explain why wave-particle duality is nonsense?

[ponderingturtle]

What is the nature of a "descrete packet"? I haven't heard that term before.

Yes you have the proper name is a

It makes me think of tiny flat envelopes full of particles all pressed together and moving in wave patterns. The proper name is a quantum of light, because it is quantized.

 

[ponderingturtle]

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

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.

Well maybe, maybe not. This could be getting into the nightmare that is relativistic mass that too many people have ingrained into their minds.

 

[ponderingturtle]

What I usually tell people is that there probably isn't any real duality. Photons always behave in one way: Like photons.

This behavior can only be measured in two ways: as either a particle or a wave, depending on the nature of the experiment.

The "duality" is really just a consequence of our limited ways in which we can examine these things.

Not at all, you could combine a diffraction and photoelectric effect and get one experiment that acts as both waves and particles. The duality is solely from macroscopic objects and that experiments tend to look for one specific effect at a time.

 

[ponderingturtle]

Watching you 'deal' with folks is very funny.You know nothing about physics.Keep entertaining us.

Why is word soup nonsense entertaining?

 

[Bishadi]

Yes you have the proper name is a

It makes me think of tiny flat envelopes full of particles all pressed together and moving in wave patterns. The proper name is a quantum of light, because it is quantized.

I agree.

but the interpretations of an evelope are tied to the math and are why the envelope is of quanta based on the 'f'' (frequency; em spectrum) for each 'packet' but without maintaining the properties of coherance via the wave analogies.

The packet or particle rendition is good for threshold points but cannot sustain the accural of potential by a coherance between resonating states of energy. (as an interpretation to the conflict within the physics)

electrical transmission of radio waves (the whole industry) is easy evidence of the math and electromagnetic usage and range of energy upon mass.

ie..... what is the photon 'size' of 95.5MHz (look up a dipole antenna and see the magnetic/electric field's dipole moment) and with that math calculate any wavelength.


My point is do the homework to find applicability to answer your question. How big is the photon for a 95.5 MHz (ie.... how big of a field is it imposing to mass for peak usage (conversion) at reception?) (hence the dipole http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dipole_antenna)


all mass has a resonance not just particles jumping around to exchange energy in cute little envelopes

the difference is the math and 'walking the planck' is like holding a bible, but to physics (elevated to infallible)

hint, ask him how many envelopes it takes to think, or is it just electrical?

 

[Mikemcc]

I agree.

but the interpretations of an evelope are tied to the math and are why the envelope is of quanta based on the 'f'' (frequency; em spectrum) for each 'packet' but without maintaining the properties of coherance via the wave analogies.

The packet or particle rendition is good for threshold points but cannot sustain the accural of potential by a coherance between resonating states of energy. (as an interpretation to the conflict within the physics)

electrical transmission of radio waves (the whole industry) is easy evidence of the math and electromagnetic usage and range of energy upon mass.

ie..... what is the photon 'size' of 95.5MHz (look up a dipole antenna and see the magnetic/electric field's dipole moment) and with that math calculate any wavelength.


My point is do the homework to find applicability to answer your question. How big is the photon for a 95.5 MHz (ie.... how big of a field is it imposing to mass for peak usage (conversion) at reception?) (hence the dipole http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dipole_antenna)


all mass has a resonance not just particles jumping around to exchange energy in cute little envelopes

the difference is the math and 'walking the planck' is like holding a bible, but to physics (elevated to infallible)

hint, ask him how many envelopes it takes to think, or is it just electrical?

What the hell are you on about? That entire post is utter gibberish, fails to make any point, and pulls in random thoughts without connecting them coherently.

 

[MattusMaximus]

How to understand wave-particle duality conceptually

What I usually tell people is that there probably isn't any real duality. Photons always behave in one way: Like photons.

This behavior can only be measured in two ways: as either a particle or a wave, depending on the nature of the experiment.

The "duality" is really just a consequence of our limited ways in which we can examine these things.

