explain why wave-particle duality is nonsense?

[ArmillarySphere]

At this level of physics, it's probably more helpful to ignore what a photon is and focus on how it behaves. What behaviour we see from a photon or other particle seems to depend on how we examine it - try studying wave characteristics (interference patterns, wavelength, polarity) and you'll see those. Try for particle characteristics (momentum, energy) and you'll see those. The same holds true for photons, protons, electrons or any other particle you choose to study.

The double-slit experiment is fun in that you can do so many things with it:
* Send a single photon through at a time. As you send more through, one at a time, each will hit the detector screen at a single, randomly scattered point. With enough photons, they gradually build up the diffraction pattern.
* Try to detect which slit the photon(s) went through/will pass through, in any way, and the diffraction pattern vanishes. Even implicit mathematical methods will cause it to disappear - all you'll get is the same pattern as expected from a single slit.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

wrong



apparently you missed the reading.

Nu-uhn. You're wrong.

You might benefit from reading the Wiki article I just cited.

There are modern set-ups where you can detect which slit a photon goes through without disturbing the interference pattern, but in the classic double-slit experiment, that pretty much is the point. New-agey types often misunderstand the result as meaning that the act of observation (like something connected with "consciousness") affects the outcome.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

The double-slit experiment is fun in that you can do so many things with it:
* Send a single photon through at a time. As you send more through, one at a time, each will hit the detector screen at a single, randomly scattered point. With enough photons, they gradually build up the diffraction pattern.
* Try to detect which slit the photon(s) went through/will pass through, in any way, and the diffraction pattern vanishes. Even implicit mathematical methods will cause it to disappear - all you'll get is the same pattern as expected from a single slit.

Good description, but I'd quibble with the phrase "in any way" in your second point.

ETA: That is, it's not really about "trying" or "observing" but about detection systems that change what's happening.

 

[Weak Kitten]

There are modern set-ups where you can detect which slit a photon goes through without disturbing the interference pattern, but in the classic double-slit experiment, that pretty much is the point. New-agey types often misunderstand the result as meaning that the act of observation (like something connected with "consciousness") affects the outcome.

Ooooh, thank you Joe. You make a great deal of sense! I've always been confused by the whole "the act of observation changes the outcome" stuff. I mean, tools used for observation can interfere with the thing you are observing but if you can develop an observational device that does not interfere in any way then the outcome should remain the same. I'm glad to hear it was all a misunderstanding.

 

[dafydd]

wrong



apparently you missed the reading.

the pattern shows itself, no matter the wave (bath of the light) or the single unit (per se ONE photon at a time)..... that is what the particle-wave duality is based on. They cannot predict which side (which slit) it will go thru, not even from full structures, like fullerene. That is what screws em up

but i suggest, observe the mass receiving the exposure. (thats it)

ie... think about what is occuring at the molecular level for each exchange and it is easy.

Give it up Bishadi,you do not understand.

 

[Bishadi]

At this level of physics, it's probably more helpful to ignore what a photon is

yes and no.

The reason this was brought up is many believe the 2 variations as absolute and what the thread was for is to discuss them very item.

and you so far have conveyed the best post.

and focus on how it behaves. What behaviour we see from a photon or other particle seems to depend on how we examine it - try studying wave characteristics (interference patterns, wavelength, polarity) and you'll see those. Try for particle characteristics (momentum, energy) and you'll see those. The same holds true for photons, protons, electrons or any other particle you choose to study.

so can we go over each?

The double-slit experiment is fun in that you can do so many things with it:
* Send a single photon through at a time. As you send more through, one at a time, each will hit the detector screen at a single, randomly scattered point. enough photons, they gradually build up the diffraction pattern.

perfect.

and that the detector screen, the mass itself, can be changed to render different patterns.

