Jump to content

Wave-Particle Speculation


bogie
 Share

Recommended Posts

Wave-Particle Speculation

 

Speculation: Particles have both a wave nature which is out flowing waves (the wave portion) and a particle nature (the dense core), making them wave-particles. Individual wave-particles can display both their wave and particle nature at that same time in single particle two slit experiments.

 

In the single particle two slit experiments, there is a wave pattern that forms on the screen after many single particles are sent through the slits, giving some evidence that both the wave portion and the particle core portion of the wave-particle are both in evidence in the space between the slits and the screen.

 

Explanation: The wave portion of the wave-particle goes through both slits, and the particle portion goes through one or the other. The wave interference pattern is caused as the out flowing wave energy from the particle core passes through both slits. The interference pattern has peaks and valleys of wave energy density which influence the path of the particle between the slits and the detector.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So apart from retrofitting an explanation to things we already know (I.e. predicted by theory) does your idea have any use? For example, can you predict (quantitatively) anything?

And how does this fit with delayed choice experiments?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So apart from retrofitting an explanation to things we already know (I.e. predicted by theory) does your idea have any use? For example, can you predict (quantitatively) anything?And how does this fit with delayed choice experiments?

You sound like the Strange from CosmoQuest; small world. You are saying that I am retrofitting an explanation to things already know[n]?

What did I say that is already known; can you quote the part of my post that your are referring to as retrofitting, and what exactly are you claiming that is known that I am retrofitting?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ok First define the wavefunction according to QM. Then define mathematically the particle. There is a specific reason I want you to look in detail on these two questions.

 

Wave-particle duality is a little sneaky when described in Heuristic terms. Your above is close but not quite right.

 

Hint "what is the definition of a particle under QM" ?

Edited by Mordred
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You sound like the Strange from CosmoQuest; small world. You are saying that I am retrofitting an explanation to things already know[n]?

What did I say that is already known; can you quote the part of my post that your are referring to as retrofitting, and what exactly are you claiming that is known that I am retrofitting?

You are basing this on the known fact that single particles can produce an interference pattern, for example. Would you have predicted this before the *scientific* theory did?

 

How does your idea explain delayed choice experiments?

 

Can it predict *anything*?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ok First define the wavefunction according to QM. Then define mathematically the particle. There is a specific reason I want you to look in detail on these two questions.

Give me the reason, because it seems like you think I am not already familiar, and if I am, tell me the reason for reading them again.

Wave-particle duality is a little sneaky when described in Heuristic terms. Your above is close but not quite right.

Hint "what is the definition of a particle under QM" ?

Speculation lends itself to the heuristic approach, doesn't it?

 

Maybe you can help me with the rules too. First, what am I obligated to by the rules, becauese for the Speculations sub-forums, they say this:

Rules: The Speculations forum is provided for those people who like to postulate new ideas in the realm of science, or perhaps just make things up for fun. Whatever the case is, this forum is not a home for just any science-related idea you have. It has a few rules:

 

Speculations must be backed up by evidence or some sort of proof. If your speculation is untestable, or you don't give us evidence (or a prediction that is testable), your thread will be moved to the Trash Can. If you expect any scientific input, you need to provide a case that science can measure.

 

Be civil. As wrong as someone might be, there is no reason to insult them, and there's no reason to get angry if someone points out the flaws in your theory, either.

Keep it in the Speculations forum. Don't try to use your pet theory to answer questions in the mainstream science forums, and don't hijack other threads to advertise your new theory.

Have fun.

End of rules.

 

Evidence is the results of the various single particle double slit experiments where the interference pattern developes after many particles.

 

I gave an explanation of why the interference pattern forms from the perspective of the speculative nature of the wave-particle.

 

Are there other rules I am expected to abide by?

You are basing this on the known fact that single particles can produce an interference pattern, for example. Would you have predicted this before the *scientific* theory did?

How does your idea explain delayed choice experiments?

Can it predict *anything*?

Taking a look at wave-particle duality form the alternative view that the wave-particle is both a wave and a particle at the same time, not the two traits in superposition.

