Entangled states before observation.

[Dadface]

I think this is just a quickie. I'm interested in what is assumed about entangled photons/particles before they are observed. Is it correct to assume that the photons/particles exist in all possible states simultaneously?
Thank you.

 

[bhobba]

I think this is just a quickie. I'm interested in what is assumed about entangled photons/particles before they are observed. Is it correct to assume that the photons/particles exist in all possible states simultaneously?

No.

QM is silent on what's going on when not observed.

Thanks
Bill

 

[Dadface]

Thank you Bill,
by "silent" do you mean that QM assumes nothing at all about the nature of the photons separately before observaton or are you referring to properties related to entanglement only? I would have thought QM is not silent about several things for example it can assume that there are two photons each with the same and a known frequency. Or does the method of creating the entangled photons count as an observation?
Thank you.

 

[bhobba]

by "silent" do you mean that QM assumes nothing at all about the nature of the photons separately before observaton .

Exactly.

In modern times generally an observation is assumed to occur just after decoherence ie in the assumption of an improper mixed state is a proper one is in effect an observation.

Thanks
Bill

 

[Vanadium 50]

It's broader than that. Science doesn't answer the question "what is happening when we are not measuring". Science can tell you what the results of a measurement will be if you do it, but it can't tell you what the results of a measurement will be if you don't do it.

 

[Dadface]

Thank you both but please consider my reference to, for example, frequency. Is it being suggested that in various experiments, such as quantum eraser experiments the frequencies of the photons are not known?

 

[bhobba]

Thank you both but please consider my reference to, for example, frequency. Is it being suggested that in various experiments, such as quantum eraser experiments the frequencies of the photons are not known?

Its a frequency of a wavefunction and the theory is silent on if its real or not.

Thanks
Bill

 

[Dadface]

Thank you for your replies. I'm not necessarily disagreeing with you but your answers seem to contradict information I have been getting from numerous other sources. Here's one example from the Kim et al paper referring to the output from a type 2 phase matching BBO crystal:

"A pair of 702.2nm orthogonally polarised signal idler photon is generated etc".

This is is to do with quantum theory and it seems to imply that the photons have properties about which the theory is not silent. Perhaps my researches have taken me to wrong or out of date places. It's a bit confusing at the moment so It would be helpful to get some references to put me on the right tracks.
Thank you.

 

[DrChinese]

Thank you for your replies. I'm not necessarily disagreeing with you but your answers seem to contradict information I have been getting from numerous other sources. Here's one example from the Kim et al paper referring to the output from a type 2 phase matching BBO crystal:

"A pair of 702.2nm orthogonally polarised signal idler photon is generated etc".

This is is to do with quantum theory and it seems to imply that the photons have properties about which the theory is not silent.

The referenced statement is accurate. The entangled outputs of a BBo crystal are something of a function of the output collection angles. The input photon goes straight in, but pairs do NOT come straight out. The deflection angle affects the pairings, and the frequency specifically IIRC. You can get pairs of, say, 700nm and 704nm if you so choose (and set up for this). The point is that they are specifically selecting on this attribute, and you should consider that along with their comment.

You are correct that there are a range of possible outputs generally, and they all obey a conservation principle.

 

[Nugatory]

I'm interested in what is assumed about entangled photons/particles before they are observed. Is it correct to assume that the photons/particles exist in all possible states simultaneously?

Are you asking about entanglement here, or the more general notion of superposition? It's superposition, not entanglement, that raises the question of whether we should be thinking of the system as existing in more than one state at the same time. You can't have entanglement without superposition, but there are many situations in which a superposition can be described without considering entanglement.

Consider, for example the entangled two photon state used in so many discussions of Bell's theorem: $\frac{\sqrt{2}}{2}(|H\rangle|V\rangle+|V\rangle|H\rangle)$ - this is a superposition of the two states $|H\rangle|V\rangle$ (Alice's photon is horizontally polarized, Bob's is vertically polarized) and $|V\rangle|H\rangle$ (the other way around). It's also an entangled state because we cannot separate the state of one photon from the other; if a measurement finds Alice's photon to be vertically polarized we know that system state has collapsed to $|V\rangle|H\rangle$ so a measurement of Bob's photon will necessarily find it to be horizontally polarized (and vice versa).

