Re: Virtual Particles and Light Duality principle
mmeron_at_cars3.uchicago.edu
Date: 01/02/05
- Next message: Creighton Hogg: "Re: Thomson Aether Physics Under Scrutiny"
- Previous message: Lefty: "Re: Division by Zero in Nature, and Decomposition of Time."
- In reply to: Emwizsoon: "Re: Virtual Particles and Light Duality principle"
- Next in thread: Emwizsoon: "Re: Virtual Particles and Light Duality principle"
- Reply: Emwizsoon: "Re: Virtual Particles and Light Duality principle"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Sun, 02 Jan 2005 07:39:34 GMT
In article <1104647187.270259.169560@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>, "Emwizsoon" <emwizsoon@yahoo.com> writes:
>mmeron@cars3.uchicago.edu wrote:
>
>> >
>> You know, before you (or your teachers) even can say something
>sensible on
>> the topic, you should make sure that all the terms you use have a
>> reasonably well defined meaning. You use "wave" and "particle" as if
>
>> it is quite clear to you what they mean. Is it?
>>
>> Mati Meron | "When you argue with a fool,
>> meron@cars.uchicago.edu | chances are he is doing just the
>same"
>
>
>Ok. Particle as in dot, point. Wave as in tsunami.
Good, so far.
> The wizards suggest don't use the same analogy to light or electron
>as these are microscopic phenomenon. However. In the double
>slit experiment with single photon. It is a macroscosmic
>display of the electron or photon behavior. Now if we shouldn't
>call it a "photon" at all to remove the false idea of particle
>then how do you explain the double slit experiment.
>
Why shouldn't we call it a "photon"? It sure has some particle
aspects.
So, lets elaborate. *Classically* we recognize entities which we call
"particles". What characterizes them is that they're localized (your
"point"). First, whenever they interact with something, they interact
in a specific point in space and moment in time. Second, in between
interactions they propagate in localized fashion. Now, the first of
these features is quite clear, as for the second, a purist may object
that we don't actually know what they do between interactions since
the only way to check this would be through an interaction. This is
true, but we've at our disposal a dynamic theory (Newton's) which
allows us, based on a set of observations (i.e. interactions) on the
particle at some place and time, predict where it'll be at some other
time *assuming* it propagates as a localized entity, and said
predicitons agree with actual measurements (i.e. interactions)
performed at said other time. We can't ask for more than this.
*Classically*, we also recognize other entities which we call "waves".
Unlike classical particles, classical waves are delocalized. They
exist, in any given moment, over extended regions of space, they
propagate in delocalized fashin and they (that's important) interact
in delocalized fashion. Same wave can interact at various locations,
at the same time. In fact, a wave can be split into parts that
continue propagating as independent waves.
Now, in the quantum realm we encounter entities which are, strictly
speaking, *neither* waves *nor* particles, in the classical sense.
Yes, they do share some features with both. They do interact in
localized fashin, the way classical particles do. But they also
propagate in delocalized fashion, the way classical waves do. This
*does not* mean that they're "sometimes waves and sometimes
particles", the way cheap popularizations and poor teachers present
it, just that they are a different type of entity of both "classical
wave" and "classical particle".
To use an analogy, suppose you've somebody who lived all his life in a
city built on a grid (the way Chicago is) and who, therefore, knows
that there are two types of roads. In the case of Chicago these are
streets, which are running East-West, and avenues which are running
North-South. Now, a person like this who'll eventually venture out of
the city and encounter a winding county road, may try to describe it
as "being sometime street and sometime avenue". But, in reality, it
is neither. It doesn't oscillate between a "street state" and "avenue
state", it is just a different entity which shares some commonalities
with all those previously known, without being identifiable as any of
them.
So, we couls actually have called them "partiwaves" or "wavicles" or
we could've coined some new term like "grubtensroms". The physics
would've been the same, no matter what we call them. Out of inertia
(perhaps because the particle aspects were observed first) we refer to
them as particles. But these certainly are not same as "classical
particles".
...
>
>But then since you guys said convensional ideas about wave
>and particle is wrong in that light behave as neither. Then
>I'd like to know how the wave-like light turn into particle-like
>and when does it occur in the 2 slit setup.
>
It doesn't "turn" into anything, it is what it is. The fact that we
find it convenient, at times, to describe it using terminology brought
from classical physcis, doesn't mean that its (the photons) identity
changes as our terminology does.
Mati Meron | "When you argue with a fool,
meron@cars.uchicago.edu | chances are he is doing just the same"
- Next message: Creighton Hogg: "Re: Thomson Aether Physics Under Scrutiny"
- Previous message: Lefty: "Re: Division by Zero in Nature, and Decomposition of Time."
- In reply to: Emwizsoon: "Re: Virtual Particles and Light Duality principle"
- Next in thread: Emwizsoon: "Re: Virtual Particles and Light Duality principle"
- Reply: Emwizsoon: "Re: Virtual Particles and Light Duality principle"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