Here's the analogy I use for my students...

Imagine that you're an astronaut visiting an alien planet populated by an intelligent race of ETs, and you're making first contact with them. The environment on this world is such that matter exists within only two states, solid and gaseous - there is no such thing as a liquid on this world. Thus, these beings have absolutely no concept of what is a liquid. So, in the hopes of fostering further communication, you try to explain to them what this third, mysterious state of matter is which is called "liquid".

You explain that liquids are like solids in that the molecules are bonded to one another into some kind of cohesive form. However, liquids are also like a gas in that these molecules can freely flow past one another and fill whatever container that contains them. Thus, the mystery state of "liquid" has the properties of both solids & gases without being exclusively one or the other.

And light acts the same way, exhibiting both the properties of waves & particles without necessarily being exclusively one or the other. Make sense?

 

[Jack by the hedge]

can you explain what results you would expect to see and why?

reread the thread

Thanks a lot. I did. You didn't explain what results you expected to see. You only said they would be different.

ie.... colors are different patterns (wavelength) from the interactions with mass; common sense.

This may appear to be "common sense" to you, but it is not at all clear what you mean. Colours are different wavelengths, yes, but what interactions with mass do you mean?

So if you sent one wavelength thru the DS then the detector mass, if varied will have different patterns as each element and collective is affected by different wavelengths.

Different in what way? How different would the interference fringe pattern look if we compared two detector screens; one made of tissue paper and another made of lead?

Please quantify how large you predict the effect will be? Clearly visible to the human observer, or too small to see? If it's obvious, why has nobody observed the effect before? If it's so simple, why haven't you done it yourself?

 

[dafydd]

Edited by Tricky: 

Edited for rule 12.

 

[John Jones]

Boldfacing is no substitute for clarity.

 

[Wowbagger]

so let's open it up

As you can see, there are those who are already doing that:

Not at all, you could combine a diffraction and photoelectric effect and get one experiment that acts as both waves and particles.

I suppose I could rewrite one of my statements like this:

This behavior has historically been measured in two ways: as either a particle or a wave, depending on the nature of the experiment...

The duality is solely from macroscopic objects and that experiments tend to look for one specific effect at a time.

That is, in a sense, what I kinda meant. Those are the "limits" I was referring to. Though, I see we now have a way of working around that.

[snip]
And light acts the same way, exhibiting both the properties of waves & particles without necessarily being exclusively one or the other. Make sense?

I like it! I might borrow that, for next time.

 

[Bishadi]

Thanks a lot. I did. You didn't explain what results you expected to see. You only said they would be different.

and the reason is the detector mass is never taken into account as relevant to the experiment. hence why the thread was opened.

As then even YOU can actually prove the DSE is not so perfect. I am not trying to discount anything but the complacent acceptance of the existing beliefs. ie... the double slit did not prove the wave-particle duality!

This may appear to be "common sense" to you, but it is not at all clear what you mean. Colours are different wavelengths, yes, but what interactions with mass do you mean?

that the 'mass' is relevant to the experiment as the mass will have different thresholds based on the exposure to light within its environment. ie.... the particle/wave aspect is being misrepresented because even you are not looking at the mass as being the cause of which wavelength (or per se particle) is being released (the transition).

A bridge to logic is in your head (colors) and yet you are just not taking it into consideration.

Different in what way? How different would the interference fringe pattern look if we compared two detector screens; one made of tissue paper and another made of lead?

you do the experiment.

i work on life and as you may be gathering, combining and then learning how to convey. The little stuff is easy but few allow themselves to realize, they can be important to the progression of knowledge right now (because we are the generation to finish it)

Please quantify how large you predict the effect will be?

NO

You do it!

start over with faraday/maxwell and rather than discount tesla, find the system of three is more important that you may openly realize

when systems combine, notice the 'golden ratio' for most any 'progression'.

Clearly visible to the human observer, or too small to see?

i dunno, can you see colors? Then how big is the spectrum and how many wavelengths of it can you 'openly see'?

