QM, wave , particle duality problem
- Thread starter thinking
- Start date
- Status
well look at this way;
look at a wave on a lake and its crests
before the crest there is a wave of course smooth and whole water wave
but at the crest , the roll over , the wave breaks down into particles of h20
see what I'm getting at ?
but it does
from what I have read the macro has waves too but less noticable
the wave action of water gives us a hint at is what is going on in the micro world
you can interperate the crest of the wave falling as quantum foam
and then this faom gathers into a smooth wave again and then crests again and so on ( but at the same-time the wave fundamentally carries on , duality )
wave > particles > wave > particles
are you saying that the particle-wave alternates between states of particle-like and wave-like properties? I dont think that's right. Wave-particle duality means that the particle-wave be represented both as a mass and an energy, and so the particle's state can be explained with mass of the particle E=mc^2, and the wave's state can be explained with its energy, E=hf, where m is the mass of the particle and f is a frequency of the wave.
Water waves break when they get near the shore because of shallow water interfereing (not in quantum sense) with the troughs due to friction between the water & sand or whatever is at the bootom of the ocean/lake
Waves in the absence of wind in the middle of a lake or sea provide a poor but reasnable analogy with Quantum Wave phenomena. Forget what happens to water waves at the shore: It is not even close to being an analogy to Quantum Waves. .
BTW: I have posted the following at various times & consider it helpful in reconciling our ignorance of what really happens at the Quantum level.
Waves in the absence of wind in the middle of a lake or sea provide a poor but reasnable analogy with Quantum Wave phenomena. Forget what happens to water waves at the shore: It is not even close to being an analogy to Quantum Waves. .
BTW: I have posted the following at various times & consider it helpful in reconciling our ignorance of what really happens at the Quantum level.
- A graduate student once asked Neils Bohr what is really there: Paritcles or Waves ?
Bohr described a well known optical illusion which can be viewed as a black vase or two white profiles facing each other. He pointed out that a person can see either the vase or the faces, but cannot see both at the same time. This is analogous to the wave/particle duality.
Bohr then said: Suppose you asked me what was really there: A vase or faces ? I could reply with confidence that neither is really there. What is really there is black ink on white paper.
For the questiojn about waves/particles, Bohr siad "I can say with confidence that neither waves nor particles are really there. Unfortunately, I have no idea of what is really there."
If Bohr & Feynman are willing to admit ignorance, why should we ignorami aspire to understand ?
Because people like the OP somehow think that they are smarter than all the professional scientists in the ENTIRE world - living or dead!
And I personally find that stupid, arrogant, uneducated attitude disgusting - along with anyone who thinks that way!!!:bugeye:
If they were seriously trying to understand something, they should get an education AND ask questions about the subject - instead of constantly posting garbage and idiotic stuff like this particular poster does over and over.
Hi ID=thinking. I understand what you are getting at. If you like to use the waves at sea analogy, think of it in terms of rogue waves which come along when the crests of various intersecting wavelets converge in a rare occurrence. The energy is always there but the particle only stands out in certain circumstances just like the occasional rogue wave, strange as it may seem. One circumstance that establishes the presence of a particle is observation that reveals that they are there.
Objects made up of large numbers of the smallest undetectable quantum particles on the other hand are always there and easily observed. Like we know the moon is always there even if we aren't observing it.
Now the wave trough and wave crest analogy; the energy is always in each wavelet whether at a crest or a trough just like the energy is always in the waves that occupy particles and that make up the observable objects. It is the interaction of the waves within the particles that make them stand out so that is why I mentioned the rogue waves as a small adjustment to your analogy.
Objects made up of large numbers of the smallest undetectable quantum particles on the other hand are always there and easily observed. Like we know the moon is always there even if we aren't observing it.
Now the wave trough and wave crest analogy; the energy is always in each wavelet whether at a crest or a trough just like the energy is always in the waves that occupy particles and that make up the observable objects. It is the interaction of the waves within the particles that make them stand out so that is why I mentioned the rogue waves as a small adjustment to your analogy.
yes of course
I see
so your saying that basicly I'm on the right track otherwise ?
I wouldn't go that far 
. I would add the word energy to the OP to indicate that observable particles that have mass are made up of intersecting energy waves. There needs to be stability (I think of it as repetitiveness) to the interactions (standing waves is one way to put it) within mass to make even the smallest observable particle.
The standing wave concept is sort of like the rogue wave that I ammended to your OP, but particles are not at all like the crest of individual waves.
. I would add the word energy to the OP to indicate that observable particles that have mass are made up of intersecting energy waves. There needs to be stability (I think of it as repetitiveness) to the interactions (standing waves is one way to put it) within mass to make even the smallest observable particle.The standing wave concept is sort of like the rogue wave that I ammended to your OP, but particles are not at all like the crest of individual waves.
I wouldn't go that far
The standing wave concept is sort of like the rogue wave that I ammended to your OP, but particles are not at all like the crest of individual waves.
To be completely truthful, you should just tell him that the whole concept is false and can only lead to a dead-end. QM deals ONLY with things at a micro level and cannot be correlated with anything on a macro level. That's much worse than trying to compare apples to oranges, as we often say, it's more like trying to compare a strawberry to a fully-loaded freight train!
To be completely truthful, you should just tell him that the whole concept is false and can only lead to a dead-end. QM deals ONLY with things at a micro level and cannot be correlated with anything on a macro level. That's much worse than trying to compare apples to oranges, as we often say, it's more like trying to compare a strawberry to a fully-loaded freight train!
read-only
since you have nothing of substance to contribute to this thread , no knowledge . all you give are insults , criticisms and arrogance , stay OUT of the thread
It has nothing to do with quantum mechanics as James R has suggested already.
All he is attempting (user thinking) to do in this thread, is to unite these particles which do exist, and by his defination exist in other means.
It is the most cruel scientific thing to ever happen.
All he is attempting (user thinking) to do in this thread, is to unite these particles which do exist, and by his defination exist in other means.
It is the most cruel scientific thing to ever happen.
I wouldn't go that far
The standing wave concept is sort of like the rogue wave that I ammended to your OP, but particles are not at all like the crest of individual waves.
I missed this post , sorry
yeah standing waves are very interesting
- Status