There is a difference between statistical (wave) and quantum (particle) mechanics. It is well known the basic laws of particles behavior underlying statistical mechanics, but it isn't known what those laws are for quantum (particle) mechanics. These are simply two different ways to describe the same thing, a beam of particles. A single particle is always a particle, while a huge amount of electrons or photons, for example, are treated as waves.
Physics teachers and authors use "sloppy," incorrect language when they say, An electron or photon are either a particle or a wave." An electron or photon are always particles while a huge amount of electrons and photons are treated as waves.
A comunication engineer will describe a signal as a series of pulses localized in time, as if it were a beam of particles, or as a spectrum of frequencies, as if they were a combination of sine waves. The engineers use a mathematical device called the Fourier Transform, which enables the engineers to go back and forth between the two representations. The quantum uncertainty princible can be mathematically derived directly using the Fourier Transform.
I have read books that claim a wave function collapses instantaneously throughout the universe which would violate Einstein's rule that no signal can move faster than light. The people that make this claim are like religious spiritualists that are seeking---spooks. :roll: Solitary
Quote from: "Solitary"There is a difference between statistical (wave) and quantum (particle) mechanics. It is well known the basic laws of particles behavior underlying statistical mechanics, but it isn't known what those laws are for quantum (particle) mechanics. These are simply two different ways to describe the same thing, a beam of particles. A single particle is always a particle, while a huge amount of electrons or photons, for example, are treated as waves.
No! It's both! They are both particles and waves
at the same time.
Quote from: "Solitary"Physics teachers and authors use "sloppy," incorrect language when they say, An electron or photon are either a particle or a wave." An electron or photon are always particles while a huge amount of electrons and photons are treated as waves.
Solitary
Experiments have shown that using a single electron or a single photon, you still get interefence patterns.
See: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MbLzh1Y9POQ (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MbLzh1Y9POQ)
Quote from: "Jason78"No! It's both! They are both particles and waves at the same time.
Electrons, or photons, will exhibit particle behavior in a given set of experiments, and wave behavior in a
different set of experiments, but never exhibit both at the same time.
Isn't built up by a photon by photon more than one photon? Solitary
Maybe this will help you understand what is going on in the double slit experiment with one photon at a time.
http://youtu.be/LW6Mq352f0E (http://youtu.be/LW6Mq352f0E)
Or try this one: http://youtu.be/hUJfjRoxCbk (http://youtu.be/hUJfjRoxCbk)
Quote from: "josephpalazzo"Quote from: "Solitary"Physics teachers and authors use "sloppy," incorrect language when they say, An electron or photon are either a particle or a wave." An electron or photon are always particles while a huge amount of electrons and photons are treated as waves.
Solitary
Experiments have shown that using a single electron or a single photon, you still get interefence patterns.
See: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MbLzh1Y9POQ (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MbLzh1Y9POQ)
Quote from: "Jason78"No! It's both! They are both particles and waves at the same time.
Electrons, or photons, will exhibit particle behavior in a given set of experiments, and wave behavior in a different set of experiments, but never exhibit both at the same time.
Hey! Would you look at that! You posted a video where a photon exhibits both behaviors.
Quote from: "Solitary"Isn't built up by a photon by photon more than one photon? Solitary
Maybe this will help you understand what is going on in the double slit experiment with one photon at a time.
http://youtu.be/LW6Mq352f0E (http://youtu.be/LW6Mq352f0E)
Or try this one: http://youtu.be/hUJfjRoxCbk (http://youtu.be/hUJfjRoxCbk)
Quote from: "Jason78"Quote from: "josephpalazzo"Quote from: "Solitary"Physics teachers and authors use "sloppy," incorrect language when they say, An electron or photon are either a particle or a wave." An electron or photon are always particles while a huge amount of electrons and photons are treated as waves.
Solitary
Experiments have shown that using a single electron or a single photon, you still get interefence patterns.
See: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MbLzh1Y9POQ (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MbLzh1Y9POQ)
Quote from: "Jason78"No! It's both! They are both particles and waves at the same time.
Electrons, or photons, will exhibit particle behavior in a given set of experiments, and wave behavior in a different set of experiments, but never exhibit both at the same time.
