Why do light particles behave like waves?

[cybercrypt13]

I have not only read many books on the subject of light as well as experiments done to determine whether its wave or particle. I've also actually built a device to test the two slit experiment results to see if I could duplicate them. Honestly the whole talk of things existing in two places at once, or better yet, neither, until someone attempted to measure them just didn't sit well.

After doing many tests I wanted to share the results and see if any of you could explain them to me as they do not in any way line up with reported findings from any book or information I've dug up on the subject.

It is stated that when you shine light through a slit, the light forms a diffracted spot, if you will, on the wall, but no real pattern to it. It was then discovered that by splitting the light beam, you'd actually get an interference pattern on the wall, as if it were water and interfering with itself on the other sides of the slits. I can in fact duplicate this. pretty neat stuff.

However, its going farther that things get really interesting to me. It is said that sending a single particle through the slits also get an interference pattern after a period of time, even though you are only sending 1 particle through, so what is it interfering with. But before we get there let's take a look at another result from the experiment that I've not read.

In fact, if you shine any light past an object such as a book, and you look close enough, you will see a pattern of lines on the back wall. You don't even need a slit and don't have to separate the beam at all. Just interfere with it.

Given that every single book I've read uses the Thomas Young two slit experiment as a base test case for Quantum Mechanics to show how things doen't exist until we attempt to measure them and therefore pass through both slits at the same time and dah dah dah...

Can anyone explain to me why I'd get a scatter pattern like I do without even having a slit? In fact, I can get a perfect pattern on the wall with perfectly spaced vertical lines just by interfering with my laser beam.

Thanks,

glenn

 

[DrChinese]

What you are talking about probably makes sense to you, but I don't think anyone here is likely to have a clue to what you are really asking. I would definitely recommend that you read more, and then try asking a more focused question.

Just saying that things don't sit well with you is not much of an objection to scientific theory. The truth is that quantum theory makes numerous specific predictions which have been tested and verified many times.

 

[jtbell]

In fact, if you shine any light past an object such as a book, and you look close enough, you will see a pattern of lines on the back wall. You don't even need a slit and don't have to separate the beam at all. Just interfere with it.

Sure. This is called "edge diffraction." It can be explained either by using the classical wave theory of light, or by using quantum-mechanical wave theory.

When textbooks discuss interference, they almost always start by concentrating on the two-slit example, with the important condition that the slits are so narrow that you don't have to take into account the width of the slits. You can analyze it using two pointlike sources of light, and you simply add the two waves together.

Then they move on to examples like a single slit with a nonzero width, or two slits with a nonzero width, or edge diffraction. In these cases you do have to take into account the width of the apertures. (With edge diffraction, you have a "semi-infinite" aperture.) In these cases, you have an infinite number of pointlike sources of light, because mathematically, any finite line segment contains an infinite number of points. Each of these sources produces a wave, so you have to add together an infinite number of waves using integral calculus.

 

[cybercrypt13]

Sure. This is called "edge diffraction." It can be explained either by using the classical wave theory of light, or by using quantum-mechanical wave theory.

When textbooks discuss interference, they almost always start by concentrating on the two-slit example, with the important condition that the slits are so narrow that you don't have to take into account the width of the slits. You can analyze it using two pointlike sources of light, and you simply add the two waves together.

Then they move on to examples like a single slit with a nonzero width, or two slits with a nonzero width, or edge diffraction. In these cases you do have to take into account the width of the apertures. (With edge diffraction, you have a "semi-infinite" aperture.) In these cases, you have an infinite number of pointlike sources of light, because mathematically, any finite line segment contains an infinite number of points. Each of these sources produces a wave, so you have to add together an infinite number of waves using integral calculus.

Thanks for the reply. So then, it makes sense that I'm seeing a wave pattern with only a single slit? Or no slit at all? ie: passing the beam of light past a solid object where its simply getting interfered with?

 

[cybercrypt13]

What you are talking about probably makes sense to you, but I don't think anyone here is likely to have a clue to what you are really asking. I would definitely recommend that you read more, and then try asking a more focused question.

Just saying that things don't sit well with you is not much of an objection to scientific theory. The truth is that quantum theory makes numerous specific predictions which have been tested and verified many times.

I appreciate the response, however, asking questions is part of learning. Telling me to go read more tells me what? Not to ask questions? At what point can I start asking questions? When I've read 4 books? 10? I am still studying and trying to understand, just wanted to talk to people that understand more than me because sitting alone and reading books can get you twisted sometimes if you don't talk about it.

Thanks anyway,

glenn

 

[ZapperZ]

Just in case you missed it, this is such a frequent question that we do have an FAQ entry on it in the General Physics forum. You may want to start there and see if, after that, you might alter a few things that you think you have understood.

And just in case one of the main message of that FAQ is missed, I will emphasize that how and what you are asking makes a whole lot of different in the ability to answer the question. You have to know what is meant by a 'wave' and a 'particle' and how they are measured or determined, because it then makes a tremendous impact on how one would categorize something else. This is why you often hear people telling you that light or photons are neither wave nor particle. They are not being difficult, they're being accurate based on HOW we define what a wave and particle are.

