, the information is limited. So the gradient of information is rough, and the change in conditions is less fluid, appearing random to our perception. Spatially is the gradient, motion is the appeared flow of information. I dunno. Laughing

So... how do I reconcile this absurdity with the measured aspect. Let me think a little.

Ok so if I don't measure the subject then what will it do? And we cannot seem to know what it is doing until it is measured. Well it must obviously be quite random to our perception. I just need one more piece of information.

What is the difference between a wave and a particle in terms of perceiving it? And what are the differences in the properties of such.

2 Replies

@Holiday20310401,

Holiday20310401 wrote:

I suppose the most obvious question is, does the universe; actuality, reality.. the whole/everything, exist in our mind?

The concepts we use to describe the way in which we percieve the universe are a product of our mind, but I think there is a reality independant of our mind as I consider that the universe came into being and evolved before our mind evolved on earth to consider such a notion. Although, are those observations that tell us this, giving us that information because of the experiments design?

Holiday20310401 wrote:

Also regarding the experiment, so the particle and the wave are observed by the same technique? Is there any difference that at least predictably establishes which outcome is observed; wave or particle. Actually... is technique even the right word?

The only thing that has changed in the technique is the gathering of additional information about the system ie put detectors to "see" the electron using both paths. The idea of a wave-function is used to describe for example, an electron that is in superposition ie takes two paths simulataneously, and subsequently collapses into a singleposition ie single path. This collapse of the wave-function is triggered by observation. The maths behind this is beyond me.

1 Reply

@Holiday20310401,

Ok so schrodinger sees states and superpositions, and I assume that when measurement is done the superpositions or 'uncertainty' is destroyed and a state is chosen. So... right when we get to a subjective observation, we see a binaric understanding? I mean, there is no superpostion of a digital sense of things. I mean [ 0,1 ] for example. What is the superposition of those two values. There isn't. But if we have more information, [ 0,1,0 ] , [ 1,0,1 ] ; then there can be a superposition. We can have [ 0,0,0 ] , or [ 1,1,1 ] etc. But we can't have both, so it must be random outcome if the 0 and the 1 are ideally the same. If not, then there is some way to predict the result's probability, which I assume there is. Because 1's stay as 1's, and 0's stay as 0's, right?

1 Reply

@Holiday20310401,

Holiday20310401 wrote:

Ok so if I don't measure the subject then what will it do? And we cannot seem to know what it is doing until it is measured. Well it must obviously be quite random to our perception. I just need one more piece of information.

What is the difference between a wave and a particle in terms of perceiving it? And what are the differences in the properties of such.

A particle takes a single path ie we see a single hit on the screen at the end of the interferometer. A wave takes all possible paths ie a interference pattern is seen on the screen.

0 Replies

Particle / Wave Duality Revealed

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know