But the entanglement has little to do with the question "Is it correct to assume that the photons/particles exist in all possible states simultaneously?" The two possible states making up the superposition are $|V\rangle|H\rangle$ and $|H\rangle|V\rangle$, and the answer to the question is the same as for any other superposition situation: "No", as Bhobba and V50 have said above. This is the same thinking that goes into the completely entanglement-free double-slit experiment, where the state of the particle is a superposition of "left-slit" and "right-slit". As in that experiment, any attempt to read more into the state than that, to say that it is really one or the other but we don't know which, or that it is both at the same time, will run into various logical difficulties and contradictions.

It is correct to say that the system is in the state $\frac{\sqrt{2}}{2}(|H\rangle|V\rangle+|V\rangle|H\rangle)$ and it is correct to say that there is a 50% chance of finding Alice's photon vertically polarized and Bob's photon horizontally polarized and a 50% chance of finding Alice's photon horizontally polarized and Bob's photon vertically polarized (and that leaves 0% for any other possibility). But that's about all that you can take to the bank here.

 

[Dadface]

Thank you all for your replies. I know there are various interpretations of quantum theory but basically I'm trying to find out if there is a consensus of opinion about what properties, if any, do photons, for example, have when they are not observed. For example I think it's generally accepted that each photon has a certain speed and a certain frequency/ wavelength.
It seems I wasn't clear in my opening question so please allow me to rephrase the second sentence:
Is it correct to assume that before observation the photons/particles exist in a superposition of all possible states simultaneously? I guess the answer is still no.
Thank you

 

[Heinera]

Is it correct to assume that before observation the photons/particles exist in a superposition of all possible states simultaneously?

Before observation, we don't even know if the photons/particles exist at all. By "superposition", we simply mean a formal mechanism that produces a statistical prediction for the result of a possible measurement. It says nothing about how things "exist" before the measurement is performed.

I guess the answer is still no.

Yes.

 

[Dadface]

Thank you. Most of this is making some sense except I keep reading apparently contradictory comments from other sources. For just one example please look again at the quote I gave in post 9 which referred to the quantum eraser experiment of Kim et al.
I'm not disputing any comments that have been written here but I'm getting confused by the apparent lack of agreement between several of the different sources I have looked at whilst researching this question.

 

[bhobba]

I keep reading apparently contradictory comments from other sources..

See post 18:
https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/mind-over-matter-reality-or-myth.855527/

You generally get the real deal here - not watered down popularisations of dubious validity.

Thanks
Bill

 

[vanhees71]

I think this is just a quickie. I'm interested in what is assumed about entangled photons/particles before they are observed. Is it correct to assume that the photons/particles exist in all possible states simultaneously?
Thank you.

No, it's assumed that the photons are in the entangled state. It is wrong to say that just, because the state is a superposition in some arbitrary basis, it has the properties described by the basis at once. It simply doesn't make sense and contradicts Born's rule, which tells you the probabilistic meaning of states.

 

[Dadface]

Thank you everybody for your inputs. Bhobba, I had previously looked at one of the papers you referred to in the earlier thread- the Thomas V Marcella paper which is at an "intermediate" level. The paper summarises the main difficulty which I and I guess many other people are experiencing. I quote:

"Numerous textbooks and journal articles discuss slit interference usually in conjunction with wave particle duality."

That reveals the problem. We read something in one paper and then read something seemingly contradictory in a different paper. Who is right and who is wrong? Could it be that different teams have different ways of analysing the same problems and are some methods better than others? There are so many questions.

Personally I have my own views which are in broad agreement with most of the comments that have been made in this thread. I just wanted to know if there was general agreement amongst the wider community.

Thank you everyone.

 

[vanhees71]

Wave-particle duality is an idea from "old quantum theory", which is known to be much less consistent than "modern quantum theory", which was discovered in 1925. The problem is that many textbooks use the historical approach to teach QT and start with explaining the "old quantum theory" at length. In my opinion this only adds to the confusion of learners of QT. In modern QT there is no wave-particle duality but only the description of quanta in terms of a quite formal mathematical structure. The link to physics is due to the Born rule and thus a probabilistic meaning of the quantum states. As soon as one uses this minimal interpretation, all apparent paradoxa are gone. In other words: QT tells us that nature doesn't behave as classical particles or classical fields but in terms of QT. That's it.

 

[bhobba]

QT tells us that nature doesn't behave as classical particles or classical fields but in terms of QT. That's it.

