Please do not read this

[CFTraveler]

http://mthruf.files.wordpress.com/2011/03/job-fails-talk-nerdy-to-me.jpg

[Neil Templar]

:lol:

[CFTraveler]

Made you look!
Now you changed it's quantum state.

[ButterflyWoman]

So is this thread now a particle or a wave?

[CFTraveler]

It's a particle. It just became a particle even longer because people keep looking at it.
:|

[Neil Templar]

i'm waving at the particle.

[Neil Templar]

ever noticed that particle sounds like "party-cool" (well it does in my head :roll: )

[Tutor]

'waves' at y'all

from wikipedia:

"Wave-only view:

At least one scientist proposes that the duality can be replaced by a "wave-only" view. Carver Mead's Collective Electrodynamics: Quantum Foundations of Electromagnetism (2000) analyzes the behavior of electrons and photons purely in terms of electron wave functions, and attributes the apparent particle-like behavior to quantization effects and eigenstates. According to reviewer David Haddon:

Mead has cut the Gordian knot of quantum complementarity. He claims that atoms, with their neutrons, protons, and electrons, are not particles at all but pure waves of matter. Mead cites as the gross evidence of the exclusively wave nature of both light and matter the discovery between 1933 and 1996 of ten examples of pure wave phenomena, including the ubiquitous laser of CD players, the self-propagating electrical currents of superconductors, and the Bose–Einstein condensate of atoms.

Albert Einstein, who, in his search for a Unified Field Theory, did not accept wave-particle duality, wrote:

This double nature of radiation (and of material corpuscles)...has been interpreted by quantum-mechanics in an ingenious and amazingly successful fashion. This interpretation...appears to me as only a temporary way out...

And theoretical physicist Mendel Sachs, who completed Einstein's unified field theory, writes:

Instead, one has a single, holistic continuum, wherein what were formerly called discrete, separable particles of matter are instead the infinite number of distinguishable, though correlated manifestations of this continuum, that in principle is the universe. Hence, wave-particle dualism, which is foundational for the quantum theory, is replaced by wave (continuous field) monism."

end of wiki quotation

[ButterflyWoman]

i'm waving at the particle.
And the particle waves back, but only when you're not looking. :P


ever noticed that particle sounds like "party-cool" (well it does in my head :roll: )
Bloody Scottsmen with their accents in their heads. ;)

In my head, it sounds like "part uh cul" (because I have a non-regional North American accent, and so do my thoughts).

In some Aussie (that's pronounced "ozzie" just for the record) heads, though, I reckon it sounds like "pah duh kil" (or similar; I can only do a really bad, broad Aussie accent, despite many years of living here ;)). Australians have a really difficult time pronouncing the letter R. Or should I say "The letta ah". ;)

[CFTraveler]

'waves' at y'all

from wikipedia:

"Wave-only view:

At least one scientist proposes that the duality can be replaced by a "wave-only" view. Carver Mead's Collective Electrodynamics: Quantum Foundations of Electromagnetism (2000) analyzes the behavior of electrons and photons purely in terms of electron wave functions, and attributes the apparent particle-like behavior to quantization effects and eigenstates. According to reviewer David Haddon:

Mead has cut the Gordian knot of quantum complementarity. He claims that atoms, with their neutrons, protons, and electrons, are not particles at all but pure waves of matter. Mead cites as the gross evidence of the exclusively wave nature of both light and matter the discovery between 1933 and 1996 of ten examples of pure wave phenomena, including the ubiquitous laser of CD players, the self-propagating electrical currents of superconductors, and the Bose–Einstein condensate of atoms.

Albert Einstein, who, in his search for a Unified Field Theory, did not accept wave-particle duality, wrote:

This double nature of radiation (and of material corpuscles)...has been interpreted by quantum-mechanics in an ingenious and amazingly successful fashion. This interpretation...appears to me as only a temporary way out...

And theoretical physicist Mendel Sachs, who completed Einstein's unified field theory, writes:

Instead, one has a single, holistic continuum, wherein what were formerly called discrete, separable particles of matter are instead the infinite number of distinguishable, though correlated manifestations of this continuum, that in principle is the universe. Hence, wave-particle dualism, which is foundational for the quantum theory, is replaced by wave (continuous field) monism."

end of wiki quotation Didn't Bohm also speak of a 'pilot wave' made out of particles? I've already forgotten.
Whether the wave is what's there, or the particle is what's there, it's interesting to see that measurement brings about the particle observation anyway.

