It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Thank you.

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

page: 109
80
share:

posted on May, 10 2015 @ 04:20 PM
As Sean Carroll explained in the OP video, we don't really know which interpretation of quantum mechanics is correct.

If the deBroglie-Bohm (Pilot Wave) interpretation is correct, then the photon is a particle and a wave simultaneously, somewhat analogous to what's seen in this video though it's not really an accurate representation of the deBroglie-Bohm interpretation:

Yves Couder . Explains Wave/Particle Duality via Silicon Droplets [Through the Wormhole]

This video uses strobes on the effect in the above video, to possibly get a little closer to Pilot Wave model, and it shows some other similarities to the pilot-wave model:

The pilot-wave dynamics of walking droplets

If the deBroglie-Bohm interpretation is not correct, then the other interpretation you choose would say something different about the nature of the photon.

edit on 10-5-2015 by Arbitrageur because: clarification

posted on May, 10 2015 @ 07:23 PM

I have seen the first video, and both videos are very cool and intriguing but I am not sure it helps me with my wondering about the heavily purported wave-particle duality;

Is seems, the second one at least, to only open up another can of worms;

Which part represents the photon, the entire medium that is waving, or the particle on top? Do you consider that particle on top to be a wave? Is the medium that is waving composed of particles?

posted on May, 10 2015 @ 07:59 PM

originally posted by: ImaFungi

Can you give me an example of a hypothetical object in a hypothetical reality (or this one) that would be continuous?

Perhaps a Hilbert space would fit.

posted on May, 10 2015 @ 08:09 PM
IMHO, photon in particular, is neither wave or a particle. It is an 'event'.
I will try to explain.
When photon is released, it is released in quanta. Given it is pure energy and it has not mass, from that moment it begins to spread, becoming a wave. It is becoming light. No matter how narrow photon gun is, the bullet (photon) once leaving the barrel starts to swell indefinitely. Now, say our eye, or some other detector encounters that wave. What happens is that what ever is being on that wave's path can absorb that wave only by quanta (photon again). In essence, photon is a sample of the light wave on our eye retina or detector.
I cannot conceive an idea that light is a flow of individual tiny particles we call photons.

There is no duality at all in my opinion. But I am yet to find answers that would explain in realistic manner what duality means.

Photon is an event of emission or absorption of quanta of energy, every thing in between is a wave of pure energy that has no boundaries. Of course, photon being the sample of the wave will give us all characteristics of that wave.

Although, double slit experiment can be explained, IMO, by the following few thoughts:

Photon gun shoots photon (quanta of energy). If you aim at one of the slits and these slits are close to the photon gun then energy bullet simply has no time to exhibit its wave nature. And if you move slits far from the photon gun, wave patterns will become more prominent no matter how good of a shooter you are. In this case energy bullet swells large enough to exhibit it is a wave. Those dots on the screen on the other side of slits are simply impacts from most energetic part of the wave. And if slits far enough, like I said, you see probably no dots at all, no matter how well you aim at them. Just wave pattern.

That's how I see it so far))) LOL

DO.

posted on May, 10 2015 @ 09:08 PM

originally posted by: darkorange
IMHO, photon in particular, is neither wave or a particle. It is an 'event'.
I will try to explain.
When photon is released, it is released in quanta. Given it is pure energy and it has not mass, from that moment it begins to spread, becoming a wave. It is becoming light. No matter how narrow photon gun is, the bullet (photon) once leaving the barrel starts to swell indefinitely. Now, say our eye, or some other detector encounters that wave. What happens is that what ever is being on that wave's path can absorb that wave only by quanta (photon again). In essence, photon is a sample of the light wave on our eye retina or detector.
I cannot conceive an idea that light is a flow of individual tiny particles we call photons.

There is no duality at all in my opinion. But I am yet to find answers that would explain in realistic manner what duality means.

Photon is an event of emission or absorption of quanta of energy, every thing in between is a wave of pure energy that has no boundaries. Of course, photon being the sample of the wave will give us all characteristics of that wave.

Although, double slit experiment can be explained, IMO, by the following few thoughts:

Photon gun shoots photon (quanta of energy). If you aim at one of the slits and these slits are close to the photon gun then energy bullet simply has no time to exhibit its wave nature. And if you move slits far from the photon gun, wave patterns will become more prominent no matter how good of a shooter you are. In this case energy bullet swells large enough to exhibit it is a wave. Those dots on the screen on the other side of slits are simply impacts from most energetic part of the wave. And if slits far enough, like I said, you see probably no dots at all, no matter how well you aim at them. Just wave pattern.

That's how I see it so far))) LOL

DO.

The delayed choice experiments discounted this completely. The other problem by your description as light expanded it would lose frequency we don't see that happening.

posted on May, 10 2015 @ 09:47 PM

Which is why it is difficult to understand what light is.

Is it bullet balls that are shot around between objects?

