The first ever photograph of light as a particle and a wave

Yes but both have a frequency spectrum ( wavelength that can be measured ) that is the only reason that they can be useful in communications / sending and receiving information. Correction, they could use amplitude modulation ( AM ) instead of frequency modulation.( FM ) ( not a preferred method ) a reply to: ChaoticOrder

originally posted by: roth1
Light is absolutely a wave form. There are different frequencies of light from Gamma ray to infra red. ( different colors ) Frequency's can be measured, they can be additive or canceling and filtered with other colors, just like radio or sound.

Light is not a wave, it is not a particle, it is both relative to whether it is or isn't observed.

In the double slit experiment, if there is no observer it always behaves as a wave, if there is an observer it always behaves as a particle.

This is because of quantum uncertainty.

It is neither and both, and only becomes one when it either is or is not observed.

The weirdest part of this, is the fact that the light knew, even if it came from a billion light years away, that it would or wouldn't be observed, and rendered itself either a particle or a wave from it source.

It does not transform mid flight.

It is either emitted as a wave or a particle at the source.

So we place the emitter for the double slit experiment 1 light year away from the slits.

We fire photons.

We don't even set up the detectors until the day before it arrives.

The light will be particles, because it knew that it would be observed when it was emitted.

Same thing but this time we set the detectors up after the photons pass through the slits.

The light will behave as a wave.

This is not something that can be comprehended using logic.

This is something that just is.

The wuatum world does as it wills, logic be damned.

Crazy stuff really the more you learn about it.

Awesome picture even if it is computer generated.

I'd say that light being both particle and wave points toward us being more than just a body. Light is not something that is separate from us, it IS us in my opinion.

Are you the body (particle) or are you the one seeing the body (wave)? What you see right now, an image of light, is who you truly are. You are not just the body, you are what reveals the body as well, the image of light.

What you see (light) is an expression of what you really are deep down inside. You are both body (particle) and spirit (wave), the one seeing and the one that is seen. You are the image (of light) of God and you are made in God's image. Who else was called the image of God?

Awesome picture and story. S&F

I truly believe science is finally catching up to what spiritual teachers have been saying and talking about for ages now.

Light much like electricity excites particles. The more light applied the faster they move. That can be observed. Theoretically at absolute zero nothing will move. Light is energy and is heat. That excites these particles to move. It does not manufacture them.

Any particle observed with light is already there or is made from light affecting and object.

If light could make a particle, we could manufacture anything out of thin air with light. ( though if it were possible we do not have technology to arrange atoms ( proton, electron and neutron to make any element. ))

Here is an experiment. Put a light in a box on a scale. Measure the temp in the box and outside. Account for temperature changes as they would affect weight. If light makes particles it should weigh more. Leave it there for an infinite amount of time. Whatever is needed to prove or disprove. a reply to: johnwick

originally posted by: roth1
Yes but both have a frequency spectrum ( wavelength that can be measured ) that is the only reason that they can be useful in communications / sending and receiving information. Correction, they could use amplitude modulation ( AM ) instead of frequency modulation.( FM ) ( not a preferred method ) a reply to: ChaoticOrder

The point I'm making is that "light waves" and "radio waves" are made up of individual photons and each photon has wave-like properties and particle-like properties.

EDIT: The easiest way to think of radio waves is to image you could see the photons like light in the visible spectrum. If you had a powerful flash light you could send messages to someone far away by switching it on and off like morse code or by varying the intensity of the light. Someone with a photosensitive sensor could pick up the signal if they were in the path of your transmission. The fact that each individual photon has a wave function doesn't even really come into play.

Those protons, electrons and neutrons already exist in the air / the wire. They are just exited to action by energy. Electromagnetism, light, heat or mechanical movement. a reply to: ChaoticOrder

originally posted by: ChaoticOrder

originally posted by: roth1
Yes but both have a frequency spectrum ( wavelength that can be measured ) that is the only reason that they can be useful in communications / sending and receiving information. Correction, they could use amplitude modulation ( AM ) instead of frequency modulation.( FM ) ( not a preferred method ) a reply to: ChaoticOrder

The point I'm making is that "light waves" and "radio waves" are made up of individual photons and each photon has wave-like properties and particle-like properties.

Depending on whether they will be observed or not.

That is what makes the difference.

It was proved beyond doubt in the double slit experiment.

The presence or lack of an observer decides particle or wave form.

An observer can be a person or detector doesn't matter.

They just have to observe the photons before they reach the slits.

If they observe them, they will be particles.

If the photons aren't observed, they will be waves.

Every single time, with no debate possible.

This has been done probably millions of times at this point.

The outcome is always the same.

Just like dropping a hammer, it falls towards the source of gravity every single time.

Why does it fall? Gravity, but why does gravity make it fall? It just does.

Why does light travel as a particle if observed, or a wave if not? Quantum uncertainty. But why does it cause this? It just does.

a reply to: roth1

Why would a wire out gas in a vacuum? They even say that they're just measuring the energy gain/loss of the electrons that interact with the photons not the wire itself. Links not workin for me so I can't see what the wires made of, but I doubt such low energy levels would cause out gassing.

No low levels should not. But yes they do excite ( make them move ) . But the emitter itself may have the heat needed. Not the light itself. a reply to: NiZZiM

a reply to: johnwick

Depending on whether they will be observed or not.

That is what makes the difference.

It was proved beyond doubt in the double slit experiment.

The presence or lack of an observer decides particle or wave form.

An observer can be a person or detector doesn't matter.

