| Topic: |
Science > Physics |
| User: |
"" |
| Date: |
17 Apr 2007 08:48:54 PM |
| Object: |
Wave / Particle contradiction |
"Everyone knows" there's a contradiction between the wave and particle
concepts - a wave can't be a particle and vice versa. I never
understood it. Can someone please explain?
I understand wave to be any physical phenomena that satisfies the wave
equation. For a particle I didn't find any definition, but intuitively
it means something with energy, momentum and maybe velocity, defined
in some region of space/time. Why can't such a thing also satisfy the
wave equation? The only problem is that it may be somewhat hard to
imagine.
.
|
|
| User: "Androcles" |
|
| Title: Re: Wave / Particle contradiction |
18 Apr 2007 01:14:22 AM |
|
|
<partso2@yahoo.com> wrote in message =
news:1176860934.096656.226880@n59g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
"Everyone knows" there's a contradiction between the wave and particle
concepts - a wave can't be a particle and vice versa. I never
understood it. Can someone please explain?
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/AC/AC.htm
=20
I understand wave to be any physical phenomena that satisfies the wave
equation. For a particle I didn't find any definition, but intuitively
it means something with energy, momentum and maybe velocity, defined
in some region of space/time. Why can't such a thing also satisfy the
wave equation? The only problem is that it may be somewhat hard to
imagine.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Uncle Al" |
|
| Title: Re: Wave / Particle contradiction |
18 Apr 2007 09:05:12 AM |
|
|
wrote:
"Everyone knows" there's a contradiction between the wave and particle
concepts - a wave can't be a particle and vice versa. I never
understood it. Can someone please explain?
Quantum field theory and its empirical validation.
I understand wave to be any physical phenomena that satisfies the wave
equation. For a particle I didn't find any definition, but intuitively
it means something with energy, momentum and maybe velocity, defined
in some region of space/time. Why can't such a thing also satisfy the
wave equation? The only problem is that it may be somewhat hard to
imagine.
Try taking a year of physics or crack a textbook and read it.
--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/lajos.htm#a2
.
|
|
|
| User: "Androcles" |
|
| Title: Re: Wave / Particle contradiction |
18 Apr 2007 11:13:22 AM |
|
|
"Uncle Al" <UncleAl0@hate.spam.net> wrote in message =
news:46262598.F56A5BCF@hate.spam.net...
[snip river of ***** from Schwartzcyst]
Schwartz:=20
http://tinyurl.com/ck9r2
"Uncle Fuckwit" <UncleAl0@hate.spam.net> wrote in message =
news:45C399C4.D64D593C@hate.spam.net...
Newtonian physics is infinite lightspeed (instantaneous knowledge of
all aspects of a system),
You fuckin' ignorant, stoooopid, LYING *****!
ROEMER,DOPPLER, MICHELSON, SAGNAC!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ole_R%C3%B8mer
"Cassini had observed the moons of Jupiter between 1666 and 1668, and =
discovered discrepancies in his measurements that, at first, he =
attributed to light having a finite speed."
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/mmx4dummies.htm
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Sagnac/Sagnac.htm
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Doppler/Doppler.htm
Einstein: "we shall, however, find in what follows, that the velocity of =
light in our theory plays the part, physically, of an infinitely great =
velocity."
http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/
Get the ***** out of the river of *****, you are the biggest TORD in it, =
you lying fuckheaded *****! Go and worship Nehemiah Scudder!=20
***** and DIE!
This message is for *your* personal safety, brought to *you* by =
Dumbledore, the computer of Androcles, having passed my Turing Test
using Uncle Phuckwit for a guinea pig. How is my driving? =20
Call 1-800-555-1234
http://www.carmagneticsigns.co.uk/images/small/P_Plates.jpg=20
Worn with pride.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L-plate
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dr. V I Plankenstein" |
|
| Title: Re: Wave / Particle contradiction |
18 Apr 2007 08:57:21 PM |
|
|
"Everyone knows" there's a contradiction between the wave and particle
concepts - a wave can't be a particle and vice versa. I never
understood it. Can someone please explain?
