- #1
Gary Smith
- 47
- 10
An atom of oxygen can be suspended in air, yes? Can a wave be suspended independently? Or does it need to be generated?
Gary Smith said:Can a wave be suspended independently? Or does it need to be generated?
Independently of what? You can have a hypothetical wave that exists purely in Maths but any Physical wave has to be in the form of some variations of a quantity and that quantity needs to be measurable and 'there'. If you can't measure or detect it then it doesn't exist.Gary Smith said:Can a wave be suspended independently?
This is mined territory! I want to remind participants (in advance) that we don't debate philosophical questions, the more as we already have plenty of threads, in which the question about the connection between "existence" and "measurement", resp. "observation" is discussed. Our search engine will be of help to all who are interested in following this path.sophiecentaur said:Gravitational Waves have only recently been shown to exist. Before some valid detection was achieved, they only 'existed' in our theories.
You can have a stationary wave, or "Standing Wave", like the waves on a guitar string that generate traveling sound waves...Gary Smith said:A wave has to travel, yes? From one point to another?
Gary Smith said:A wave has to travel, yes? From one point to another? In its travelling, say a radio wave through the atmosphere, is it wrong to think of the wave as suspended?
berkeman said:You can have a stationary wave, or "Standing Wave", like the waves on a guitar string that generate traveling sound waves...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standing_wave
anorlunda said:Why do you ask only about the radio wave in the atmosphere? Why not in space? What do you think the answer is for a radio wave in space?
Gary Smith said:nasu,
But, perhaps you can tell me, what it is to be an atom of oxygen in air, or water, or wherever else it appears. What can physics say for certainty about its properties besides what I have read, that it has mass, charge and spin? The atom is 'somewhere' in the air I breathe. Can it be isolated from other atoms in air?
A wave has to travel, yes? From one point to another? In its travelling, say a radio wave through the atmosphere, is it wrong to think of the wave as suspended?
I don't know, that is why I ask.
weirdoguy said:Too bad "wave-particle duality" is an outdated concept since like 1925-26... You won't find it in quantum mechanics, nor in QFT.
What would it be suspended in? One thing about all waves is that energy is being transported. Even in a standing wave, energy can be thought of as moving leftwards and rightwards, to produce stationary peaks and nulls in the energy distribution.Gary Smith said:is it wrong to think of the wave as suspended?
See e.g. this page: https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/is-light-a-wave-or-a-particle.511178/Gary Smith said:Huh! What concept has replaced it?
Do not expect an easy ride on the way to getting this sorted.Gary Smith said:Huh! What concept has replaced it?
Please see my post #18 above .Gary Smith said:Is it true that photons behave sometimes like waves and sometimes like particles?
That is correct. But also note that when talking about particles on this level (e.g. elementary particles), "particle" does not mean a classical object with a specified size (like let's say a small ball, a grain of sand or a dust particle), it means an object behaving according to the Rules of Quantum Mechanics.Gary Smith said:I also read that photons are particles without mass.
Hi GaryGary Smith said:N. - 'Initially I thought you read about these atom traps where atoms are slowed down or even at rest for some time.'
G. - No, I had not heard of atom traps.
N. - Unless you mean the "in air" as a figurative way of saying "in space".
G. - Yes, that is true. I meant it as the air we breathe, which in the space around us.
N. - I don't see how insisting on being or not "suspended" brings anything useful.
Gary Smith said:G. - No, I guess not. Suspended would imply it is stationary or not moving by its own force. Are atoms always in motion, like a bullet? As I understood, they have spin, mass and charge. But motion?
The molecules of the air around us (most of them are oxygen and nitrogen molecules) have speeds around 500 m/s (average). This is higher than the speed of sound in the air. The atoms in a solid vibrate about their equilibrium positions. Some of them may do this billions of time per second. It is very difficult indeed to find an atom that does not move (in respect to other surrounding atoms).Gary Smith said:N. - 'Initially I thought you read about these atom traps where atoms are slowed down or even at rest for some time.'
G. - No, I guess not. Suspended would imply it is stationary or not moving by its own force. Are atoms always in motion, like a bullet? As I understood, they have spin, mass and charge. But motion?
sophiecentaur said:Do not expect an easy ride on the way to getting this sorted.
It has long been admitted that people who think they understand QM, don't. Your brain will hurt.
Thank you, Dave. I will follow that suggestion.davenn said:Hi Gary
it would be really nice if you got the text quoting sorted out
hilite the line of text in some one's post you wish to quote and click the reply button
View attachment 206133
results in this
this has 2 awesome functions
1) makes it really easy to see who is being quoted
2) makes it really easy to separate quoted text from the responses by you (or whoever) Dave
DennisN said:See e.g. this page: https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/is-light-a-wave-or-a-particle.511178/
DrChinese said:What kind of wave are you referring to? Is this about quantum physics or classical?
Gary Smith said:That is fascinating. I will check it out. Thank you.
This could be word salad, I think.Gary Smith said:I think I am talking about a quantum wave.
nasu said:The molecules of the air around us (most of them are oxygen and nitrogen molecules) have speeds around 500 m/s (average). This is higher than the speed of sound in the air. The atoms in a solid vibrate about their equilibrium positions. Some of them may do this billions of time per second. It is very difficult indeed to find an atom that does not move (in respect to other surrounding atoms).
That is true for all of us. But I can say that most PF members would not aspire ever to 'know it all'. We can all learn as we go and most of us do a fair amount of reading round on a regular basis.Gary Smith said:Thank you. I see that my understanding of physics will never be fully informed.
Actually is not so hard to find information nowadays.Gary Smith said:Thank you. I see that my understanding of physics will never be fully informed. But gaining this piece of understanding helps me grow closer to the actual picture. Finding specific information like this with a general search would be like looking for a needle in a haystack. I appreciate the time of all who respond.
nasu said:Actually is not so hard to find information nowadays.
"Speed air molecules" in Google provides the answer right on top, in bold characters.