In physics, when you start asking questions like this, then the details are crucial here. In other words, since we now have to fine tune our definition, we can no longer be wishy-washy about what we mean and how we define stuff. If not, you'll get vague, ambiguous answer, both from nature and from the experts.

Zz.

 

[cybercrypt13]

Just in case you missed it, this is such a frequent question that we do have an FAQ entry on it in the General Physics forum. You may want to start there and see if, after that, you might alter a few things that you think you have understood.

Zz.

I didn't know that and will check it out. Thanks a bunch,

glenn

 

[jtbell]

So then, it makes sense that I'm seeing a wave pattern with only a single slit? Or no slit at all? ie: passing the beam of light past a solid object where its simply getting interfered with?

Yes. That's what I was trying to say in my posting.

 

[DrChinese]

I appreciate the response, however, asking questions is part of learning. Telling me to go read more tells me what? Not to ask questions? At what point can I start asking questions? When I've read 4 books? 10? I am still studying and trying to understand, just wanted to talk to people that understand more than me because sitting alone and reading books can get you twisted sometimes if you don't talk about it.

Thanks anyway,

glenn

You should ask questions anytime you feel a person can help you get past something that you can't readily resolve yourself. You are in the best position to judge that.

On the other hand, claiming to have read many books on the subject seems remarkable given some of your statements. You may find that a more orderly approach - going through the books from beginner to intermediate, start to finish, for example - will answer your questions more effectively.

I will say that taking the time to do experiments on your own is impressive.

 

[Sean Torrebadel]

You have touched upon one of the most troubling phenomological findings ever. The one particle two slit interference phenomenon has never been solved.

First, photons traveling through two slits do create an interference pattern. One photon, or one electron, or one neutron also create a pattern over time on an appropriate receptor, emulsion, whatever.

The idea that one electron or photon, knows that it is passing through a slit and should therefore interfere with itself is of course improbable.

The solution is really quite simple. The photon is generating an electromagnetic wave that precedes it. In a sense the wave is traveling faster than the speed of light. It then passes through the slit and becomes discontinous with the source, so that once the actual photon passes through it is affected by and its motion is inteferred with.

The whole idea that a photon can be deflected by a force, such as the sun, is of course a contradiction to the constant speed of light rule. For any force, hence acceleration, implies a velocity that is greater than the speed of light. Therefore, in a sense, the one particle, two slit phenomenon is a constradiction of this law.

Look, you have to understand that the people you call the elite scientists, etc, have no clue what a photon really is. Ifit is an energy, what is energy? The underlying foundation of all of science rests upon Aristotles concept of matter. Matter alone is the underlying constant of the universe. To add another construct, i.e. energy, is completely unfounded and really scientifically irresponsible.

If you were to put a divider of approximately 10 inches between the two slits, then a single electron, or photon would never be able to transfer an electromagnetic pulse through the other slit and an interference would never result. I have probably told you too much already.

 

[ZapperZ]

The solution is really quite simple. The photon is generating an electromagnetic wave that precedes it. In a sense the wave is traveling faster than the speed of light. It then passes through the slit and becomes discontinous with the source, so that once the actual photon passes through it is affected by and its motion is inteferred with.

Your "solution" creates even MORE strangeness than you solved. Considering the fact that there's no explanation for this "wave" that precedes your photon AND the fact that is has never been observed are enough to cast serious doubts to your model.

Look, you have to understand that the people you call the elite scientists, etc, have no clue what a photon really is. Ifit is an energy, what is energy? The underlying foundation of all of science rests upon Aristotles concept of matter. Matter alone is the underlying constant of the universe. To add another construct, i.e. energy, is completely unfounded and really scientifically irresponsible.

This is incorrect. Just because QM hasn't said anything about the 1-slit vs. 2-slit phenomena doesn't mean we haven't understood anything. The FACT that we know how to describe light and make use of it means that we have understood plenty. Do we understand everything? Nope. But we don't understand everything in almost every single phenomena that you see. Even the physics that built the house you live in, there are still things about it we don't understand. It doesn't mean we "have no clue" on what it is.

If you were to put a divider of approximately 10 inches between the two slits, then a single electron, or photon would never be able to transfer an electromagnetic pulse through the other slit and an interference would never result. I have probably told you too much already.

This is also incorrect. I can separate out the path that a supercurrent takes by MORE than 10 inches if I want to, and I can still get such superposition. Furthermore, I can easily use EM radiation with wavelength longer than 10 inches and get that same interference pattern. It has nothing to do with the separation length. It has everything to do with a setup that allows the particle in question to have a viable superposition of its path.

Zz.

 

[cybercrypt13]

You should ask questions anytime you feel a person can help you get past something that you can't readily resolve yourself. You are in the best position to judge that.

On the other hand, claiming to have read many books on the subject seems remarkable given some of your statements. You may find that a more orderly approach - going through the books from beginner to intermediate, start to finish, for example - will answer your questions more effectively.

