Main Question or Discussion Point
In the wave/ particle duality paradox of light that modern science claims to exist, is the wave aspect more comparable to a snake moving forwards or a wave in the water?
It is not a "claim", but the description of the results from lots of carefully performed experiments.Originally posted by mitch bass
In the wave/ particle duality paradox of light that modern science claims to exist,
Out of those two, a wave in the water,... but it is very different from that.is the wave aspect more comparable to a snake moving forwards or a wave in the water?
There are neither waves nor particles. Each concept is really just a model that allows our puny little brains to imagine what the math seems to be telling us. Over the last 80 years we have begun to realize that neither model is a corrrect one.Originally posted by mitch bass
In response to Integral's question about what a snake has to do with me trying to understand this wave aspect phenomenon, I say that if the waves we are talking is a particle moving in a wave formation than you have a single entity that is going forwards. This is different from a wave in the water in which there are no particles moving forwards but only a thrusting of activity. If the wave phenomenon that is contributed to the atomic activity is like a snake, than there is the particles moving ahead but doing so in a wave motion...if the atomic activity is like a wave in the water than there is no particle moving forwards at all, and the photon or electron ceases to exist because these are particles. A snake is a single unit that moves like a wave, it is an entity onto itself and when it goes from one point to another, it does so moving its body like a wave. Do protons move like a snake or is there nothing moving forwards at all like a wave in the water? That is my question? During he wave like phenomenon of light are there particles moving as waves move or is it that there are no photons, no particles, but only a thrust like a wave in the water?
From your words - I would guess you could draw on a piece of two dimensional paper...a three dimesional figure that comes close to the mathematical readings.But, to understand what we mean by a wave...we are really talking about probability waves. We are talking about things that seem to be in many places at once. We are talking about varying energy densities in space-time. We also refer to things like the strength of an electric field varying as a wave – such as with light. Things that we measure at the atomic level change over time and space according to the equations used also for describing things like water waves and the sound waves. This does not make them waves in the sense that we imagine. It makes them waves in a mathematical sense.
If we consider Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Principle, we find that as we squeeze more and more information out about the exact position of a particle, we destroy or lose more and more information about the momentum. Likewise, if we try to measure the momentum exactly, we loose all knowledge of position. Other pairs like this exist, for example energy and time can have this relationship, depending on the application.If it is the second thing and we dont know where the particle is
without measureing it does that mean that the particle doesnt
have a precise momentum and location or does that just mean
we dont know what it is until we measure it?[/B]
Yes. The energy is transmitted as a longitudinal wave by compression - water does compress slightly - and by gravity. For example, sound waves travel through water by transferring pressure as a longitudinal wave – meaning that the water molecules are perturbed or compressed in the direction of the wave motion. A simple ocean wave is viewed as a type of transverse wave that moves by dislocating or perturbing the water molecules in a direction transverse to that of the forward motion; typically upwards. In reality a wave in water moves [transfers energy] as a function of both of these mechanisms.Also a mechanical wave traveling through water....
Is that simply energy moving through a medium (water)? [/B]
A wave has no definite location. How do you draw a picture of something that has no there? Your question really results from the confusion between wave and particle models...both of which are an incomplete description of the thing observed.Originally posted by Arc_Central
Actually - I am dying for it. However - I am looking specifically for a photon wave form, and I would prefer it would be a drawing made of a photon out in the dead of space. My expectation for a 3D drawing is that it has at least some aspect of all three dimensions shown in the drawing, or a view of it from three directions with each view in a one dimensional sense. My contention is that if there is any understanding of a photon at all - The capability should be there to draw it up.
His exact words were: ΔxΔp>=h/2piOriginally posted by zoobyshoe
Ivan, (or anyone)
Can you link me to Heisenberg's
actual words in pointing out
the impossibility of knowing
location and momentum? I have
only read paraphrases and all
differ enough from each other
to make me wonder if I would
agree that any caught the gist.
Two things. First, yes, the graph I am thinking of IIRC is a probability wave describing the likelihood of finding the particle at any given coordinate, not a 'literal' physical depiction of the particle itself. BUT, it has been my understanding that this probability function IS the Schrodinger wave function. If this is not the case, then what is the official name of this probability wave, and what is the (interpretted) meaning of the Schrodinger wave?If you go to a chemistry site and look up the shapes for the S, P, D, and F orbitals, you are really looking at the probability distribution for the electron about the nucleus. This is like a picture of the probability wave function. But it is important to remember that that this form is a probability space. It is not the wave function, or the electron, nor is it really a picture of anything. It represents the chance of finding the electron for the given energy state as shades of gray.
You are absolutely correct. The probability wave functions discussed all derive from Schrödinger’s Equation. The complete form of this function tells us the state of the system. By this we mean the observable, measurable characteristic we find if any particular measurement is made. Depending on which operator we use [which mathematical process we apply to the state function] we can derive things like the chance of finding the particle at a particular position, and perhaps at a particular point in time. Other things like the expectation value for energy, momentum, angular momentum, and spin can also be calculated from this. This says nothing about what the "particle" actually looks like. In fact it tells us that "particle" is an incomplete description of whatever it is that we observe.Originally posted by hypnagogue
I didn't have time today to look up the graph I spoke of. Hopefully I can dig it up for you tomorrow. But the reason I respond now is becasue Ivan Seeking said:
Two things. First, yes, the graph I am thinking of IIRC is a probability wave describing the likelihood of finding the particle at any given coordinate, not a 'literal' physical depiction of the particle itself. BUT, it has been my understanding that this probability function IS the Schrodinger wave function. If this is not the case, then what is the official name of this probability wave, and what is the (interpretted) meaning of the Schrodinger wave?
The best answer that physics has right now is probably this: The photon cannot be described by any such physical model. The point is this: You asked what a photon looks like. The answer is, it doesn't. This is why we have difficulties understanding these things. The more you try to picture these things, the greater your error in perception.Originally posted by Arc_Central
Well it would seem there is no depiction available for what a photon (wave) looks like, although some have tried by using a rock tossed into a quiet pond analogy. I'll consider it - up for grabs. If I choose to draw a duck, or a goat as a depiction for the wave. - I can claim it to be correct with no possibilty of rebuttal. There being no information available as to what a photon (wave) looks like. The pond analogy is as useful as a goat that quacks by your standards.
Although I don't believe this for one minute. The drawing of it is still up for grabs. I shall begin to press pencil to paper.
Cuz I has some ideas where the main thrust is to change wave particle dualtiy to just wave duality. I.E. There aint no particles.
It seems to me that the minimum activation energy for a rod in the eye is 4 to 8 optical frequency photons. This may not be correct.Originally posted by Arc_Central
Thanks for the link.
Got a question. I've read this somewhere. Can't remember where.
Let us say we had a device that could release one photon at a time in the direction of a number of people. Is it assumed that all of those people could see the photon? Any one person could see the photon?