- #1
mitch bass
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?
Originally posted by mitch bass
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?
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?
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 it is the second thing and we don't know where the particle is
without measureing it does that mean that the particle doesn't
have a precise momentum and location or does that just mean
we don't know what it is until we measure it?[/B]
Also a mechanical wave traveling through water...
Is that simply energy moving through a medium (water)? [/B]
Originally posted by Arc_Central
hypnagogue
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.
Originally 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.
-thanks
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.
Originally posted by hypnagogue
Arc_Central:
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?
Originally posted by Arc_Central
Ivan
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 possibility 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.
Originally posted by Arc_Central
Ivan
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?
Originally posted by zoobyshoe
I believe he wants to know how
wide the field of detection for
one photon is presumed to be.
Given several people with infinit-
ly sensitive vision, how many
can be expected to percieve the
one photon?
One detection per photon. When the photon wave interacts with the field, it will "choose" one spot to collapse into a unique position. So only one person would be able to see one photon.
Here, I can't resist re-stating something that I have stated many times in these forums before:Originally posted by Ivan Seeking
In another context, we might mean the electric and magnetic field strengths associated with a photon for example.
Originally posted by Arc_Central
Thanks hypnagogue
But isn't the Schrodinger wave in relation to electron orbits? In other words - This is not a depiction of a photon in the dead of space?
I'm wondering if the pic is a 3D depiction after it is laid out on 2D paper. Do you have a link to the site you got this pic from?
If it is what I think it is. I am quite happy with what I am seeing, and I can still commence with my own depiction of a photon in 3D terms.
Originally posted by arcnets
Here, I can't resist re-stating something that I have stated many times in these forums before:
I think there exists such a thing as a 'single electron wavefunction'. But such a thing as a 'single photon electromagnetic field' does not exist.