[Tutor]

Didn't Bohm also speak of a 'pilot wave' made out of particles? I've already forgotten.
Whether the wave is what's there, or the particle is what's there, it's interesting to see that measurement brings about the particle observation anyway.


CFT,

yes, i believe so. a pilot wave 'composed' of particles, or the compositional. however before a musician composes music there is music within.

[CFTraveler]

Tim (yes I know I'm stubborn) the music may be there but it takes the composer to make it audible (or the musician, etc.) Even if in the long run, the musician is the music.

[Tutor]

Tim (yes I know I'm stubborn) the music may be there but it takes the composer to make it audible (or the musician, etc.) Even if in the long run, the musician is the music.

lord knows i am stubborn, part of being human i guess. You make plenty great music all the time CFT. I meant music as in just making 'life' in a loving way.

i dont deny particles. i had originally written quite a lengthy reply, but felt it rambled into the unintelligible. i certainly didnt intend to have you imagine that i thought you were 'wrong' in this thread's meaning. what the hell do i really know, not much. on the other hand, you've got all of this forum's facets well in hand, authoritatively guiding folks in a good way. i cant imagine what Robert's intent with this forum would be without your hands in this forum.

tim

[Yamabushi]

The wave pilot is actually a field of information in the hidden variables domain. However Bohmian mechanics predicts that a particle is always a particle, whether unobserved or observed, but that observation effects only the pilot wave, which determines the movement of the particle. When observed, pilot wave moves it like a particle -- when unobserved, pilot wave moves the particle like a wave.



'waves' at y'all

from wikipedia:

"Wave-only view:

At least one scientist proposes that the duality can be replaced by a "wave-only" view. Carver Mead's Collective Electrodynamics: Quantum Foundations of Electromagnetism (2000) analyzes the behavior of electrons and photons purely in terms of electron wave functions, and attributes the apparent particle-like behavior to quantization effects and eigenstates. According to reviewer David Haddon:

Mead has cut the Gordian knot of quantum complementarity. He claims that atoms, with their neutrons, protons, and electrons, are not particles at all but pure waves of matter. Mead cites as the gross evidence of the exclusively wave nature of both light and matter the discovery between 1933 and 1996 of ten examples of pure wave phenomena, including the ubiquitous laser of CD players, the self-propagating electrical currents of superconductors, and the Bose–Einstein condensate of atoms.

Albert Einstein, who, in his search for a Unified Field Theory, did not accept wave-particle duality, wrote:

This double nature of radiation (and of material corpuscles)...has been interpreted by quantum-mechanics in an ingenious and amazingly successful fashion. This interpretation...appears to me as only a temporary way out...

And theoretical physicist Mendel Sachs, who completed Einstein's unified field theory, writes:

Instead, one has a single, holistic continuum, wherein what were formerly called discrete, separable particles of matter are instead the infinite number of distinguishable, though correlated manifestations of this continuum, that in principle is the universe. Hence, wave-particle dualism, which is foundational for the quantum theory, is replaced by wave (continuous field) monism."

end of wiki quotation Didn't Bohm also speak of a 'pilot wave' made out of particles? I've already forgotten.
Whether the wave is what's there, or the particle is what's there, it's interesting to see that measurement brings about the particle observation anyway.

[Tutor]

yamabushi,

exactly, and cool.

[natalie-1984]

so how do they NOT observe a particle? How were they able to find this out?

[newfreedom]

ever noticed that particle sounds like "party-cool" (well it does in my head :roll: )

Hahaha, i like what it sounds like in your heead Neil...

Do you think we could perhaps have a 'head-swap' !!! hahaha

:mrgreen: :lol:

[CFTraveler]

so how do they NOT observe a particle? How were they able to find this out? In the twin slit experiment, they set up a picture taking apparatus at the moment they shoot off the photon. Then they observe the result. The result changes depending on whether the beam is observed before reaching the plate at the other end of the holes. If the photon is observed, it acts one way. If it's not, it acts differently.
This sounds pretty straightforward, but if you think about it, the decision to observe or not to observe is a split-second decision, (think of how fast light goes) so the electron is acting like a particle when observed, and like a wave when not observed. They have done it with mechanical 'observers' and with live 'observers', and it seems like the photon adjusts it's way of being depending on the observation before the holes are reached. Which is pretty gnarly, if you think about it. (I know, not very technical, but descriptive).

[natalie-1984]

I like the way you explain things, It makes it easier for me to understand. I would rather it be a discriptive explaination using analogies rather than scientific smart people talk! I like how you match your explainations to fit my personality!