Thanks
Bill

 

[Dadface]

https://www.physicsforums.com/https:www.sciencenews.org/blog/context/new-analysis-rescues-wave-particle-duality .

Thank you. I am convinced that modern QT is very successful and I'm not disputing that one little bit. However, if you do a quick search you will find that concepts such as wave particle duality are referred to in the newer literature as well as in the old. I'm not getting this information from textbooks but from journals and other sources I'm finding on the net.

The work reported in the link added above was published just recently and it was one of the first things I came across when I googled wave particle duality. It might not be a reliable account but it's an example of what's going on. The quantum eraser experiment I referred to above mentions wave particle duality.See paragraph 1 page2.
I quote:

"This reflects the wave properties (both path) of photon 1 ............... we have now detected the the particle property (which path) of photon 1".

I'm not trying to promote the concept of wave particle duality or any other concepts that might seem to be weird or paradoxical. In fact the opposite is the case and I want to know why there are so many apparently contradictory views.

 

[bhobba]

I want to know why there are so many apparently contradictory views.

I explained why. Precisely what don't you get about the link I gave?

The concepts in QM are such that they need to be built up to.

If you want the real deal read Ballentine - but as you will find if you do, its very hard without knowing the books that lead to it. Even Dirac's famous book mostly does it correctly and its decades old - yet concepts it eschews still appear all over the place. The same with Von-Neumann's classic. Many ideas long superseded and gotten rid of ages ago are still about. Most don't worry about it because the context is understood and most aren't worried about foundational issues anyway. But its central to many that post here - and that's why confusion occurs.

Some people aren't that interested in the foundations of QM and don't proceed to a book like Ballentine that clearly explains the basic concepts and supersedes the less advanced texts. Its not some great 'swindle' - its simply there are different levels of understanding.

Thanks
Bill

 

[Dadface]

I don't think you understand the point I'm making. Let me put it differently. According to the discussion here it seems there are two broad camps when it comes to concepts that might seem weird. For the sake of brevity let me refer again to just one of those concepts-duality

1. In one camp there are those who follow what has been described here as modern QM and who have no need of duality.
2. Opposite to that there are those to whom duality is a concept which needs to be considered.

I lean more towards camp 2 but that's beside the point. What I want to know is why there is so much literature by people who appear to be in camp 2. This is not just the old literature either, its new literature as well and much of it published in journals. Why do the journals publish if it is wrong or if it displays a lack of understanding?
The problem I'm getting in this thread is that mainly I'm getting comments from people in camp 1 only, I'm not hearing anything from the other side. Perhaps members of camp 2 might have something valid to say.

 

[bhobba]

1. In one camp there are those who follow what has been described here as modern QM and who have no need of duality.
2. Opposite to that there are those to whom duality is a concept which needs to be considered.

What I am saying is camp 2 is simply people who most likely know better but also know it doesn't affect shut up and calculate, or are not particularly concerned with it to read the more advanced foundational texts because it doesn't affect shut up and calculate.

A number of practitioners who post here have commented we get far to caught up in this stuff. The reason is a lot of people that post are really caught up in foundational stuff but those that practice it aren't.

Thanks
Bill

 

[bhobba]

I lean more towards camp 2

Then you should read books like Ballentine - or even Dirac's ancient classic. If you don't want to because it's a slog you have your reason why camp 2 flourishes.

Thanks
Bill

 

[Nugatory]

What I want to know is why there is so much literature by people who appear to be in camp 2. This is not just the old literature either, its new literature as well and much of it published in journals. Why do the journals publish if it is wrong or if it displays a lack of understanding?
The problem I'm getting in this thread is that mainly I'm getting comments from people in camp 1 only, I'm not hearing anything from the other side. Perhaps members of camp 2 might have something valid to say.

One possible explanation for why you're only hearing from people in camp one would be that camp two is less well populated than you're thinking.

