It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: tetra50
I am waving at your particles while i pass by looking at your particular wave wondering about your particulate wave matter, lol
sorry to be wonky…….
tetra
originally posted by: Biigs
A wave is hard to deal with as a theory for solid substance. I dont think any particle is anything more than particular vibrations, a particle is just an easier way to think of it.
I think a lot of people have trouble understanding the more obvious truth about waves, most people like to point at a thing and call it a thing.
originally posted by: Ninipe
Okay, in my experience, there was a clean energy cut between the particles, in yours, there is a constant force building up and releasing the particles. That's kind of beautiful, like breathing, not as mechanical. So it is still the source that matters, and not the monkey looking at it.
originally posted by: smithjustinb
originally posted by: tetra50
I am waving at your particles while i pass by looking at your particular wave wondering about your particulate wave matter, lol
sorry to be wonky…….
tetra
You shouldn't wave at people's particles without getting to know that person first.
My understanding is that a wave doesnt become a particle until observed. This was demonstrated in the famous double-slit experiment. In the double slit experiment, a photon exhibits a wave interference pattern as it passes through two slits. Once the photon becomes observed as it passes through the slits, it doesn't exhibit an interference pattern, it just shows up behind the slit it was fired through.
originally posted by: midicon
a reply to: smithjustinb
My understanding is that a wave doesnt become a particle until observed. This was demonstrated in the famous double-slit experiment. In the double slit experiment, a photon exhibits a wave interference pattern as it passes through two slits. Once the photon becomes observed as it passes through the slits, it doesn't exhibit an interference pattern, it just shows up behind the slit it was fired through.
Isn't it a pity that we can't fire those photons more accurately? I wonder how deep those slits are and if their edges can affect the photons trajectory. It is always assumed that it's an either or and that the photon either goes through or doesn't. I can see how a banded pattern could appear when both sides of each slit are also affecting the experiment.
And also why is this somehow relevant to observation as if the act of observance affects the outcome? It has nothing to do with it.
You assume that because an experimenter opens another slit that somehow his observations are affecting things and not his actions.
originally posted by: midicon
a reply to: smithjustinb
I do understand the double slit experiment but I will watch those videos...I did watch one.
Anyway it would appear to be obvious that the detector affects the experiment.
And lastly...just because something is not understood completely doesn't mean we have to fill that gap in our knowledge with new age bunkum.
The fact about this subject is, the ability for the position of a particle to be known is what causes it to particleize. If there is any way that the position cannot be known (such as with the absence of a detector), it will position itself as a wave, and in true form, be unknowable objectively. This is proven science.
originally posted by: smithjustinb
The fact about this subject is, the ability for the position of a particle to be known is what causes it to particleize. If there is any way that the position cannot be known (such as with the absence of a detector), it will position itself as a wave, and in true form, be unknowable objectively. This is proven science.
If there is any way that the position cannot be known (such as with the absence of a detector), it will position itself as a wave, and in true form, be unknowable objectively.