Or is the universe full of a 3d web of strings that stretch the entire distance of the universe, called the EM field, which are plucked by the movement of charged particles?

posted on May, 10 2015 @ 09:48 PM

originally posted by: Bedlam

originally posted by: ImaFungi

Can you give me an example of a hypothetical object in a hypothetical reality (or this one) that would be continuous?

Perhaps a Hilbert space would fit.

Where is a hilbert space? What is it made of, does it contain the fields in it or around it? Is it pure nothingness?

posted on May, 10 2015 @ 09:52 PM

originally posted by: ImaFungi

originally posted by: Bedlam

originally posted by: ImaFungi

Can you give me an example of a hypothetical object in a hypothetical reality (or this one) that would be continuous?

Perhaps a Hilbert space would fit.

Where is a hilbert space? What is it made of, does it contain the fields in it or around it? Is it pure nothingness?

Hilbert space just makes it easy to use calculus on field equations. It sets length and width.It isn't the real world just anot easy way to do the math.

posted on May, 10 2015 @ 09:56 PM

Amazing & fascinating video, reminds me of the video above from AT&T Archives. I know its not the same thing, but it touches on the properties of waves and frequencies.

posted on May, 10 2015 @ 10:25 PM

originally posted by: ImaFungi
Which part represents the photon, the entire medium that is waving, or the particle on top?
I said "If the deBroglie-Bohm (Pilot Wave) interpretation is correct, then the photon is a particle and a wave simultaneously", doesn't that mean the photon would be represented by both?

Do you consider that particle on top to be a wave?
If you don't immediately get the analogy, that the particle represents the particle and the wave represents the wave, don't try to dissect it, as I don't think it's that accurate in describing a photon. I see it as merely a tool to illustrate how something which has both wave and particle properties and consists of both, can be demonstrated.

Is the medium that is waving composed of particles?
Aether experiments didn't show there was any medium waving. QED models the the photon as a perturbation of the quantum vacuum, which by itself generally doesn't contain physical particles.

posted on May, 10 2015 @ 11:34 PM

originally posted by: [post=19330477]Arbitrageur Even that last bit didn't make me mad until I asked them to stop posting their sourceless claims in this forum which is supposed to be for claims backed by sources, and they refused to go to the appropriate forum with those claims (skunk works).

Are you kidding?
What sort of source can one provide for 2 + 2 = 4

posted on May, 11 2015 @ 12:28 AM
To my understanding, James Clerk Maxwell said in his treaty on electromagnetism that from an arithmetical perspective electricity and magnetism are reciprocally related, and we can explain EM in terms of magnetism, rather than electrical. He said that the reason we look at electromagnetism from an electrical perspective is because of it's novelty. It sparks, sparkles, and generates heat. You can contract muscles with it. You can vibrate/compress crystal and generate it. You can create it chemically. You can spark it from a door to your finger, or from the heavens to the earth...

We, in modern times, relegate magnetism to "domains" and "moments"... Some transient state of energy with little use other than to react to an electrical current or some weak chemical attraction/reaction.

What experimental evidence proves this to be so? Or, rather, have there been any serious experiments looking at the reciprocity of their relationship? That is, examining EM from a magnetic denominator?

Perhaps that could shed some light on things?

posted on May, 11 2015 @ 05:22 AM

originally posted by: dragonridr

originally posted by: ImaFungi

originally posted by: Bedlam

originally posted by: ImaFungi

Can you give me an example of a hypothetical object in a hypothetical reality (or this one) that would be continuous?

Perhaps a Hilbert space would fit.

Where is a hilbert space? What is it made of, does it contain the fields in it or around it? Is it pure nothingness?

Hilbert space just makes it easy to use calculus on field equations. It sets length and width.It isn't the real world just anot easy way to do the math.

But it's continuous and not quantized.

posted on May, 11 2015 @ 05:44 AM

originally posted by: Flux8
We, in modern times, relegate magnetism to "domains" and "moments"... Some transient state of energy with little use other than to react to an electrical current or some weak chemical attraction/reaction.

What experimental evidence proves this to be so?
The discovery of the electron in 1897 was a key to understanding the phenomena, which Maxwell didn't know about since he died in 1879. His equations do show a beautiful reciprocity between electricity and magnetism in that a time variance of one induces the other.

Or, rather, have there been any serious experiments looking at the reciprocity of their relationship? That is, examining EM from a magnetic denominator?
We have hypothesized but never found a magnetic monopole. Some monopole-like behavior has been demonstrated in substances like Bose-Einstein condensate, but that's definitely not a true monopole. It would probably take a discovery of something like a magnetic monopole to have any chance of seeing the relationship as fully reciprocal and even then if the existence of magnetic monopoles turns out to be something which only existed briefly after the big bang, such a discovery wouldn't give magnetism full reciprocal status.