And seriously, kidding aside, the disagreements you're seeing are (mostly) illusions caused by using natural language to describe mathematical concepts. The mathematical formalism of quantum mechanics is clear, unambiguous, and contains nothing that looks like the popular notion of "wave-particle duality", and that's what quantum mechanics has been for better than three-quarters of a century now. However, when we try talking about it without the math:
1) Sometimes people who know what they're talking are careless with the English words wrapped around the math. They do this because the truth is in the math and not the words, so any ambiguity and imprecision in the words is harmless because the math is what counts. Unfortunately, someone looking at the words without the math background or someone to help with further explanation is going to be misled.
2) Often, it's just plain hard to do it right. Some popular misconceptions so deeply embedded (due, as @vanhees71 pointed out above, to the tradition of explaining QM from the historical perspective) in the popular mind that it's easier to explain around them. If you only have a few paragraphs or a few pages to give a math-free overview of an experiment... Are you going to start with "before you can understand this, you'll have to forget everything you think you know, and then spend a few evenings working through the first two hundred pages of Ghiradi's 'Sneaking a peek at God's cards'" or are you going to start with "You've heard how things can be particles or waves? Well, in this experiment that means..."?

A forum like this one has the advantage of being interactive so we can work for a better level of understanding; that's what's behind @bhobba saying "You generally get the real deal here - not watered down popularisations of dubious validity.".

 

[vanhees71]

I can only cite Einstein again: "Make things as simple as possible but not simpler." The most difficult thing is to write good popular-science books on highly abstract subjects like quantum theory. In my way it's nearly impossible to write one that's not oversimplified to the extent that it becomes wrong. There is no way to describe quantum theory accurately without a minimum of quite tough mathematics, including functional analysis of Hilbert spaces and probability theory.

The old fasihioned quantum theory before 1925 has never been a consistent model, and this was well known by the great physicists who discovered them, among them Planck (who was much closer to the modern point of view on a intuitive level than, e.g., Einstein, but he was never satisfied with modern quantum theory either), Einstein, de Broglie, Bohr, and Sommerfeld. To a certain extent the discovery of modern quantum theory occurred because of the deeply dissatisfying state of atomic physics in terms of the Bohr-Sommerfeld tradition. Heisenberg was one of the master pupils of Sommerfeld's and from day 1 in the institute involved in atomic physics in the old-fashioned quantum theory. So it is no surprise that Heisenberg found the modern quantum theory first on his famous escape from sever hay-fever attacks to the island of Helgoland in the summer of 1925. As was very quickly worked out by Born, Jordan, and Heisenberg this was quantum theory with the Hilbert-space structure in terms of the representation of Hilbert space as $\ell^2$, the Hilbert space of square-summable sequences. The operators are infinitely-dimensional matrices, and that's why this formulation is known as "matrix mechanics". One early breakthrough was the ingenious solution of the hydrogen problem (quantum mechanical "Kepler problem") by Pauli, using the O(4) dynamical symmetry. A bit later Schrödinger worked out "wave mechanics", which turned out to be much more convenient for many praktical problems than "marix mechanics". It was Schrödinger himself who showed that both theories are in fact completely equivalent, and also around the same time Dirac came up with the representation-independent formulation we still use (and also should use in teaching the subject from the very beginning). Last but not least John von Neumann brought the theory in a mathematically rigid form, including a mathematically strict treatment of the eigenvalue problem of unbound operators on Hilbert space.

It is precisely this historical development that should be taught after one has introduced the modern QT (either as wave mechanics or better from the very start in the representation-free formulation), so that the old-fashioned quantum theory cannot lead to wrong intuitive pictures, you have to unlearn before you can open yourself to the modern point of view. At least that's the experience I made in my learning history of QT: In high school we got quite well trained in the old-fashioned ideas, and we also learned some simple wave mechanics. Later at the university, I had to unlearn the old-fashioned QT pictures ("wave-particle dualism", "Bohr-Sommerfeld orbits", "correspondence principle" and "complemenarity", which was invented by Bohr in connection with modern QT but is a pretty empty metaphysical concept).

 

[Dadface]

Thank you all again for replying. Firstly I would like to point out that I made a mistake in post 21. I actually lean more towards camp 1 as should be clear from post 16. However, I base that only on my knowledge of certain experiments. It is the experiments themselves along with all the details which is my current particular area of interest. And there are many other experiments I need to look up.

Some very powerful arguments have been put forward above against concepts such as duality but I would like to point out again that there is a lot of modern literature that refers to such concepts. Sorry if this is getting boring but please take a look for yourselves by googling "wave particle duality". I have just done so and on the first two pages alone saw three references to new experiments on the subject. The first was published in Nature Communications the second in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences and the third In Science.