I will say that taking the time to do experiments on your own is impressive.

I understand what you're saying. I am adicted to learning and you can't know that. I have in fact read many books on the subject as well as on Einstein and others. What I've learned however, (right or wrong), is that a lot of information is passed off as fact when in fact its an assumption and doesn't have a proven experiment to back it up.

My questions may seem dumb to you, but to me its just part of my reasoning based on things I've read. I've already admitted that I'm not reading textbooks, but off the shelf book store books, so maybe that is part of the problem. Here are a few of the books I've read: The Elegant Universe by Brian Greene, Quantum Evolution by Johnjoe McFadden, E=mc^2 by David Bodanis, Introducing Quantum Theory by JP McEvoy, Physics for the Rest of us by Roger Jones and A brief history of time by Stephen Hawking.

I've also read other books that are upstars and can't get to them, but the point is that I'm not talking about something in which I have not done. I've also done a tremendous amount of research on the web for a subject in which I don't work and have no experience in, other that studying on my own. Perhaps I'm way off base with my understandings, but I'm a very logical person and think through problems ( I like to think at least ) from step 1 to the end. I take no ones word for anything because more times than not I've seen people speak of things as fact that truly are not.

Again, I'm really sorry that I am annoying you with my questions, but they are in ernest and not some guy trying to cause problems.

Thanks,

glenn

 

[cybercrypt13]

Your "solution" creates even MORE strangeness than you solved. Zz.

Zapper, I never said that we didn't understand something about light or a particles path. ( I do realize your response wasn't to me ) However, I do believe that we've taken the predictions of QM and given it a hold on the universe as we know it. Instead of saying here are some wave functions that seem to work, we've gone a whole step farther and stated that nothing is as it seems. We've made up superposition because we can't explain what we see, but maybe we're looking at it from the wrong viewpoint.

The experiments I've seen including Bell's Theory are in absolutely no way conclusive either way. I'm not saying QM is wrong, maybe one day you'll be proven 100% correct all along. However, at the point we now stand, I think its foolish to assume that you're any more right than anyone else.

The facts seem to be: QM contains the math that make appropriate predictions in a number of areas, but we're not sure why. While it allows us to use things more efficiently than ever before, we're not sure why. While we can still not build the truck, we can crank it sometimes and get it to haul a load, but we still don't know why.

I could go on but you get my point... maybe... :-) QM is a facinating subject to me, I'm just not yet buying into all this spooky stuff at a distance, but maybe I have rocks in my head...

glenn

 

[cybercrypt13]

Kong,

Interesting link. It comes right out and says that these particles do NOT move as a wave but rather a particle. First time I've seen anyone come out and say it. I agree completely with the point though as I also feel light doesn't move as a wave at all. Look forward to your email as I love to discuss light. For some reason its my favorite subject... :-)

glenn

 

[ZapperZ]

Zapper, I never said that we didn't understand something about light or a particles path. ( I do realize your response wasn't to me ) However, I do believe that we've taken the predictions of QM and given it a hold on the universe as we know it. Instead of saying here are some wave functions that seem to work, we've gone a whole step farther and stated that nothing is as it seems. We've made up superposition because we can't explain what we see, but maybe we're looking at it from the wrong viewpoint.

The experiments I've seen including Bell's Theory are in absolutely no way conclusive either way. I'm not saying QM is wrong, maybe one day you'll be proven 100% correct all along. However, at the point we now stand, I think its foolish to assume that you're any more right than anyone else.

The facts seem to be: QM contains the math that make appropriate predictions in a number of areas, but we're not sure why. While it allows us to use things more efficiently than ever before, we're not sure why. While we can still not build the truck, we can crank it sometimes and get it to haul a load, but we still don't know why.

I could go on but you get my point... maybe... :-) QM is a facinating subject to me, I'm just not yet buying into all this spooky stuff at a distance, but maybe I have rocks in my head...

glenn

But there is an inherent problem here with QM and your level of understanding of it. As I had guessed, the root of the problem here is that you are trying to apply your classical knowledge of the world you live in, which you understand, and extrapolate that to understand QM. I argued that that will never work. There is an http://physicsandphysicists.blogspot.com/2006/09/why-is-quantum-mechanics-so-difficult.html" between QM and classical mechanics, at least as far as our physical intuition goes. So if you are going to try to understand QM based on classical intuition, you WILL run into things that appear to be absurd. The only thing that saves us from dangling in mid air with QM is the mathematical formalism.

This means that without understanding the mathematical formalism of QM, you really haven't even begin to understand QM. There's no way around this, at least not from my perspective of being in this field for this long.

Zz.

 

[ZapperZ]

Kong,

Interesting link. It comes right out and says that these particles do NOT move as a wave but rather a particle. First time I've seen anyone come out and say it. I agree completely with the point though as I also feel light doesn't move as a wave at all. Look forward to your email as I love to discuss light. For some reason its my favorite subject... :-)

glenn

Now isn't that strange. That link (which has been removed) has plenty of unverified, unsupported claims about QM and its various phenomena. I can even find several things wrong with the scenario presented. Yet, this is the first one you actually are comfortable with.