Hey! Would you look at that! You posted a video where a photon exhibits both behaviors.
The photons are sent one by one. As such they behave as particles - that is, a single dot on the screen each time a photon hits the screen. The wave pattern only arises when you look at thousands of single dots. So the photon exhibits particle behavior, the ensemble of photons exhibits wave behavior.
A better explanation on particle or wave experiment is the Mach–Zehnder interferometer.
See: http://soi.blogspot.ca/2013/05/machzehn ... le-or.html (http://soi.blogspot.ca/2013/05/machzehnder-interferometer-particle-or.html)
Quote from: "josephpalazzo"The photons are sent one by one. As such they behave as particles - that is, a single dot on the screen each time a photon hits the screen. The wave pattern only arises when you look at thousands of single dots. So the photon exhibits particle behavior, the ensemble of photons exhibits wave behavior.
A better explanation on particle or wave experiment is the Mach–Zehnder interferometer.
See: http://soi.blogspot.ca/2013/05/machzehn ... le-or.html (http://soi.blogspot.ca/2013/05/machzehnder-interferometer-particle-or.html)
Doesn't the photon interfere with itself as it passes through both slits? If you fire enough single photons through, you still get the interference pattern.
I'm not sure that I understand your blog entry. Surely if you're firing a single photon from the source in the interferometer then you should expect a single photon 50% of the time in detector A and 50% of the time in Detector B. (Here I'm thinking that if a single photon hits a beam splitter it should be deflected about 50% of the time)
Thank you! Solitary
Quote from: "Jason78"Quote from: "josephpalazzo"The photons are sent one by one. As such they behave as particles - that is, a single dot on the screen each time a photon hits the screen. The wave pattern only arises when you look at thousands of single dots. So the photon exhibits particle behavior, the ensemble of photons exhibits wave behavior.
A better explanation on particle or wave experiment is the Mach–Zehnder interferometer.
See: http://soi.blogspot.ca/2013/05/machzehn ... le-or.html (http://soi.blogspot.ca/2013/05/machzehnder-interferometer-particle-or.html)
Doesn't the photon interfere with itself as it passes through both slits? If you fire enough single photons through, you still get the interference pattern.
I'm not sure that I understand your blog entry. Surely if you're firing a single photon from the source in the interferometer then you should expect a single photon 50% of the time in detector A and 50% of the time in Detector B. (Here I'm thinking that if a single photon hits a beam splitter it should be deflected about 50% of the time)
The point of that experiment is that ordinary language fails us. We are brain-wired to think into classical terms: either a particle or a wave. But at subatomic level, things don't behave along those lines. There are objects that have particle properties from one POV, but wave properties from a different POV. In QM, we had to invent a different mathematical language to escape that.
If you go back to classical physics, on a phase state diagram, you can show that if you know the position and momentum of all the particles of a system, you know everything about the system. The position and momentum are points in that phase space, but in QM, you need to scrap that, replace the phase space by a Hilbert space, and the points for position and momentum are replaced by vectors and operators. IOW, we're dealing with a totally mathematical framework. When we describe what's happening to a quantum system with that mathematical language, everything makes sense, that is, it is logically consistent. The problem arises when you start using ordinary language - you will hear of ''wave collapse'', ''spooky action at a distance'', ''particles interfering with itself'', etc. -- all that language comes from an era when the pioneers of QM were struggling with this stuff. And it is baggage that unfortunately is carried today, especially all over the net. But to understand QM, you need to go through the math. There's no easy way out. If you're interested in learning the basic math of QM, a good place to start is with is Shankar's lecture. The first one is here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uK2eFv7n ... 2&index=19 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uK2eFv7ne_Q&list=PLD07B2225BB40E582&index=19)
Now in the Mach–Zehnder interferometer experiment, you get 100% of the particles to detector B, is by going through the math. The assumptions are simple: 1) quantum states are vectors; 2) they are normalized, so that the probabilities add to 1;3) states can evolve as superposition.
Also see the double-slit experiment explained in that math language: http://soi.blogspot.ca/2011/02/two-slit-experiment.html (http://soi.blogspot.ca/2011/02/two-slit-experiment.html)