I understand wave to be any physical phenomena that satisfies the wave
equation. For a particle I didn't find any definition, but intuitively
it means something with energy, momentum and maybe velocity, defined
in some region of space/time. Why can't such a thing also satisfy the
wave equation? The only problem is that it may be somewhat hard to
imagine.
Dont listen to these guys with their Vaudeville Physics schtick. Just
picture a one of the members of BlueManGroup at the blackboard scrawling
greek calligraphy and grimmacing, set to the music of Scott Joplin. If you
ever heard of the Keystone Cops, these guys are Keystone Physicists.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Sam Wormley" |
|
| Title: Re: Wave / Particle contradiction |
17 Apr 2007 09:54:08 PM |
|
|
wrote:
"Everyone knows" there's a contradiction between the wave and particle
concepts - a wave can't be a particle and vice versa. I never
understood it. Can someone please explain?
As it turns out... all small things can exhibit wave characteristics;
subatomic particles, atoms, molecules... even viruses.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wave-particle_duality
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/mod1.html
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Surfer" |
|
| Title: Re: Wave / Particle contradiction |
17 Apr 2007 11:28:45 PM |
|
|
On 17 Apr 2007 18:48:54 -0700, wrote:
"Everyone knows" there's a contradiction between the wave and particle
concepts - a wave can't be a particle and vice versa. I never
understood it. Can someone please explain?
This may help.
ProWave Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics
http://www.quantummatter.com/members/prowave_interpretation_of_q.html
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Sue..." |
|
| Title: Re: Wave / Particle contradiction |
18 Apr 2007 11:13:53 PM |
|
|
On Apr 17, 10:48 pm, wrote:
"Everyone knows" there's a contradiction between the wave and particle
concepts - a wave can't be a particle and vice versa. I never
understood it. Can someone please explain?
I understand wave to be any physical phenomena that satisfies the wave
equation. For a particle I didn't find any definition, but intuitively
it means something with energy, momentum and maybe velocity, defined
in some region of space/time. Why can't such a thing also satisfy the
wave equation? The only problem is that it may be somewhat hard to
imagine.
<< This article is an extended version of the article
"The double-slit experiment" that appeared in the
September 2002 issue of Physics World (p15). It has
been further extended to include three letters about
the history of the double-slit experiment with single
electrons that were published in the May 2003 issue
of the magazine.
What is the most beautiful experiment in physics? ... >>
http://physicsweb.org/articles/world/15/9/1
<<Now, does not the prize to Einstein imply
that the Academy recognised the particle
nature of light? The Nobel Committee says
that Einstein had found that the energy exchange
between matter and ether occurs by atoms emitting
or absorbing a quantum of energy,hv .
As a consequence of the new concept of light quanta
(in modern terminology photons) Einstein proposed the
law that an electron emitted from a substance by
monochromatic light with the frequency has to have
a maximum energy of E=hv-p, where p is the energy needed to
remove the electron from the substance. Robert Andrews
Millikan carried out a series of measurements over a
period of 10 years, finally confirming the validity of this
law in 1916 with great accuracy. Millikan had, however,
found the idea of light quanta to be unfamiliar and strange.
The Nobel Committee avoids committing itself to the
particle concept. Light-quanta or with modern terminology,
photons, were explicitly mentioned in the reports on
which the prize decision rested only in connection with
emission and absorption processes. The Committee says
that the most important application of Einstein's photoelectric
law and also its most convincing confirmation has come from
the use Bohr made of it in his theory of atoms, which explains
a vast amount of spectroscopic data. >>
http://nobelprize.org/physics/articles/ekspong/index.html
Sue...
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dr. V I Plankenstein" |
|
| Title: Re: Wave / Particle contradiction |
19 Apr 2007 07:49:37 AM |
|
|
<< This article is an extended version of the article
"The double-slit experiment" that appeared in the
September 2002 issue of Physics World (p15). It has
been further extended to include three letters about
the history of the double-slit experiment with single
electrons that were published in the May 2003 issue
of the magazine.