I thought that perhaps that duality is not mentioned in the original papers so I started by searching "wave particle duality" in the Nature website. Three pages came up with brief descriptions of published papers. I scanned down page one counting in how many papers wave particle duality was mentioned. i stopped counting when i reached six

It seems like the concept of wp duality is still going strong. I need to look up the original papers. Getting tired now.
Thanks

 

[gxu]

No.

QM is silent on what's going on when not observed.

Thanks
Bill

This is a little subtle. I do admit that I enjoyed reading Ballentine's papers. I have been more and more leaning toward the ensemble interpretation - but that's just my personal opinion at this time. My personal opinion was wiggling all the time in the past years anyway ;) Here is a subtle yet mathematically clear, point that I would like to add:

if a pair of photons are prepared in the entangled state, e.g:

(|H>|V> + |V>|H>) / √2 (1)

then it cannot be simultaneously in the following de-entangled state (for example):

|H>|V> (2)

considering the interpretation of de-entangled state in (2) are mathematically unambiguous, therefore the quantum theory did say something (in a negation way) before the measurement (1), which cannot be at the same time in state (2).

EDIT: this subtle point is essentially saying that - if some quantum experimentalist prepared the photons in the entangled state, he should be very sure they are described by equation (1) instead of equation (2). It sounds so trivial eventually ;)

 

[Dadface]

I have googled other journals searching for papers which refer to duality and have got hits every time. I got 122 results from Science alone. It seems that the duality concept is still pretty high on the agenda of many physics establishment. None of the places I have looked at are crackpot organisations and many, such as Nature, are very highly regarded.

I haven't read any of the papers revealed by my searches but I'm assuming that some, if not most of them are aimed at the specialist reader. If that's the case why are prestigious journals and their referees allowing experimenters and authors to refer to concepts which may be incorrect or of historical interest only?

It's clear that people here are passionately in favour of the mathematical approach and rightly so. However, the analysis and reporting on what is observed requires an input of words as well as maths. If some of the words used are incorrect, ambiguous or wrong in any way then they should be challenged and I don't see much evidence of that outsideof this forum. Perhaps I've been looking in the wrong places.

I am grateful for the comments.

 

[vanhees71]

Well, of course there are many papers out there using bad terminology. You have to read any paper with care and decide for yourself whether it's just the usual jargon with a correct meaning or if it's nonsense. Concerning interpretational issues I've seen sometimes papers, containing good physics, even in prestigeous journals like Nature which I'd have rejected in the published form for the reason of bad jargon. It also always depends on the referees, whether such wording gets published or not!

 

[bhobba]

Perhaps I've been looking in the wrong places.

Indeed you have.

You should study Ballentine, read the papers, and make up your own mind.

There is a reason those that have studied such sources hold the views they do. If you won't accept the word of people that have done that you have but one choice - you must do it. Doing what you are doing will lead nowhere. As Vanhees says errors and loose language abound in the professional literature. But since you seem to think something else is afoot and reassurances don't seem to change your mind your options are rather limited.

Thanks
Bill

 

[Dadface]

Well, of course there are many papers out there using bad terminology. You have to read any paper with care and decide for yourself whether it's just the usual jargon with a correct meaning or if it's nonsense. Concerning interpretational issues I've seen sometimes papers, containing good physics, even in prestigeous journals like Nature which I'd have rejected in the published form for the reason of bad jargon. It also always depends on the referees, whether such wording gets published or not!

Agreed. An immediate problem is that there seem to be so many papers it will be difficult to know where to start. I'll probably scan through the Nature papers first and try to pick out a few that may be of interest. The next problem will be trying to get access to those papers.

 

[Dadface]

Indeed you have.

You should study Ballentine, read the papers, and make up your own mind.

There is a reason those that have studied such sources hold the views they do. If you won't accept the word of people that have done that you have but one choice - you must do it. Doing what you are doing will lead nowhere. As Vanhees says errors and loose language abound in the professional literature. But since you seem to think something else is afoot and reassurances don't seem to change your mind your options are rather limited.

Thanks
Bill

I'm not sure what you mean with these comments. When I wrote "perhaps I've been looking in the wrong places" I was referring to the apparent lack of criticism of the wording used in various papers. Please look again at my post.

I have accepted peoples words here but I'm also curious as to why there seem to be so many, presumably experts in the field, who cling to descriptions such as duality. Surely it's good physics to keep an open mind and listen to different points of view even if your initial impression is that some points of view are incorrect.