If it's obvious, why has nobody observed the effect before? If it's so simple, why haven't you done it yourself?

that is like me creating light from the egyptian baghdad battery and showing the world what the battery was for in the first place


but can you openly present an answer to this question: has the einstein predictions of the bent space, EVER been confirmed (eddington eclipse or any)?


be honest


so is it right to publish such non-sense?

 

[Bishadi]

Originally Posted by MattusMaximus
[snip]
And light acts the same way, exhibiting both the properties of waves & particles without necessarily being exclusively one or the other. Make sense?

energy is all of the occilations in one form or another; energy resonating (between the nodes.)

ie... what is 'f' and why it is proportional to E? (self inquiry)


The wave aspect is of association (between the nodes), where as the particle is when they combine with 'mass' and reach a threshold, to release 'energy' (that is captured like a particle because that is the indicators threshold as 'it' captured what that mass needs to register the 'blip')

make sense?

 

[RussDill]

You do it!

Are you trying to be funny? Seriously? You claim that everything everyone knows about physics is wrong, but its up to everyone but you work out how. Do you realize how insane you sound?

 

[Bishadi]

Are you trying to be funny? Seriously? You claim that everything everyone knows about physics is wrong, but its up to everyone but you work out how. Do you realize how insane you sound?

what is insane is how i can return to insults?

you think everyone is like you and would publish just to get their name in print.

not me

especially with what i have learned over the last few decades.

You would not want me as the 'einstein' of today as i am not a nice guy when it comes to certain items (for example Israel is a the single greatest waste of money, this country ever allowed).


the LHC is a waste

nuclear weapons are a waste

electrical generation by steam turbines are a waste.

the invisible hand runs this world and i would stomp it out (self-seeking over virtues can go stick itself in the toilet)


best i just let the kids begin the retaking of reality and once 'life' is understood mankind as a whole will judge it own idiocracies

i just want to learn and share in the simpliest fashion i can

heck if i could, i would be in a tour bus pulling a jeep, with all internet capabilities and simply travel the country (again) and visit the colleges and universities and give what i can to the next generations to be a little better than we are (that would be about like heaven for the remainder of life)

think of me as a retired monster who is still a student but gives like a teacher

 

[dafydd]

Are you trying to be funny? Seriously? You claim that everything everyone knows about physics is wrong, but its up to everyone but you work out how. Do you realize how insane you sound?

No he doesn't.Deliciously funny.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

NO

You do it!

Don't be ridiculous! You are claiming there will be an effect, yet it must be one so subtle that nobody has ever noticed it, in one of the most replicated experiments in all of science, and you refuse even tell us what kind of effect to look for.

You refuse to say what parameter we need to measure, let alone predict the size of the alleged effect or what sensitivity of measurement we would require in order to detect it.

In short , this is just childish nonsense. You have nothing. You are just making this up.

 

[Mashuna]

you think everyone is like you and would publish just to get their name in print.

not me

Did they return your paper because they wouldn't accept submissions in crayon?

 

[Jack by the hedge]

...electrical generation by steam turbines are a waste.

Ah, yes, I'd forgotten about that. You were praising the efficiency of magnetrons in a previous thread, were you not?

So you scorn the wasteful use of nuclear reactors to boil water to make steam to turn turbines to generate electricity.

You think we should use electricity to power magnetrons to generate microwaves to boil water to make steam to turn turbines to make electricity.

That was your argument, was it not? I wonder why we don't do that.

 

[Weak Kitten]

Bishadi, this all seems to be comign down to the physical proof. This double slit experiment is reproduced over and over again in classrooms all over the world. It sounds like it requires a certain amount of equipment but otherwise is fairly simple to setup. Why don't you actually run your experiment and show the world what your results are?

But first, what exactly do you expect to find?

How does greater or lesser mass of the target change the results?

How great a difference in mass do you expect to need to have noticeable differences?