What is the most beautiful experiment in physics? ... >>
http://physicsweb.org/articles/world/15/9/1
From the link above, a quote from Feynman:
"Most discussions of double-slit experiments with particles refer to
Feynman's quote in his lectures: [ We choose to examine a phenomenon which
is impossible, absolutely impossible, to explain in any classical way, and
which has in it the heart of quantum mechanics.] "
I disagree with Feynman, I think that W-P Duality _can_ indeed be explainned
classically, and that the only thing which has prevented it from being
solved is beaurocracy, politics, and the risk factor of being wrong in
professional academia.
I would also disagree very strenuously that the universe "is nonsensical" on
the smallest scales. The problem is that there are a couple key mathematical
concepts which are missing. Concepts which were probably surpressed
historically due to a very understandable prejudice against paradoxes, I
suspect.
------------------------------------
And now, a clip from one of my fellow Americans, Rita Cosby , who seems to
think that I personally should not be allowed to vote, or have a job :
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VrYsF6GfzeI
GOD BLESS AMERICA !!!!!!
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "G=EMC^2 Glazier" |
|
| Title: Re: Wave / Particle contradiction |
19 Apr 2007 04:04:48 PM |
|
|
Sue reality is mass,and wave go together. Humankinds greatest theory
QM has the "wave-particle duality" as its basic feature of QM for it
tells us objects manifest both wavelike,and particle-like properties.
Sue we seem only to liken waves to photons,but to understand the
universe its not only light but we must relate waves to matter. Fact is
we must think of the electron as a particle,but as a wave as well. End
by saying in the two slit experiments electrons do the same thing as
photons. bert
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Eric Gisse" |
|
| Title: Re: Wave / Particle contradiction |
17 Apr 2007 09:51:52 PM |
|
|
On Apr 17, 5:48 pm, wrote:
"Everyone knows" there's a contradiction between the wave and particle
concepts - a wave can't be a particle and vice versa. I never
understood it. Can someone please explain?
I understand wave to be any physical phenomena that satisfies the wave
equation. For a particle I didn't find any definition, but intuitively
it means something with energy, momentum and maybe velocity, defined
in some region of space/time. Why can't such a thing also satisfy the
wave equation? The only problem is that it may be somewhat hard to
imagine.
Read about the single/double/n slit experiments with light which
suggest wavelike behaviour. Then read about Compton scattering and the
photoelectric effect, which suggest particlelike behaviour. Read about
electron, neutron and finally C-60 diffraction.
Then think for a little while.
The wave equation [there isn't any overarching wave equation] has
nothing to do with the matter at hand.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Justintruth" |
|
| Title: Re: Wave / Particle contradiction |
19 Apr 2007 08:08:51 PM |
|
|
On Apr 17, 6:48 pm, wrote:
"Everyone knows" there's a contradiction between the wave and particle
concepts - a wave can't be a particle and vice versa. I never
understood it. Can someone please explain?
I understand wave to be any physical phenomena that satisfies the wave
equation. For a particle I didn't find any definition, but intuitively
it means something with energy, momentum and maybe velocity, defined
in some region of space/time. Why can't such a thing also satisfy the
wave equation? The only problem is that it may be somewhat hard to
imagine.
We used to use something called the dirac delta function to represent
a particle. If I remember it it was defined by imagining a single
square pulse that as it gets narrower gets taller. The dirac delta
function was the limit of that process as the pulse got narrower. It
basically has zero width but a unit integral (if I remember).
The problem is equivocation on the term "wave". The term can mean "a
sine wave" or it can mean a sum -possibly an integral sum of sine
waves that form a wave packet ... using fourier transforms.
My understanding is that the sin wave's fourier transform is a dirac
delta function and vice versa. That means that a sine wave has a
discrete single frequency - its frequency is like a particle in
frequency. However a sin wave extends in both directions infinately so
it doesn't have a delta function position - it has the opposite! Pure
non-locality in space - pure locality in frequency! That's the sin
function.