* Try to detect which slit the photon(s) went through/will pass through, in any way, and the diffraction pattern vanishes.

exactly

as that mass is now being affected and affects the signal (em) (kind of 'red shifting' it)

Even implicit mathematical methods will cause it to disappear

uh errr what?

- all you'll get is the same pattern as expected from a single slit.

yep or a 'shifted' one (giggle giggle)

 

[Bishadi]

Ooooh, thank you Joe. You make a great deal of sense! I've always been confused by the whole "the act of observation changes the outcome" stuff. I mean, tools used for observation can interfere with the thing you are observing but if you can develop an observational device that does not interfere in any way then the outcome should remain the same. I'm glad to hear it was all a misunderstanding.

now you can get a hang on what the schrodinger kitty analogy was about


"there is no isolation from the experiment and the observational perspective"

 

[nescafe]

<talking about interference patterns in the classic dual-slit experiment>

as that mass is now being affected and affects the signal (em) (kind of 'red shifting' it)

If by "kind of" you mean "nothing at all like". Red shifts are all about relative motion and/or cosmological expansion -- the CMB was redshifted all the way from near infrared to microwave wavelengths with no mass involved at all.

 

[Weak Kitten]

now you can get a hang on what the schrodinger kitty analogy was about


"there is no isolation from the experiment and the observational perspective"

But Bishadi, we just covered that one. There is separation. If I understand what Joe said correctly the original premise, that observing the photons changes their pattern, is based on data gathered from old equipment. It was the equipment itself that was interfering with the photos and with newer data gathering equipment this no longer happens.

Did I get that right Joe? If so, that's really nifty and allows me to ignore an idea that never made much sense to me. Namely, the idea that the simple act of observation could change the behavior of the observed object.

 

[fuelair]

At the risk of being accused of naughtiness, I am still curious and have asked thrice - because I believe it to be a possible source of the meaningless of much of B's phrasing - whether English is B's second (etc) language. So far I have not received an answer and this is the last time I will bother asking. I will assume without such answer that English is (his/her) first and the problem is inability to do more than string some vaguely related words together as has already been suggested and strongly appears to be the case.

 

[Bishadi]

If by "kind of" you mean "nothing at all like". Red shifts are all about relative motion and/or cosmological expansion

and that expansion idea is a product of physics not nature

-- the CMB was redshifted all the way from near infrared to microwave wavelengths with no mass involved at all.

are you talking about the background radiation?

if it all started from one point (big bang) and moved away like a tap on a pond and all was equilibrating like the second and space is just expanding at will, then no particles of mass would exist; the energy would have just kept on going.


So the error is not by observing evidence the error is allowing physics to tell you how it works without causal explanations of even the basics, such as 'what is the life of mass?'.....




please

 

[Jack by the hedge]

This is really frustrating. I didn't see this thread until now and I'd like to thank Bishadi for starting it on my suggestion.

I'm familiar with the double slit experiment, but unfortunately for the life of me I can not work out what Bishadi is trying to explain about it that he believes is new.

 

[John Jones]

This is really frustrating. I didn't see this thread until now and I'd like to thank Bishadi for starting it on my suggestion.

I'm familiar with the double slit experiment, but unfortunately for the life of me I can not work out what Bishadi is trying to explain about it that he believes is new.

I don't think anyone can.

 

[Weak Kitten]

Bishadi, there is a reason no one will answer "what is the life of mass?' "Life" and "Mass" generally refer to a type of measurement. Therefore your question comes out sounding like, "What is the density of length?" or "What is the temperature of time?" Please try to rephrase your question if you actually want an answer.

 

[Ocelot]

It think the most satisfying answer I ever received is as follows.

If you didn't know what a lion was you might be told that it is the colour of honey and makes a roaring sound like a motorcycle. That doesn't mean that a lion is a motorcycle made from honey, only that the thing that you're unfamiliar with, the lion has some limited number of properties you'd recognize from two things you presumably are familiar with, honey and motorcycles.