Yes I'm well aware of how it works. I'm glad you mentioned the fact that it's not just conscious observers which can collapse the wave function. Any detector placed at the slits will cause the photon to act as a point-like particle even if the results of the detector are never observed by a human being. That is just the result of entanglement and decoherence imo.

Where is the picture? All I see is a video, which unfortunately, I'm unable to view.

For an explanation of why a single photon going through a double slit goes through both, see Richard Feynman's "sum over all paths" concept.

www.aip.org...

originally posted by: ChaoticOrder
a reply to: johnwick

Depending on whether they will be observed or not.

That is what makes the difference.

It was proved beyond doubt in the double slit experiment.

The presence or lack of an observer decides particle or wave form.

An observer can be a person or detector doesn't matter.

Yes I'm well aware of how it works. I'm glad you mentioned the fact that it's not just conscious observers which can collapse the wave function. Any detector placed at the slits will cause the photon to act as a point-like particle even if the results of the detector are never observed by a human being. That is just the result of entanglement and decoherence imo.

Exactly.

It isn't based on consciousness, but on observation, whether the photon will be sampled, thus observed.

It is almost like a photon can't be observed in wave form for dome reason, and makes itself observable for anything trying to.

Like it is a quantum flasher or something.

It reveals itself to any that are willing to look.

Very odd by our macro standards, and by micro standards as well.

The quantum world is just weird.

Particles just popping in and out of existence, energy reforming into matter, matter becoming energy, entanglements that link particles across space and time, the quantum foam.....

Most intriguing science we have discovered thus far.

If only I could have lived 100,000 years from now when we can make sense of this.....life sucks, it is too short to even begin to probe the things one actually wants to understand...

Tragic really.

a reply to: 0bserver1

What will come from this new method of quantum science and are we on the Virge of discovering that we change our world around us only by thinking and looking at it .?

Quantum physics is boring. Make us a better laser or transistor and be done with it.

a reply to: TrueBrit

There ARE some things in the universe, that we have discovered can be altered in their path, in their outcome if you will, by the mere act of observing them. 

That would almost mean that when the observation takes place . The object of observation would change their behavior?
That almost says that if the objects in observation chooses to take one form or the other , it's aware of being observed ?

a reply to: 0bserver1

That is not entirely the case...

Here...

en.m.wikipedia.org...

a reply to: TrueBrit

That maybe true but,

uncertainty principle, is any of a variety of mathematical inequalities asserting a fundamental limit to the precision with which certain pairs of physical properties of a particle known as complementary variables, such as position x and momentum p, can be known simultaneously

if this particle also turn out to be a wave , would that not ask to recalculate this whole theory?

Revising my words , I see that Albert Einstein already stated that light worked as a wave.. so it seems that it's nothing new . But only to make this visual is the extra item this theory is about..

a reply to: grey580

I'm not completely certain but I believe the colour coding has to do with the energy level of the excited particles , the energy packets being transferred from electron to photon and their energy and the change from wave to particle.

Either that or its a representation of the visible light spectrum as it sits on the dual wave particle photo ?!?!?!?!

but I'm more inclined to say its related to their energy.

a reply to: 0bserver1

No offense, but you are misrepresentatinh a lot of the science behind this. Mainly the wave/particle duality nature of light and the double slot experiment. We don't change light from one to the other by "looking at it," we change it by OBSERVING which slit it went through. These are often misunderstood but NOT the same thing. Just giving you a heads up, and trying not to sound too condescending.

I highly, highly recommend the book "Quantum, a guide to the perplexed" by Dr. Jim Al-Khalili to anyone even slightly interested in this kind of thing. Seriously I can't recommend it enough. A fantastic read that explains things about as well as possible without using the actual mathematics behind it. Which is safe to say isn't an easy feat.

www.amazon.com...

originally posted by: roth1
Light much like electricity excites particles. The more light applied the faster they move. That can be observed. Theoretically at absolute zero nothing will move. Light is energy and is heat. That excites these particles to move. It does not manufacture them.

Any particle observed with light is already there or is made from light affecting and object.

If light could make a particle, we could manufacture anything out of thin air with light. ( though if it were possible we do not have technology to arrange atoms ( proton, electron and neutron to make any element. ))

Here is an experiment. Put a light in a box on a scale. Measure the temp in the box and outside. Account for temperature changes as they would affect weight. If light makes particles it should weigh more. Leave it there for an infinite amount of time. Whatever is needed to prove or disprove. a reply to: johnwick

You know there are a good deal of rights and wrongs in this? The last thought experiment, the box does not weigh anymore, mainly because particles do not have to have mass. AND thats the point about light, photons have not been observed to have mass. Photons can depart momentum as you say though it isn't exactly the same thing as quanta transfer.

What is being used here is inverse Compton scattering, which is a tuneable process, where the statistical energy transfer can be well understood. That is you fire an electron with a known energy and you observe the change in direction AND energy in order to generate that graphic.

Materials do warm up due to excitation of the electrons etc but the process is NOT identical. Thermal effects in a material are phonons, that is movement and vibrations of valence electrons that in turn allow the nucleus to wobble around (extremely simplistic there) This being said, it is not the same as saying the more light you shine onto a material the faster it moves, because in reality you have a whole plethora of effects and energy exchanges occurring. The dominant form of excitation depends upon the wavelength of the light and not the intensity. I can shine a light at a material all day and it will not melt. Even in vacuum. Of course the intensity matters in what you are trying to achieve, but being concise is important.

As i said radiation pressure is a real effect, but your experiment of a box filled with light, is not a real effect.


Also single photons can be generated and counted and observed as single wave packets... spent a fair deal of time working with such systems.