High School New idea about wave-particle duality - looking for feedback/criticism

  • Thread starter Thread starter fbas
  • Start date Start date
Click For Summary
The discussion centers on a new idea regarding wave-particle duality in the context of the double-slit experiment, specifically the behavior of photons when unobserved versus observed. A misconception about photons traveling at the speed of light and the notion of time stopping for them is highlighted, with the assertion that this concept is based on flawed interpretations of time dilation. The modern understanding of quantum mechanics has moved beyond wave-particle duality, which is considered outdated. Recommendations for further reading include Giancarlo Girardi’s "Sneaking a Look at God’s Cards" and Taylor and Wheeler’s "Spacetime Physics" to gain a better grasp of these concepts. The thread concludes that due to the foundational misunderstandings, it has been closed.
fbas
Messages
1
Reaction score
6
TL;DR
New idea about wave-particle duality: photons are particles, but are perceives as waves because their time frame is different than ours
Hi everyone! I'm new here and I've been thinking about the double-slit experiment and came up with what might be a completely wrong idea, but I'd love to hear your thoughts.
The basic idea: You know how in the double-slit experiment, photons behave like waves when unobserved but collapse to particles when we measure them? Well, I was thinking about the fact that photons travel at c, which means time essentially stops for them (γ → ∞).
What if
…..
[Speculative theory removed by mentor edit]
….
Any thoughts, references, or reality checks would be much appreciated!

P.S. - If this has been proposed before and debunked, please point me to the literature. I'd rather learn from existing work than reinvent the wheel.
Thanks for reading!
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Physics news on Phys.org
fbas said:
Any thoughts, references, or reality checks would be much appreciated!
You have been victimized by pop-sci misdescriptions.

The entire notion of “wave-particle duality” was abandoned as a false start almost a century ago and is not part of the modern understanding of quantum mechanics. There’s no substitute for a real textbook with its non-trivial mathematical prerequisites (which is how the wave-particle duality persists in non-technical explanations), but you might give Giancarlo Girardi’s book “Sneaking a look at God’s cards” a try as a layman-friendly explanation of QM as it is now understood.

The bit about time stopping for photons is another popular misconception. The time dilation formula you’re using to get that result is derived starting from assumptions that are equivalent to ##v\lt c##, so does not apply when we set ##v=c##. It is as if we started with the premise “consider the integers ##a## and ##b## such that ##(\frac{a}{b})^2=2##” - the strange and wonderful results that would follow are just the math telling us that it doesn’t work here. There are many threads here discussing this “time stops” misunderstanding, but if you are serious about understanding the theory behind the time dilation formula you will want to try Taylor and Wheeler’s “Spacetime Physics”, the first edition is available free online.

As this thread is based on a misunderstanding, it is closed.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Likes PeroK, PeterDonis and fbas
I am slowly going through the book 'What Is a Quantum Field Theory?' by Michel Talagrand. I came across the following quote: One does not" prove” the basic principles of Quantum Mechanics. The ultimate test for a model is the agreement of its predictions with experiments. Although it may seem trite, it does fit in with my modelling view of QM. The more I think about it, the more I believe it could be saying something quite profound. For example, precisely what is the justification of...

Similar threads

  • · Replies 36 ·
2
Replies
36
Views
7K
  • · Replies 38 ·
2
Replies
38
Views
5K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
3K
  • · Replies 22 ·
Replies
22
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
1K
  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
3K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
2K