Likewise if you have a particle, then you can use a dirac delta
function to represent it. Its transform is the sine wave so it is
completely defined in space but its freqency extends from negative
infinity to positive,
Uverything else is in between.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Jim Black" |
|
| Title: Re: Wave / Particle contradiction |
18 Apr 2007 01:57:27 AM |
|
|
On Apr 17, 8:48 pm, wrote:
"Everyone knows" there's a contradiction between the wave and particle
concepts - a wave can't be a particle and vice versa. I never
understood it. Can someone please explain?
I understand wave to be any physical phenomena that satisfies the wave
equation. For a particle I didn't find any definition, but intuitively
it means something with energy, momentum and maybe velocity, defined
in some region of space/time. Why can't such a thing also satisfy the
wave equation? The only problem is that it may be somewhat hard to
imagine.
In classical mechanics a point particle might be defined as an object
that occupies only a single point in space at a given time. A
solution to the wave equation assigns some value to every point in
space at once. A single classical mechanical particle would have to
be at many different places at once in order for some property of the
particle to satisfy the wave equation. A classical probability
distribution would be better, but then you run into the problem that
probability is always positive. You could do it with multiple
classical particles -- think sound waves -- but experiments have
demonstrated the interference is still there when only one particle is
in the apparatus at a time.
Ultimately, the problem is resolved by quantum mechanics. For a
single particle, the laws of quantum mechanics are essentially that
the particle obey a certain wave equation. And further down the road,
a bunch of particles obeying quantum mechanical laws is equivalent to
a solution of the wave equation obeying what you might call a quantum
mechanical version of the appropriate wave equation. And yes, you
could say quantum mechanics is hard to imagine; I'd say it's hard to
understand what's going on in between observations of a system.
--
Jim E. Black
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Wave / Particle contradiction |
18 Apr 2007 02:34:44 AM |
|
|
In article <1176879447.290313.265880@d57g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>, Jim Black <tramspap@yahoo.com> writes:
On Apr 17, 8:48 pm, wrote:
"Everyone knows" there's a contradiction between the wave and particle
concepts - a wave can't be a particle and vice versa. I never
understood it. Can someone please explain?
I understand wave to be any physical phenomena that satisfies the wave
equation. For a particle I didn't find any definition, but intuitively
it means something with energy, momentum and maybe velocity, defined
in some region of space/time. Why can't such a thing also satisfy the
wave equation? The only problem is that it may be somewhat hard to
imagine.
In classical mechanics a point particle might be defined as an object
that occupies only a single point in space at a given time. A
solution to the wave equation assigns some value to every point in
space at once. A single classical mechanical particle would have to
be at many different places at once in order for some property of the
particle to satisfy the wave equation. A classical probability
distribution would be better, but then you run into the problem that
probability is always positive. You could do it with multiple
classical particles -- think sound waves -- but experiments have
demonstrated the interference is still there when only one particle is
in the apparatus at a time.
Ultimately, the problem is resolved by quantum mechanics. For a
single particle, the laws of quantum mechanics are essentially that
the particle obey a certain wave equation. And further down the road,
a bunch of particles obeying quantum mechanical laws is equivalent to
a solution of the wave equation obeying what you might call a quantum
mechanical version of the appropriate wave equation. And yes, you
could say quantum mechanics is hard to imagine; I'd say it's hard to
understand what's going on in between observations of a system.
There is a bit more than this to it. The key property of a particle
(be it classical or quantum mechanical, doesn't matter) is that it
interacts as a single entity. A partiucle may interact or fail to
interact but you cannot have "a part of a particle interacting". A
wave (classical wave, to be exact) can "partially interact". A
classical wave propagates from source to whatever destination point we
ma be interested in along all possible trajectories at the same time
and there is nothing especially puzzling about it, for us, since it is
a diffuse entty present in many locations simultaneously.
So here is the baffling thing about QM. The dynamics of a particle is
described by a wave equation. But, when it comes to interactions. it
ineracts particle like, as a single indivisible entity. The wave
doesn't determine how much of the particle arrives at a given spot,
just with what probability it arrives there. In the old parlance this
was referred to as "collapse", nowadays this term appears to go out of
fashion but I wouldn't say that better replacements exist.
Mati Meron | "When you argue with a fool,
meron@cars.uchicago.edu | chances are he is doing just the same"
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
