Could a very rapid change of state of a particle be responsible for quantum uncertainty?

Hello.

Here is a question for quantum mechanics: could it be that what we perceive as a particle wave be a particle cycling through different states much faster than we can perceive it?

For example, in the double slit experiment, when we shoot a single photon towards the screen, we get an interference pattern because the particle quickly changes through all possible positions within a specific range.

But when we shoot two photons towards the screen, the two particles, moving from one position to the other, interact at some positions, their movement pattern changes, and so the interference pattern disappears.

Wave motion is established by the dual slit experiment.
Some people want to talk about photons and particles for their own reasons.
Mostly to understand quantum effects of atomic absorption as I found out in physics lab.
Apparently Einstein modeled the atom talking in quantum energy as I was looking at the sodium
lamp spectrum and asked if I see the lines. Sure the yellow light of sodium. No the
teacher said, see the black line of the quantum frequency absorption. There is no light
of that frequency cause its going into the atom.

reply to post by TeslaandLyne


Yes, wave motion is established, but what if the wave is not really a wave but a particle jumping around really quickly?

YES,, with the existence of a Higgs Boson.

as wave energy needs an a,,,b,,,c.
point of refrence.

c would be Higgs.

so YES.

sorry CERN.

Me.

Originally posted by masterp
reply to post by TeslaandLyne

 

Yes, wave motion is established, but what if the wave is not really a wave but a particle jumping around really quickly?

Yes with multiple particles such as large amount of electrons being sent to a dual slit
screen, a dual nature appears and the waves signature appears. However if electrons
are like light then we still have a wave pattern.
Like the old TV tubes that sent electrons to the plus voltage potential.
A beam was formed to hit a area of phosphorescent material for the TV picture, no beam
spreading was allowed. If the many electrons are sent to dual slits then two bar appear
and wave interaction is seen. So if you say the electron is a particle it also behaves like
a wave.

Here is a much more important experiment by Crookes:

Crookes pinwheel tube

Atomic Theory/ Chem. behavior Flashcards www.flashcardmachine.com › Flashcards Oct 14, 2007 – Crookes tube green beam of light deflected by magnet. Discovers green beam is able to spin pinwheel in tube. Beam attracted toward positive ...

Some guy named Tesla continued the action of electron force over matter.
Too bad science needs to dwell on petty matters like dual nature of massive amounts of
sprayed electrons when the concentration of electron force has seemingly gotten the
flying machine into the imagination of at least 1% of the world.By concentrating a very high
potential voltage Tesla attracted an untold amount of captured electrons in the atmosphere.
ED: Do not think we deal with isolated electrons, we say they are captured by the atom.
Hate to bring up Tesla again but he said if an isolated electron ever hit the air it would be
bright as a star.
ED+: The jumping around of the electron is in the atom. And that is why we can not determine
its location and the uncertainty principle is adhered to.
Ed++: The way electrons were generated was to heat a filament and when they jump out they
get attracted to the plus voltage. But isn't light generated from a hot filament. Why can't
an electron be like light but way more attracted to a voltage.

reply to post by masterp

It doesn't hurt to think about it in the way you propose, so long as you imagine that the motion of the particle is so rapid as to enable it to be everywhere in the universe at once. Are you up for that?

Originally posted by Astyanax
reply to post by masterp

 

It doesn't hurt to think about it in the way you propose, so long as you imagine that the motion of the particle is so rapid as to enable it to be everywhere in the universe at once. Are you up for that?

Right on. Going back to Higgs boson (The "God particle") - something's gotta have mass right? Or is it the interlocking spin of the up-quarks and single down-quark in the proton?

And if that's not strange enough, consider the composition of a proton (2 up quarks and a down quark), and what holds them together, and their spin... and where are they within the proton? And what are those made up of? small can be infinitely considered and so far the speeds of motion vs our speed of observations still can only assign a probability field to the location of electrons and protons... so per the OP, there is a speed aspect too.

reply to post by masterp

For example, in the double slit experiment, when we shoot a single photon towards the screen, we get an interference pattern because the particle quickly changes through all possible positions within a specific range.

When was a single photon isolated.
How was the photon moved.
I don't recall this experiment.
This seems hypothetical.

In the electron tube scientists thought electrons were moved to a positive voltage and as
particles somehow showed light interference patterns. The scientists pre supposed
electrons to be particles and could easily be waves of light type disturbance in the
vacuum tube that is extremely motivated by positive voltage. Thus the electron action
may be said to be wave like.

Anything past the electron experiment I would have to see what was going on like
how a proton was isolated or the photon was isolated and such.

Some strange scientific theories are thought to be based on religious beliefs. I kind
of wondered what that was all about if physics was to deal with the physical world.
Some how relativity has a source in writers that might have been in religious orders
according to author and researcher Lyne. I would have the say the bi location theory
is strictly a religious offshoot attributed to saints in their lifetime being in two places
at one time.

I know that the current accepted model says I'm wrong but I just can't see a fundamental "particle" as anything but a wave. A fundamental wave alone has no real meaning until it meets another in space and we see this as a "solid" particle. So much points toward this.

The awkward part is that a wave is movement of a medium and the Michelson/Morley experiment, undertaken in 1887, found NO EVIDENCE of said medium according to some very logical assumptions and predictions of it's properties. Hendrik Lorentz explained the result was due to length contraction, and ALL matter is affected equally so no result could be detected in that experiment. Relativity, some 18+ years later showed that there was no need to see space as a "something" but did not rule it out. Oddly enough, length contraction is not only predicted by relativity, it is necessarily intrinsic. Length contraction is now a given.

Lorentz was not just one of the greats, he was one of the best. He provided much of the framework for relativity and indeed was the physicist Einstein drew inspiration from and admired the most. He was Einstein's mentor and Einstein's relativity was the finishing touch on Lorentz's work. Lorentz never gave up on the idea of space as a "something" to the day he died.

I feel that space as a "something" is inescapable. It's funny how it was once referred to as the Aether, but when the Michelson/Morley experiment found no evidence of the Aether, the same basic concept quietly arose again in relativity as "spacetime" and gravity as the curvature of spacetime (or a gradient of more or less dense regions of the Aether). More recently, the fabric of spacetime and even the zero point. Totally empty space is never totally empty, it still has a "value greater than zero". In other words, it's a something. Just don't call it the Aether. There's no such thing...........

Originally posted by masterp
reply to post by TeslaandLyne

 

Yes, wave motion is established, but what if the wave is not really a wave but a particle jumping around really quickly?

Even if it did jump around faster than we perceive it still wouldn't act like a wave. ONLY WAVES can cause an interference pattern. It doesn't matter how fast it was moving, it would not cause an interference pattern because it would be unable to 'interfere' with itself. It's as simple as that.

reply to post by ChaoticOrder

ONLY WAVES can cause an interference pattern.

What would you say these waves were made of?