What does that tell you?

Zz.

 

[cybercrypt13]

But there is an inherent problem here with QM and your level of understanding of it. As I had guessed, the root of the problem here is that you are trying to apply your classical knowledge of the world you live in, which you understand, and extrapolate that to understand QM. I argued that that will never work. There is an http://physicsandphysicists.blogspot.com/2006/09/why-is-quantum-mechanics-so-difficult.html" between QM and classical mechanics, at least as far as our physical intuition goes. So if you are going to try to understand QM based on classical intuition, you WILL run into things that appear to be absurd. The only thing that saves us from dangling in mid air with QM is the mathematical formalism.

This means that without understanding the mathematical formalism of QM, you really haven't even begin to understand QM. There's no way around this, at least not from my perspective of being in this field for this long.

Zz.

I agree to a point. First of all I fully recognize my own ignorance on this matter which is why I've gone back to school. I'm going to learn the math and the details, but can't wait until then to start thinking about things. It seems there is a problem with your suggestion as well though.

If one has no way to relate to a matter, then how is he/she suppose to determine if the matter is true or false? For example: There are those that will argue that the Bible is true because God said so. I argue its hogwash, because it doesn't fit with what I see. They say I'm going to you know where because I don't believe. That I can't understand it if I'm looking at it through the eyes of the world. I have to have faith.

Its not possible according to you for anyone to understand it unless you understand the math behind the madness. But are you not yourself placing your beliefs in something that you can't explain?

For example: Can you list for me a single experiment in which QM predicted something that could not otherwise be true? Something that my world views could not possibly explain? Because, such an experiment would at the very least cause me to lean closer to your side and accept that I don't and can't understand it with my current knowledge set.

The problem is, (and I'm by no means saying I've read them all) of all the experiments that I've looked at and listened to people talk about, they all have possible classical explanations as well. They don't have to be black magic that is only predicted by mathmatical formulas but can't be understood by anyone.

It almost seems to me that QM folks have accepted it as true, despite the fact that they can no longer explain what truth is, and have abandoned any concern of explanation. As if the concept is so far out there that we've decided openly that an explanation is impossible and therefore not important.

As another example: Bell's Theorem is probably the most appreciated and some would think nails the final nail in the classical coffin. I however don't see a single experiment to back up his claims. I do agree with him, if they are true then it would be that simple. But the fact is, you can't setup an experiment to prove it.

We understand water, current drift and so on, but if I were to drive you out over the Atlantic, drop a marble in the water and ask you for a precise spot on the bottom where it will touch, you can't give it to me. Not because you can't understand the problem, but because the data is too overwhelming to try to calculate. Does that mean that we really don't understand how a marble will fall through water? Or should we assign some superposition to the problem and state that unless we measured the marble all the way to the bottom that it would esentially hit the entire ocean floor?

But again, I'm still learning so maybe I"m going to come to a revelation one day and sit at your side of the table...

Thanks,

glenn

 

[cybercrypt13]

Now isn't that strange. That link (which has been removed) has plenty of unverified, unsupported claims about QM and its various phenomena. I can even find several things wrong with the scenario presented. Yet, this is the first one you actually are comfortable with.

What does that tell you?

Zz.

lol, well, it tells me that you are perhaps looking at things a little cross-eyed yourself. Have you ever stopped to realize that you can't explain anything related to the two slit experiment? You simply tell me that QM predicts how it will go, and that you can't understand it. That light doesn't move as a particle or a wave as you can't ask the question as it makes no sense. Yet this makes sense to you?

I need to be careful as I"m really not trying to offend anyone here. I'm honestly enjoying the debate. However, I don't understand how you can tell me I don't understand something, yet you can't provide explanations. You simply tell me I'm not intelligent enough in the subject matter to understand. This is why earlier I spoke of QM being like a religion. It takes on that "you just have to believe" air to often.

Again, I'm not trying to offend you at all and hope you aren't getting upset with me. I would like to know what specific experiment did you read or do that caused this blind faith that you seem to have? I'd love to be convienced there is more to it than conventional ideas can portray. But I haven't seen or heard of one. Obviously there is something though...

Thanks and please don't get upset with me as I"m just speaking out loud.

glenn

 

[cybercrypt13]

Now isn't that strange. That link (which has been removed) has plenty of unverified, unsupported claims about
Zz.

Zapper, what happened to that original post with the link in it from Hong? I hope I haven't found another website where the managers of the site delete content they don't agree with. If that's the case maybe I should start looking for another forum for ideas.

glenn

 

[ZapperZ]

If one has no way to relate to a matter, then how is he/she suppose to determine if the matter is true or false?

Empirical evidence! That is why a large portion of physicists are experimentalists.

Its not possible according to you for anyone to understand it unless you understand the math behind the madness. But are you not yourself placing your beliefs in something that you can't explain?