 

In this speculation, photons and other particles are described as wave-particles that can display both their wave and their particle nature at the same time. Yikes, I know. I am characterizing the photon wave-particle to have the particle portion (dense wave energy core) at the center of the particle space, surrounded by the wave portion which is a spherically out flow of wave energy form the dense core. This particle structure applies to particles that cause a wave interference pattern in single particle two slit experiments, including the delayed choice quantum erasure experiments like:

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delayed_choice_quantum_eraser#The_experiment_of_Kim_et_al._.282000.29

 

This particular particle structure, if the speculation is true, makes understanding what is going on in the single particle two slit experiment a simple matter of the wave portion going through both slits, and interfering with the path of the core portion which goes through one or the other of the two slits. Some may think I am talking pilot wave theory, but I'm not and may differentiate between the two later.

 

It means that in the delayed choice quantum erasure experiment, there will always be an interference pattern developed on the detector after multiple single particles are sent through, if there is a path to that detector from both slits, as is the case with D1 and D2 in this image of the Kim et al setup:

 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Kim_EtAl_Quantum_Eraser.svg

 

The article pointed out the there is always an interference pattern at D1 and D2, but never at D3 and D4. Isn't the reason for that simple, if the photon is a wave-particle, i.e., a wave and a particle at the same time, as I speculate?

 

Here's the Kim et al team comment:

If an idler photon is recorded at detector D3, it can only have come from slit B.

If an idler photon is recorded at detector D4, it can only have come from slit A.

If an idler photon is detected at detector D1 or D2, it might have come from slit A or slit B.

 

Wouldn't you always get an interference pattern on the screen if the particle portion of the wave-particle went through either A or B, but the wave portion of the wave particle went through both A and B, creating the interference?

 

In the Kim et al. setup, that is exactly what the red and the blue paths show; if you have a red and blue path to the detector, you get interference on the screen pattern because you have wave energy reaching both D1 and D2 from each slit. You get no interference on D3 and D4 because those detectors never get wave energy from both slits, they always only get the wave energy that comes through the same slit as the particle comes through.

 

The wave-particle is both a wave and a particle at the same time, and that explains how a single particle two slit experiment can produce the wave interference pattern on the detect

or screen.

Here lets save timehttps://redirect.viglink.com/?format=go&jsonp=vglnk_148435658654413&key=6afc78eea2339e9c047ab6748b0d37e7&libId=ixwjkyqa010009we000MAki55j4ju&loc=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.physicsforums.com%2Fthreads%2Fthe-vacuum-fluctuation-myth-comments.892500%2Fpage-7&v=1&out=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.ca%2Furl%3Fsa%3Dt%26source%3Dweb%26cd%3D9%26ved%3D0ahUKEwiNgcSLubfRAhWogVQKHRtBBLEQFgg1MAg%26url%3Dhttps%3A%2F%2Farxiv.org%2Fpdf%2F1204.4616%26usg%3DAFQjCNEqAKaDGcbyMG2ax22sA9BakBSaTQ%26sig2%3DOLrYE7fyEIHsA3zMw400rQ&ref=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.physicsforums.com%2Fthreads%2Fthe-vacuum-fluctuation-myth-comments.892500%2Fpage-6&title=The%20Vacuum%20Fluctuation%20Myth%20-%20Comments%20|%20Page%207%20|%20Physics%20Forums%20-%20The%20Fusion%20of%20Science%20and%20Community&txt=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.ca%2Furl%3Fsa%3Dt%26amp%3Bsourc...G2ax22sA9BakBSaTQ%26amp%3Bsig2%3DOLrYE7fyEIHsA3zMw400rQ

"But the puzzle of wave-particle

duality in this experiment can be resolved by switching to an all-fields perspective"

The author of the above goes into good detail on the above quote

Maybe so. Can you trim down the 32 pages to the part that explanings it as an all-fields solution, or do I have to read the whole thing, and still be left with my speculation that I already can envision how it works and is predictive?

 

Give me a setup for a single particle two slit experiment, with or without the delayed choice, and I can predict if and where there will be an interference pattern on a detector and where there won't. My speculation is simple and better, IMHO.

 

I still interested in if there are more extensive rules than what I quoted?

Edited by bogie
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Taking a look at wave-particle duality form the alternative view that the wave-particle is both a wave and a particle at the same time, not the two traits in superposition.

 

 

This is a science forum. There is already a scientific theory that explains how quantum "particles" (fields) behave. This is able to explain things like superposition, entanglement and predict the outcome of experiments such as the dual-slit (as well as variants such as the delayed choice).

 

You have a vague explanation based on what science tells us. But what use is it? It isn't science, because it has no predictive power. You could not have used it to predict the wave-particel nature, you could not have used it to predict the results of the dual slit experiment, if you didn't already know these things.