I would like to point out again that I cannot see the relevance of duality and this is mainly from a non mathematical perspective but based on an evaluation of certain experimental arrangements I have so far looked at.

 

[zonde]

Some very powerful arguments have been put forward above against concepts such as duality but I would like to point out again that there is a lot of modern literature that refers to such concepts. Sorry if this is getting boring but please take a look for yourselves by googling "wave particle duality". I have just done so and on the first two pages alone saw three references to new experiments on the subject. The first was published in Nature Communications the second in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences and the third In Science.

I thought that perhaps that duality is not mentioned in the original papers so I started by searching "wave particle duality" in the Nature website. Three pages came up with brief descriptions of published papers. I scanned down page one counting in how many papers wave particle duality was mentioned. i stopped counting when i reached six

Maybe it's related to financial side of experimental physics? Experiments cost a lot of money and you have to justify how the money is spent. Introducing wave-particle duality in explanation of experiment will surely make it look like they are demonstrate something we do not quite understand yet (but can phenomenologically describe using QM).

Have you noticed if the new papers that mention wave-particle duality are mainly descriptions of experiments? Or theoretical papers too?

 

[Dadface]

They mainly seem to be experiments but I need to go back and take a more detailed look.

 

[bhobba]

I but I'm also curious as to why there seem to be so many, presumably experts in the field, who cling to ideas such as duality.

Many posters have explained it to you. What I am having difficulty with is you for some reason do not seem to want to accept it.

Its easy - errors and loose language abound in the professional literature and don't always get piked up by referees. That's all there is to it.

Why do you continue to want to pursue it?

Thanks
Bill

 

[Dadface]

Many posters have explained it to you. What I am having difficulty with is you for some reason do not seem to want to accept it.

Its easy - errors and loose language abound in the professional literature and don't always get piked up by referees. That's all there is to it.

Why do you continue to want to pursue it?

Thanks
Bill

I wan't to pursue it because I'm interested in it. Yes posters have explained things and the explanations all seem credible. I have been thankful for the advice given here and haven't, wittingly, rejected any of it. However, the fact remains that there are many others who still refer to concepts such as duality and if the authors referees and journals are all getting it wrong why is it not being more widely challenged. Or if it is being challenged, apart from on this forum, where can I look it up?

The main thing I would like at the moment is for some of the pro duality (camp 2) members to protect their position. I'm getting arguments from one side only and It seems that I'm expected to accept that without question. It's like trying to find the sum of a random series of numbers when half of them are missing.

Please try the following because it might make you better understand my position on this matter:
Do a Google search for Nature.com and when you get to their site search "wave particle duality imaged for the first time". When I tried this earlier 71 hits came up. Look at the titles of the papers on page one. When I did so earlier two titles of particular interest came up:
1. The Duality Principle in the Prescence of Post Selection
2. Wave Particle Duality of Single Surface Plasmon Polaritons
I'm assuming these are published papers and they even referred to duality in their titles. I haven't yet looked at the other pages.

 

[Feeble Wonk]

I'll weigh in here in hopes that you won't feel alone. I am not a physicist either, and likely share many of the same curiosities that you are afflicted by. What I've learned on PF is that the physicists, for the most part, are very rigid in their approach to these matters. The mathematical formalism is all that they are concerned with, and understandably so. Most of them do this for a living, and they want to avoid being caught up in esoteric arguments that are not applicable (and not necessary) to their work. They tend to take the "shut up and calculate" approach.
You are seeing many articles regarding the "wave-particle duality" concept, and you're confused as to why they dispute the validity of the concept. I think what they are saying is that the "words" are misleading because they suggest an ontology that is not supported by modern quantum theory. But, the papers you are citing are likely legitimate works of science, and I suspect that the PF contributors here would be able to explain those findings in mathematical terms that they would be very comfortable with.
Us non-physicists tend to imagine Nature as something tangible... something real that is "out there". So, it's natural for us to be curious about "what" the photons are and how they behave between observations. I suffer from the same tendency. I believe that what they are saying is that neither the image of a wave nor the image of a particle is an accurate representation of what quantum theory says. The only thing the theory describes are predictions about the outcomes of measurements/observations at the time they are made. From their perspective, the theory offers no description of what Nature IS between observations.
That does little to allay our curiosity of course. You will find some authorities here that are more open to this type of speculation, but they are the exception to the rule.