If you think very carefully and examined your world, you will notice that everything that you think you can "explain" is really, at the very fundamental level, a "description". Every single "explanation" becomes a description at the very end of that line of explanations. For many people, science's role is simply to describe things at the most fundamental level. This is true even for classical physics, which, presumably, you have no problem with. Don't think that's true? Try to "explain" the classical Coulomb's Law.

For example: Can you list for me a single experiment in which QM predicted something that could not otherwise be true?

Easy. http://physicsandphysicists.blogspot.com/2006/12/einstein-and-superconductivity.html" . It is the clearest manifestation of quantum mechanics at the macroscopic level that has zero classical explanation and description.

Zz.

 

[ZapperZ]

Zapper, what happened to that original post with the link in it from Hong? I hope I haven't found another website where the managers of the site delete content they don't agree with. If that's the case maybe I should start looking for another forum for ideas.

glenn

You are welcome to do that. However, based on the guidelines that everyone has to agree to that we have for this forum, crackpot websites are not allowed to be used as "reference sources", and that is what was done. If you think that this is "censorship", then so be it. However, it also means that the person who has given his/her word to abide by our rules, have no such respect for this forum.

Zz.

 

[cybercrypt13]

You are welcome to do that. However, based on the guidelines that everyone has to agree to that we have for this forum, crackpot websites are not allowed to be used as "reference sources", and that is what was done. If you think that this is "censorship", then so be it. However, it also means that the person who has given his/her word to abide by our rules, have no such respect for this forum.

Zz.

Thats fine, I'll keep that in mind. The only problem is, who determines who's the crock pot? Just because a site offers a different perspective on a subject doesn't necessarily make it wrong.

But its good to know the site doesn't offer all the details on subjects, only what you guys deam as conforming to your beliefs...

Thanks for pointing that out as I'll be more careful about my questions and statements.

Oh, and thanks a lot for the superconductivity link. I'm reading up on it and will ask any questions I have later on.

thanks,

glenn

 

[ZapperZ]

lol, well, it tells me that you are perhaps looking at things a little cross-eyed yourself. Have you ever stopped to realize that you can't explain anything related to the two slit experiment? You simply tell me that QM predicts how it will go, and that you can't understand it. That light doesn't move as a particle or a wave as you can't ask the question as it makes no sense. Yet this makes sense to you?

But you had no problem with the explanation given there? For example, where are the "magnetic field lines" as described in that link when I used supercurrent going through 2 different paths and recombined to form the SAME interference pattern? I mean, people are using this in SQUIDs to detect failure in airplane structures! We know it so well, we depend our lives on it! It is no laughing or joking matter! So you got two different experiments in which you get the same effects, but the explanation given in one cannot work in the other. And you buy this?

Furthermore, what "magnetic field" would cause the pattern seen in LEED experiments and electron Bragg diffraction? These are situations where electrons scatter off lattice ions in a solid.

There are PLENTY of things wrong with that page. I've only described one. If you wish to pay more attention to it, then that is your problem. However, you should not then turn around and accuse the rest of physics of not understanding what we are doing simply based on your acceptance of a faulty scenario.

Zz.

 

[ZapperZ]

Thats fine, I'll keep that in mind. The only problem is, who determines who's the crock pot? Just because a site offers a different perspective on a subject doesn't necessarily make it wrong.

Re-read the Guidelines that you have agreed to. The Mentors are the ones who do the deciding. In this case, based on my expertise as a physicist, I decided that that website is a total crackpottery. I have seen similar explanations given by other quacks before. And I have been on the internet since 1989, so you can believe that I have practically seen almost every single angle that crackpots have tried to bastardize physics.

But its good to know the site doesn't offer all the details on subjects, only what you guys deam as conforming to your beliefs...

We don't believe in anything. We do however, conform to what has been accepted OR published in peer-reviewed journals. You'll notice that that website that you held so highly never even mentioned once if any of what they're pushing has been published in such medium. How do you think something eventually gets accepted? Because they put it on some website and then people vote on it as some sort of a popularity contest like American Idol?

Zz.

 

[cybercrypt13]

But you had no problem with the explanation given there? For example, where are the "magnetic field lines" as described in that link when I used supercurrent going through 2 different paths and recombined to form the SAME interference pattern? I mean, people are using this in SQUIDs to detect failure in airplane structures! We know it so well, we depend our lives on it! It is no laughing or joking matter! So you got two different experiments in which you get the same effects, but the explanation given in one cannot work in the other. And you buy this?

Furthermore, what "magnetic field" would cause the pattern seen in LEED experiments and electron Bragg diffraction? These are situations where electrons scatter off lattice ions in a solid.

There are PLENTY of things wrong with that page. I've only described one. If you wish to pay more attention to it, then that is your problem. However, you should not then turn around and accuse the rest of physics of not understanding what we are doing simply based on your acceptance of a faulty scenario.

Zz.

Zapper, I am not accusing anyone of not knowing what they are doing. I didn't say I agreed with that sites comments, only that I didn't think light moved as a wave. However, I am open to anything anyone has to say on the matter because the matter is not solved. We don't know what light is. We don't know how it moves. How can we rule out any paticular idea immediately? Perhaps the overall idea is wrong but it brings to light a new idea that helps move us forward.