Since the electron which dominates electricity, is apparently responsible for most electrical and magnetic phenomena, wouldn't we be justifiably biased in thinking of magnetism perhaps being secondary to electricity, now that we know about the electron (which Maxwell didn't)?

posted on May, 11 2015 @ 10:59 AM

originally posted by: dragonridr

originally posted by: darkorange
IMHO, photon in particular, is neither wave or a particle. It is an 'event'.
I will try to explain.
When photon is released, it is released in quanta. Given it is pure energy and it has not mass, from that moment it begins to spread, becoming a wave. It is becoming light. No matter how narrow photon gun is, the bullet (photon) once leaving the barrel starts to swell indefinitely. Now, say our eye, or some other detector encounters that wave. What happens is that what ever is being on that wave's path can absorb that wave only by quanta (photon again). In essence, photon is a sample of the light wave on our eye retina or detector.
I cannot conceive an idea that light is a flow of individual tiny particles we call photons.

There is no duality at all in my opinion. But I am yet to find answers that would explain in realistic manner what duality means.

Photon is an event of emission or absorption of quanta of energy, every thing in between is a wave of pure energy that has no boundaries. Of course, photon being the sample of the wave will give us all characteristics of that wave.

Although, double slit experiment can be explained, IMO, by the following few thoughts:

Photon gun shoots photon (quanta of energy). If you aim at one of the slits and these slits are close to the photon gun then energy bullet simply has no time to exhibit its wave nature. And if you move slits far from the photon gun, wave patterns will become more prominent no matter how good of a shooter you are. In this case energy bullet swells large enough to exhibit it is a wave. Those dots on the screen on the other side of slits are simply impacts from most energetic part of the wave. And if slits far enough, like I said, you see probably no dots at all, no matter how well you aim at them. Just wave pattern.

That's how I see it so far))) LOL

DO.

The delayed choice experiments discounted this completely. The other problem by your description as light expanded it would lose frequency we don't see that happening.

We do. It called red shift.

DO.

posted on May, 11 2015 @ 12:43 PM

originally posted by: Arbitrageur
I said "If the deBroglie-Bohm (Pilot Wave) interpretation is correct, then the photon is a particle and a wave simultaneously", doesn't that mean the photon would be represented by both?

I registered that statement, I was asking questions under the agreement of your first statement.

And no it doesnt mean that, because the video analogy is far from capturing what is claimed reality to be; 3d.

You have to try and explain what that particle is, how it would have been formed, and what the medium underneath it is, while thinking that in reality, the medium must also be on top of the ball, and on all sides!

Aether experiments didn't show there was any medium waving. QED models the the photon as a perturbation of the quantum vacuum, which by itself generally doesn't contain physical particles.

If the interpretation you made a statement about is correct, and the video you showed to attempt to analogize that statement is what you showed, and there is a waving medium in that video with a ball over it, I can ask the very valid question; is that waving medium composed of particles?

edit on 11-5-2015 by ImaFungi because: (no reason given)

posted on May, 11 2015 @ 12:45 PM

originally posted by: Bedlam

originally posted by: dragonridr

originally posted by: ImaFungi

originally posted by: Bedlam

originally posted by: ImaFungi

Can you give me an example of a hypothetical object in a hypothetical reality (or this one) that would be continuous?

Perhaps a Hilbert space would fit.

Where is a hilbert space? What is it made of, does it contain the fields in it or around it? Is it pure nothingness?

Hilbert space just makes it easy to use calculus on field equations. It sets length and width.It isn't the real world just anot easy way to do the math.

But it's continuous and not quantized.

So is the unicorns horn in the Guintypoo realm

posted on May, 11 2015 @ 02:02 PM

originally posted by: darkorange
We do. It called red shift.
The Andromeda galaxy is blue shifted.

posted on May, 11 2015 @ 02:07 PM

originally posted by: ImaFungi
Which part represents the photon, the entire medium that is waving, or the particle on top? Do you consider that particle on top to be a wave? Is the medium that is waving composed of particles?

It's not exactly like that---it's more like the 'photon' is the elementary building block of the field which can exhibit waves.

posted on May, 11 2015 @ 02:10 PM

originally posted by: Arbitrageur

Since the electron which dominates electricity, is apparently responsible for most electrical and magnetic phenomena, wouldn't we be justifiably biased in thinking of magnetism perhaps being secondary to electricity, now that we know about the electron (which Maxwell didn't)?

Sort of, but we also know that real electrons additionally have intrinsic angular momentum and hence a magnetic moment. Is that 'electrical' only? I am unaware of any frame transformation which would make the intrinsic magnetic dipole 'go away' and only be electrical but I'm not an expert here.

Everything is interlinked---magnetic fields in one reference frame are electric fields in others (that was the main result of Einstein's primary paper on relativity!) and vice versa.
edit on 11-5-2015 by mbkennel because: (no reason given)

new topics

top topics

80