Similarly that light isn't exactly a wave, nor is it exactly a particle. It's light. However it has certain properties that are the same as the properties of particles (e.g. it is emitted and absorbed in discrete quantities) and it has certain properties that are the same as wave (e.g. if can interfere constructively and destructively)

That's it. Yes Wave Packets are a more accurate description but they take a heckuva lot more explaining.

 

[Bishadi]

This is really frustrating. I didn't see this thread until now and I'd like to thank Bishadi for starting it on my suggestion.

I'm familiar with the double slit experiment, but unfortunately for the life of me I can not work out what Bishadi is trying to explain about it that he believes is new.

because you do not comprehend the 'DETECTOR" is made of mass and that DETECTOR mass can be changed to provide the evidence that the light has different effects on different mass and the pattern is directly related to the mass/energy (light) combinations.


that particle/wave issue corrects itself by comprehending how mass/energy associate.

the double slit is a perfect experiment to unfold these facts. (addressing the DETECTOR mass as relative to the outcome and them you can see how much 'non-sense' the old 'experiment' really was.


colors that your eye detects is evidence to the analogy as well the photoelectric effect also offers EVIDENCE that won einstein a nobel


(energy affects the mass)

 

[GodMark2]

The double-slit experiment is fun in that you can do so many things with it:
* Send a single photon through at a time. As you send more through, one at a time, each will hit the detector screen at a single, randomly scattered point. With enough photons, they gradually build up the diffraction pattern.
* Try to detect which slit the photon(s) went through/will pass through, in any way, and the diffraction pattern vanishes. Even implicit mathematical methods will cause it to disappear - all you'll get is the same pattern as expected from a single slit.

And for the completely mind-blowing:

* After detecting which slit the photon went through (thereby making it act like a particle), you can cause the system to forget that information, and the interference pattern reappears. Even if the erasure of information occurs after measuring the interference pattern.

Our brains didn't grow up in world where this seems possible.

If you think you understand quantum mechanics, you don't understand quantum mechanics.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

because you do not comprehend the 'DETECTOR" is made of mass and that DETECTOR mass can be changed to provide the evidence that the light has different effects on different mass and the pattern is directly related to the mass/energy (light) combinations.


that particle/wave issue corrects itself by comprehending how mass/energy associate.

the double slit is a perfect experiment to unfold these facts. (addressing the DETECTOR mass as relative to the outcome and them you can see how much 'non-sense' the old 'experiment' really was.


colors that your eye detects is evidence to the analogy as well the photoelectric effect also offers EVIDENCE that won einstein a nobel


(energy affects the mass)

OK - maybe now we're getting close. So the mass of the detector is important?

Are you saying that if you set up the classical double slit experiment with, say, a sheet of photographic paper on a plate as the detector, then the mass of the plate would affect the result?

If so, can you explain in exactly what way it will affect the result? Have you actually done this experiment yourself? Can you tell us about your results?

 

[Humanzee]

Thanks for asking that Jack. I am having a hard time following what Bishadi is saying and wanted to ask just that.

 

[nescafe]

and that expansion idea is a product of physics not nature

Non sequitur. Physics exists to describe how nature behaves at a low level. The idea that the Universe is expanding because spacetime is expanding has been experimentally observed and verified.

are you talking about the background radiation?

As an example of how redshift can happen without mass being involved, yes.

if it all started from one point (big bang) and moved away like a tap on a pond and all was equilibrating like the second and space is just expanding at will, then no particles of mass would exist; the energy would have just kept on going.

Heck, my education in cosmology and quantum physics is mostly based on popular science books, Wikipedia, and Google, and I know why that answer is BS. Research pair production to see how energy can convert to matter.

So the error is not by observing evidence the error is allowing physics to tell you how it works without causal explanations of even the basics, such as 'what is the life of mass?'.....

"what is the life of mass" is gibberish on the same order as "colorless green dreams sleep furiously". I prefer casual explanations that are comprehensible.