The elementary particles behave both like particles and like waves

[lightlamb]

Its was proven that one particle can be in two places at once.

I found that to be confusing because matter acts in a wave like manner through the transfer of energy. My hypothesis is that the transfer of energy moves in waves effecting more than one particle at once. In light the disperse of energy is equally distributed between each particle. Maybe when the experiment was conducted, only one particle was seen during one point in time. For example, when water moves through a faucet it is seen as a stream but if you are to turn down the pressure, you will be able the see a series of droplets.
The particle that was being observed was a light particle and light moves to fast for anyone or any regular human to see. The transfer of energy moves at such a great velocity that the particles are accelerated fast enough for a large group to be perceived as light. The smaller the particle, the faster the transfer of energy.
This hypothesis raises the question about the destructive power of lightning.

 

[Simon Bridge]

Its was proven that one particle can be in two places at once.

No it hasn't.
Where did you get that from?

matter acts in a wave like manner through the transfer of energy

Where did you get this idea from?

Search these forum for wave-partice duality for a lot of information.
TLDR: the wave behavior is in the statistics - the particle nature is what you detect.
These "natures" are part of the math - they have those labels because of classical physics.
In some circumstances the behavior is like classical waves and in other like classical particles.

But it is really the famous story of blind people investigating an elephant - one gets the front, investigates the trunk and discovers that elephants have snake-like behavior; another gets the back, investigates the tail and discovers that the elephant has rope-like behavior. The two compare notes and announce that the elephant exhibits snake-rope duality.

 

[bhobba]

Its was proven that one particle can be in two places at once.

No. What properties quantum objects have when not being observed the theory is silent about.

Check the FAQ about the so called wave-particle duality:
https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=511178

Thanks
Bill

 

[lightlamb]

famous story of blind people investigating an elephant

No it hasn't.
Where did you get that from?


Where did you get this idea from?

Search these forum for wave-partice duality for a lot of information.
TLDR: the wave behavior is in the statistics - the particle nature is what you detect.
These "natures" are part of the math - they have those labels because of classical physics.
In some circumstances the behavior is like classical waves and in other like classical particles.

But it is really the famous story of blind people investigating an elephant - one gets the front, investigates the trunk and discovers that elephants have snake-like behavior; another gets the back, investigates the tail and discovers that the elephant has rope-like behavior. The two compare notes and announce that the elephant exhibits snake-rope duality.

Actually it has. The properties of classical physics seems to disprove the "nature".
There is a highly accredited video explaining the nature of subatomic particles, however, most of my research isn't based on this particular video.


I bought a book from amazon.
Quantum Physics: A Beginner's Guide (Beginner's Guides) by Alastair Rae

 

[lightlamb]

No. What properties quantum objects have when not being observed the theory is silent about.


Thanks
Bill

It is silent because their equations rule out reasoning.

 

[bhobba]

It is silent because their equations rule out reasoning.

I think a bit more detail is required on exactly why you would make such a claim.

Thanks
Bill

 

[bhobba]

Actually it has. The properties of classical physics seems to disprove the "nature". There is a highly accredited video explaining the nature of subatomic particles, however, most of my research isn't based on this particular video.


I bought a book from amazon.
Quantum Physics: A Beginner's Guide (Beginner's Guides) by Alastair Rae

I applaud you investigating this stuff.

But one of the issues here is literature at the populist level, or even at the beginning serious level, isn't quite correct. We all have to start somewhere, and in doing that some of the concepts, such as the so called wave particle duality, are seen at the more advanced level to have issues.

If you would like to see a 'proper' treatment see if can get a hold of Ballentine - Quantum Mechanics - A Modern Development:
https://www.amazon.com/dp/9810241054/?tag=pfamazon01-20

The math may be an issue, but hopefully you can pick up a bit of the gist of what's really going on eg QM really rests on just two axioms.

Thanks
Bill

 

[Simon Bridge]

Actually it has.

... been proved that a particle can be i two places at once?
How? (Rhetorical question - see below.)

The properties of classical physics seems to disprove the "nature".

Again - how? (Rhetorical question - see below.)

You need to support your statements when you are in a scientific forum, or the conversation becomes "tis - tisn't - tis - tisn't" which may be fun but gets you nowhere.

If you mean that classical physics is at variance with quantum mechanics - you are mistaken: new scientific theories are required to encompass the old ones. Classical physics is a subset of quantum mechanics.

It you mean that there are things in nature not described by classical/Newtonian physics - then you are right. If Newton had managed to come up with a theory of everything then I would have been out of a job a long time ago.
I like to say: "Nature knows more physics than we do."

Please try to be specific in your claims.

There is a highly accredited video explaining the nature of subatomic particles, however, most of my research isn't based on this particular video.

I should hope not - have you used any materials that are not from pop-science?

"highly accredited" is not the tame as "true" or "accurate".
What is it accredited for and by whom?

The video makes a bunch of somewhat off statements ...
It says that the marble must pass through both holes simultaniously in order to produce the diffraction pattern - that this pattern vanishes with one hole, or detectors present is taken to show that the marble must go through both of them.

Then dissolves into magical thinking at bout the 10min mark ... somehow the detectors know if the cat has it's eyes open or not etc.

Basically the video is attempting to describe the basics of quantum mechanical phenomenon in a "naive" manner - to show why it is strange and weird. People who work with the phenomena every day do not use those sorts of description because they are not useful. Fun yes. Useful no.

Even so - it does not actually support the previous 2 claims:

claim 1. it has been proven that a particle can be in two places at once:
The narration takes pains to point out that the waves go through both slits but you cannot know which slit the particle goes through. I think it's in the 12-15min section just before the Uncertainty Principle.

One may suppose this means something in particular to our intuition - but since we cannot know, it does no good to speculate. What the video, and QM, does show is that you'll never detect the same particle in two places at the same time. This means you can never prove that it was in two places at the same time.

claim 2. classical mechanics disproves nature:
the video goes to some lengths to explain how the quantum behavior leads to the classical results

I think if you want to continue with these assertion, you will need to come up with a citation to a peer reviewed paper. Proving that things can be in two places at once would cause quite a stir and certainly get published if there were anything to it.

Meantime, I want to expand your reference materials a bit:

Here is another highly accredited video - actually a series of four videos:
http://vega.org.uk/video/subseries/8
... in this series, Richard Feynman presents, he insists, a purely particle model for diffraction and interference called "QED"; for which he, Sin-Itiro Tomonaga, and Julian Schwinger, shared a Nobel Prize.

(I see your youtube animation thing and raise you three Nobel laureates :) )
The presentation is quite accessible, have a look - watch all four.

You still want to understand further - the book suggested by Bhobba is a useful one to learn from.

What you don't want to do is draw definite conclusions from popular science videos.

 

[bahamagreen]

Anyone notice that the brindle cat in the video seems to express increasing skepticism with the narration as the video proceeds..?