I also never said QM was wrong, I only said that I didn't think it was enough. It predicts all sorts of things and explains nothing. I'm sorry if I'm not content with not understanding something. I believe its the driving force behind moving forward. You are content with knowing that you can't know and can't explain, I'm not. So I keep asking questions and keep reading everything I can get my hands on.

Despite what you might think, I'm happy I've found this site because you guys have pointed me to a number of very interesting articles.

Thanks,

glenn

 

[ZapperZ]

However, I am open to anything anyone has to say on the matter because the matter is not solved. We don't know what light is.

Here's a challenge for you. Find something that you think you know about, and then examined HOW exactly you think you know what it is.

I put it to you that what you claim as something you know, is really a recognition of ALL of that entities properties - what it looks like, what it tastes like, what it smells like, etc.. etc. In other words, you identify something based on a series of properties and characteristics. That's it! If someone you recognize had a drastic plastic surgery, he/she could walk right next to you and you won't recognize him/her. Why? It didn't fit all the characteristics and properties of that person that you remember.

Now, go back to light. What exactly do you mean that we don't know what light is? We know how it behaves when it interacts with matter. We know how to measure its energy. We know how to measure its momentum. We even know what spin angular momentum it should have. In fact, we know so much about light, a whole branch of physics was created out of our understand and characterization of it - QED!

So how in the world could you say that we don't know what light is? We know more about light than you know about the property of the coffee cup that you use! We have a more definite and quantitative description of light than what you can do with your parents! Do we know everything? Of course not! that's why physicists like me continue to be employed. However, to say that we don't know what light is, is wrong.

Zz.

 

[cybercrypt13]

Re-read the Guidelines that you have agreed to. The Mentors are the ones who do the deciding. In this case, based on my expertise as a physicist, I decided that that website is a total crackpottery. I have seen similar explanations given by other quacks before. And I have been on the internet since 1989, so you can believe that I have practically seen almost every single angle that crackpots have tried to bastardize physics.

We don't believe in anything. We do however, conform to what has been accepted OR published in peer-reviewed journals. You'll notice that that website that you held so highly never even mentioned once if any of what they're pushing has been published in such medium. How do you think something eventually gets accepted? Because they put it on some website and then people vote on it as some sort of a popularity contest like American Idol?

Zz.

I'm not trying to offend you but its obvious that you've gotten offended and are now trying your best to make me look stupid. I never claimed I was a physicist, and I'm also not an idiot. If you can have an intelligent conversation without getting offended and hurling insults then I'm game.

I was also unaware that I had the privilege of speaking with the supreme physicist of all times. You may be a very intelligent person, but I doubt you've done as much as Einstein for the scientific community and yet even he was wrong about some things. I just don't understand what makes someone like yourself so pointed and unable to accept that you might be wrong about something.

Perhaps every author was wrong (they also claimed to be physicist's), because in every book I've read everyone of them have stated that while QM suggested quite a bit of things that have all been proven, that no one understood why. Since they all stated the same thing I guess I thought maybe they were speaking the truth, perhaps not.

glenn

 

[cybercrypt13]

Here's a challenge for you. Find something that you think you know about, and then examined HOW exactly you think you know what it is.

I put it to you that what you claim as something you know, is really a recognition of ALL of that entities properties - what it looks like, what it tastes like, what it smells like, etc.. etc. In other words, you identify something based on a series of properties and characteristics. That's it! If someone you recognize had a drastic plastic surgery, he/she could walk right next to you and you won't recognize him/her. Why? It didn't fit all the characteristics and properties of that person that you remember.

Now, go back to light. What exactly do you mean that we don't know what light is? We know how it behaves when it interacts with matter. We know how to measure its energy. We know how to measure its momentum. We even know what spin angular momentum it should have. In fact, we know so much about light, a whole branch of physics was created out of our understand and characterization of it - QED!

So how in the world could you say that we don't know what light is? We know more about light than you know about the property of the coffee cup that you use! We have a more definite and quantitative description of light than what you can do with your parents! Do we know everything? Of course not! that's why physicists like me continue to be employed. However, to say that we don't know what light is, is wrong.

Zz.

Thanks again for the info. I guess I should explain my statement a little more. We have Chemistry in which we say there are electrons spinning around a nucleus and the nucleus has neutrons and protons and there are this many here and that many there. Yet when it comes to light, we just say its a photon. Its not an electron, but it can make electrons move the same way you plug a chord into a wall outlet. We say it is both a wave and a particle due to dual properties that it seems to have. We say that it progresses by switching from magnetism to energy and back again. We refer to it as a wavelength. Yet we don't know "What it is". So my statement that we don't know what it is, is just that. I never said that we didn't know certain properties about light. I just said we didn't know what it was exactly.

I can refer to a car and tell you its a car. I can tell you that my friend that had plastic surgery is my friend after I analyze other properties about him such as his build, his speach, his statements, personality and so forth. Your argument is like me telling you to analyze an electron moving down a wire and telling me if it came from a magnet or a solar panel. To say that I know nothing of anything except by what I observer is absolutely true. It is also absolutely true of your argument of what we know about light.