 

[Dadface]

Thank you but I'm not confused as to why the respondents here dispute the validity of the concept of duality etc I'm confused as to why there seem to be so many other physicists who seem to accept the concept of duality. I have been getting some great feed back from the disputers here but nothing from the acceptors. I wonder if there are any acceptors in this forum.

I'm a disputer myself in that with the papers I'm familiar with I see no relevance to the references that have been made about duality and so on. In fact the way I see it the results can be explained perfectly well in terms of classical physics, But I'm talking about a small body of work here and there is a lot more out there to look at.

I want to keep an open mind and try to find out why the acceptors promote the concepts that they do. I wonder why there are so many of them and why the journals accept their work. I take on board the explanations given here but I can't help feeling uneasy about it because there seems to be a huge number of acceptors. Can they all be wrong? If they are all wrong that makes me uneasy because it seems they are not being challenged about it. Why is there not a big debate going on and an insistance from publishers and others that the authors tidy up their work and take more care with the language they use?

But, there still remains a niggling doubt which is that there may be one or even a million acceptors who can justify their acceptance. If so i would like to hear about it. Who knows ,they may have something enlightening to tell.

By the way I have a degree in applied physics but in my career have used only a small part of it. As far as theory goes i consider myself to be an intersted amateur.

 

[zonde]

Thank you but I'm not confused as to why the respondents here dispute the validity of the concept of duality etc I'm confused as to why there seem to be so many other physicists who seem to accept the concept of duality. I have been getting some great feed back from the disputers here but nothing from the acceptors. I wonder if there are any acceptors in this forum.

We can talk about wave-particle duality in two different ways. One is old idea that can be traced back to Bohr about complementarity and the idea that particle and wave nature can not be observed at the same time (sort of implying that sometimes "particles" are particles but sometimes waves but never both at the same time).
In this sense wave-particle duality is not valid but is sometimes used in descriptions of experiments as strawman IMO.

The other sense is that neither concept of "particle" nor "wave" alone fits quantum phenomena.
In this second sense wave-particle duality is valid concept.

So it would be good to provide some context when you say this concept is used. Or at least specify in what sense you want to discuss this concept.

 

[vanhees71]

Well, if you want to be maximally confused, you have to read Bohr or Heisenberg. If you want maximal clarity then read Dirac or Pauli ;-)). The latter have written an early brillant textbook (Dirac, Principles of Quantum Mechanics) and an as brillant review (Pauli, Die allgmeinen Prinzipien der Wellenmechanik; later translated to Enlish as General principles of quantum mechanics). Both are fully valid today about 80 years later.

 

[Dadface]

We can talk about wave-particle duality in two different ways. One is old idea that can be traced back to Bohr about complementarity and the idea that particle and wave nature can not be observed at the same time (sort of implying that sometimes "particles" are particles but sometimes waves but never both at the same time).
In this sense wave-particle duality is not valid but is sometimes used in descriptions of experiments as strawman IMO.

The other sense is that neither concept of "particle" nor "wave" alone fits quantum phenomena.
In this second sense wave-particle duality is valid concept.

So it would be good to provide some context when you say this concept is used. Or at least specify in what sense you want to discuss this concept.

Thank you Zonde. You are right, it would probably have helped to have been more specific and to have put the question into context. Basically at the present time I'm interested in quantum weirdness and I'm trying to find out what it is about certain phenomena for example entanglement that is considered to be weird. In many cases I don't see the phenomena as being weird at all. Well perhaps they are weird but no weirder than phenomena that falls under the banner of classical physics.
Although my opening question was about entanglement the discussion sort of slipped sideways and into duality. That was weird.

 

[Dadface]

Well, if you want to be maximally confused, you have to read Bohr or Heisenberg. If you want maximal clarity then read Dirac or Pauli ;-)). The latter have written an early brillant textbook (Dirac, Principles of Quantum Mechanics) and an as brillant review (Pauli, Die allgmeinen Prinzipien der Wellenmechanik; later translated to Enlish as General principles of quantum mechanics). Both are fully valid today about 80 years later.

Thank you vanhees. I'm often in a state of maximal confusion and I don't think Bohr or Heisenberg will make things worse. The Pauli book in particular looks promising but it costs a lot of beer money. I will shop around.
Thank you for your advice.