Without observation we'd know nothing at all. So I really fail to see your point about how this ties into QM. Just because you look at a car from the moon and see that it seems to drive down lines doesn't mean you understand anything about a car. You can devise a mathmatical formula that determines whether a car will go left or right or continue straight ahead, but won't go at 45deg intervals when there is no path there, doesn't mean that we can now take your math that seems to work properly 70% of the time and start saying all sorts of strange things about life.

Because of our predictions of the cars we can now say that its impossible to know anything about the cars. We've predicted the way they move, how fast they go, how they interact with each other so that's enough. Stop asking questions about things in reference to the moon as it doesn't have meaning.

I guess at this point we should just stop because you are getting way to tied up in this conversation. I'll keep reading and come back later if I have more questions. I really do appreciate the information and I"m sorry I made you so upset.

glenn

 

[ZapperZ]

Perhaps every author was wrong (they also claimed to be physicist's), because in every book I've read everyone of them have stated that while QM suggested quite a bit of things that have all been proven, that no one understood why. Since they all stated the same thing I guess I thought maybe they were speaking the truth, perhaps not.

glenn

But what you read, based on what you have described, are pop-science books! Physicists and scientists tend to "dumb down" the content when describing such things. And they tend to over sell the "mysterious" aspects of what are still at the research front area. Brian Greene's book is one such example.

But if you look at physics text books, you will see that we know plenty. We certainly know enough that we managed to produce stuff that you are using in your modern electronics.

And my admission that I am a physicist wasn't meant to impress anyone. You asked who gets to make the decision on what is valid and what isn't. At some point, it is entirely a judgment call, and I wanted to tell you that the person who made the judgment call isn't someone who is only a script kiddie and whose only know knowledge of physics is what can be found from someone's personal website. I have never made any claim that I know everything, or that physics has the answer to everything. I do, however, made the claim that, based on what we have written in our guidelines, that sources based on established physics and peer-reviewed journals are the ONLY ones that would qualify as being within what we do accept here.

I do not see why you would have such a problem with that.

BTW, I re-read my post and no where was there anything that resembles an "insult". I may have made very strong statements to counter what you have claimed, but no where did I attack you personally. We do not allow that here either.

Zz.

 

[cybercrypt13]

Its all good. I'm not upset anyway, just detected that you were getting a little hot around the collar. I've never disagreed that I have a lot more to learn and as I said, I am doing just that. I'm honestly back in college just for this subject as I find it more interesting than anything else.

Thanks again for the info and I'm sure you'll hear from me again...

glenn

 

[ZapperZ]

Thanks again for the info. I guess I should explain my statement a little more. We have Chemistry in which we say there are electrons spinning around a nucleus and the nucleus has neutrons and protons and there are this many here and that many there. Yet when it comes to light, we just say its a photon. Its not an electron, but it can make electrons move the same way you plug a chord into a wall outlet. We say it is both a wave and a particle due to dual properties that it seems to have. We say that it progresses by switching from magnetism to energy and back again. We refer to it as a wavelength. Yet we don't know "What it is". So my statement that we don't know what it is, is just that. I never said that we didn't know certain properties about light. I just said we didn't know what it was exactly.

Sorry, but what you describe as light is of the same level of "knowledge" as what you describe as an atom! They are all properties of the entity that you are describing! Think about it. Your knowledge of an "atom" is no worse or better than your knowledge of light. In fact, dig deeper in PF and you'll find threads of people claiming that electrons or atoms don't exist!

And btw, if you have read our FAQ, you'd realize why the description of "electrons spinning around the nucleus" is not correct.

I can refer to a car and tell you its a car. I can tell you that my friend that had plastic surgery is my friend after I analyze other properties about him such as his build, his speach, his statements, personality and so forth.

In other words, you look at the various properties associated with the entity, and identify them as such.

Your argument is like me telling you to analyze an electron moving down a wire and telling me if it came from a magnet or a solar panel. To say that I know nothing of anything except by what I observer is absolutely true. It is also absolutely true of your argument of what we know about light.

Actually, and this is not to be picky, you actually cannot really tell if that same electron is the one that made it through various components. I hate to bring in indistinguishibility statistics here, but there's plenty of things not correct here.

Without observation we'd know nothing at all. So I really fail to see your point about how this ties into QM. Just because you look at a car from the moon and see that it seems to drive down lines doesn't mean you understand anything about a car. You can devise a mathmatical formula that determines whether a car will go left or right or continue straight ahead, but won't go at 45deg intervals when there is no path there, doesn't mean that we can now take your math that seems to work properly 70% of the time and start saying all sorts of strange things about life.

But at least you recognize the generic property of a car to say "Ah hah! That is a car!". We do that with photons, electrons, neutrons, muons, kaons, protons, neutrinos, etc...etc. In high energy physics experiments, we'd better have a set of defined properties for each of these elementary particles to be able to tag and identify them. The fact that we CAN recognize these things as well as you can recognize that something is a car (and you claim to know of a car), means that we DO know about photons.

Because of our predictions of the cars we can now say that its impossible to know anything about the cars. We've predicted the way they move, how fast they go, how they interact with each other so that's enough. Stop asking questions about things in reference to the moon as it doesn't have meaning.

I guess at this point we should just stop because you are getting way to tied up in this conversation. I'll keep reading and come back later if I have more questions. I really do appreciate the information and I"m sorry I made you so upset.

glenn

I am not upset, contrary to popular belief. I do get "animated", because this is something I've looked at very often - not the physics, but how people arrive at certain conclusions. I'm an experimentalist, and in many cases, I often have to sit down and examine what it is that I am actually measuring, and how I'm measuring it. In other words, in many instances, I have to really strip down all of the assumptions and "frames" that we all take for granted and figure out what exactly did Mother Nature gave me? Was it a "naked measurement", or did I inadvertently dressed that result inside of my equipment, my methodology, or even my bias! You end up examining what exact it is that you are asking, because the question often determines what kind of answers you can get.

So in this case, how do we determine if we "know" something. I have put it to you that you know something based on being able to get the relevant properties of it. There are still things that we don't know, but it certainly doesn't mean we know nothing of it, the same way that you certainly don't need to know every square inch of a car to know that that is a car and how to run it.

Zz.

 

[DrChinese]

...What I've learned however, (right or wrong), is that a lot of information is passed off as fact when in fact its an assumption and doesn't have a proven experiment to back it up.

...

Again, I'm really sorry that I am annoying you with my questions, but they are in ernest and not some guy trying to cause problems.

Thanks,

glenn

Your questions are not annoying. :tongue:

But I would strongly disagree with your comment. There are 2 things you must separate: the physics and the interpretation of the physics. The physics is totally solid in books like Greene's. But from time to time, the author may switch into a mode in which the interpretation is being discussed. There is latitude in the interpretation of quantum physics, but none of it impacts (as far as we now know) the formulae or predictions.

It is a fact that the predictions of quantum theory have been very heavily tested to rigorous standards. Even the strangest predictions have been checked out and found to be spot on. Most scientists agree that quantum theory is extremely accurate.

On the interpretation side, it is a different matter. There is currently a debate as to whether or not effects can travel faster than the speed of light; or alternately that particles do not take on some attributes until an observation is performed. Regardless of your opinion on the matter: it is still only an opinion as the physics does not support a conclusion to the matter at this time.

 

[Anonym]

I am not upset, contrary to popular belief. I do get "animated", because this is something I've looked at very often - not the physics, but how people arrive at certain conclusions. I'm an experimentalist, and in many cases, I often have to sit down and examine what it is that I am actually measuring, and how I'm measuring it. In other words, in many instances, I have to really strip down all of the assumptions and "frames" that we all take for granted and figure out what exactly did Mother Nature gave me? Was it a "naked measurement", or did I inadvertently dressed that result inside of my equipment, my methodology, or even my bias! You end up examining what exact it is that you are asking, because the question often determines what kind of answers you can get.

Your description is not complete. In addition, you ask your friends, experimentalists, whether they get the same answer with their equipment, their methodology (best case with the different setup), their bias and whether your answer is consistent with the other measurements. As an exception, you sometimes even ask a theoretician whether your result is consistent with the mathematical formalism of the theory.

Regards, Dany.

 

[cybercrypt13]

Ok guys, thanks for all the pointers. I'll keep studying and get back with you when I have more questions...

Thanks,

glenn

 

[Anonym]

If you think very carefully and examined your world, you will notice that everything that you think you can "explain" is really, at the very fundamental level, a "description". Every single "explanation" becomes a description at the very end of that line of explanations. For many people, science's role is simply to describe things at the most fundamental level. This is true even for classical physics, which, presumably, you have no problem with. Don't think that's true?

I am not sure that I understand you. Let consider CED as a model. It (dynamics) starts with M. Faraday. He demonstrated experimentally that something outside the classical analysis should be present in the mathematical formalism (vector derivative-curl). The work was done by Maxwell. It was clear that the obtained solution of the problem was adequate and complete (perfect). It satisfies all expectations: unification, predictive power, unexpected connections, etc. Hertz started the engineering applications. And then came on A. Einstein with his 1905 paper. Did it add anything to the Maxwell ED? No. Then what it is? It presents the physical content of Maxwell work on the deepest possible level. Is it a “description” or the “explanation” of what exactly did Mother Nature gave us?

By the way, I like real things (with the necessary and sufficient amount of the imaginary units), therefore, in relation to all that, I am very curious to know what do you see (“describe” or “explain”) in the results presented by A. Tonomura et al. “Double-biprism electron interferometry”, App. Phys. Lett., 84(17), 3229 (2004). The paper by K.Harada et al. “Triple-biprism electron interferometry”, JAP, 99, 113502 (2006) is also relevant, but I prefer double-biprism before.

Regards, Dany.