 

It is not science, it is a fairy tale to explain what we already know. So what is the point?

 

 

The wave-particle is both a wave and a particle at the same time, and that explains how a single particle two slit experiment can produce the wave interference pattern on the detect

or screen.

 

So you admit you are retrofitting your explanation to what is already known from a scientific theory?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To answer your question particles are field excitations. The pointlike characteristics is where the wavefunction is a quanta of energy. That is your particle. The wavelike characteristics is the probability distribution of finding the above quanta at a given location.

 

So when you get right down to it there is no need for Wave-particle duality once you treat the particle as a field excitation. Which is what the above paper is describing

Edited by Mordred
Link to comment
Share on other sites

To answer your question particles are field excitations. The pointlike characteristics is where the wavefunction is a quanta of energy. That is your particle. The wavelike characteristics is the probability distribution of finding the above quanta at a given location.

So when you get right down to it there is no need for Wave-particle duality once you treat the particle as a field excitation. Which is what the above paper is describing

It is the same in QCD, particles are field excitations. The paper is interesting and thanks for the link. Edited by bogie
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Speculations that follow the required rigor as described by the rules are allowed. We have a few examples of seemingly wrong threads still open as the posters are following the rules. The truth is learning the math to properly support a speculation is a good training aid in and of itself. Though more often than one ends up proving themselves wrong. Which in and of itself is instructive.

 

From your last set of descriptives one would have a hard time with distinquishing your speculation from the QFT treatments already in place. This is probably where the math details will become necessary

Edited by Mordred
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Speculations that follow the required rigor as described by the rules are allowed. We have a few examples of seemingly wrong threads still open as the posters are following the rules. The truth is learning the math to properly support a speculation is a good training aid in and of itself. Though more often than one ends up proving themselves wrong. Which in and of itself is instructive.

From your last set of descriptives one would have a hard time with distinquishing your speculation from the QFT treatments already in place. This is probably where the math details will become necessary

I can distinguish between them, but not to the standards that I failed to read before I posted the thread. The wave-particle structure isn't a stand alone speculation. It comes along with a whole set of axioms, hypotheses, and speculations, about a wave energy density model of the universe. Imagine trying to explain that here, under the demands for math, evidence, and predictions that live up to the standards of a scientific paper. Edited by bogie
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I seriously doubt you need to rewrite all of physics. Start with where your speculation becomes distinct. Figure out what math you need to describe the deviation from the mainstream viewpoints.

If done properly I'll bet current mathematics and techniques can describe any valid dynamic etc. If you can't get your variation to work under the math then chances are its not valid.

Though if your not ready for the math end yet. I would suggest studying the mainstream math first. Good model building requires such. Math being the lanquage of physics.

 

Though we also don't expect an immediate "Standards of a full scientific paper" only that we follow guidelined steps towards such ie some mathematical rigor.

Edited by Mordred
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wave-Particle Speculation

 

Speculation: Particles have both a wave nature which is out flowing waves (the wave portion) and a particle nature (the dense core), making them wave-particles. Individual wave-particles can display both their wave and particle nature at that same time in single particle two slit experiments.

 

In the single particle two slit experiments, there is a wave pattern that forms on the screen after many single particles are sent through the slits, giving some evidence that both the wave portion and the particle core portion of the wave-particle are both in evidence in the space between the slits and the screen.

 

Explanation: The wave portion of the wave-particle goes through both slits, and the particle portion goes through one or the other. The wave interference pattern is caused as the out flowing wave energy from the particle core passes through both slits. The interference pattern has peaks and valleys of wave energy density which influence the path of the particle between the slits and the detector.

 

Like Mordred, I feel there may be a germ of an idea in your post.

 

But I also feel there is an implied contradiction in your opening post.

 

It runs like this.

 

Your explanation states "The interference pattern has peaks and valleys of wave energy density which influence the path of the particle between the slits and the detector".

 

This seems to me to be at variance with the statement of simultaneity, " Individual wave-particles can display both their wave and particle nature at that same time",

 

because in order for the peaks and valleys pattern to influence anything it must be present ie it must be there when the 'particle' arrives ie fractionally before the particle.

 

Please explain how this apparent discrepancy is overcome?

Edited by studiot
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Like Mordred, I feel there may be a germ of an idea in your post.

 

But I also feel there is an implied contradiction in your opening post.

 

It runs like this.

 

Your explanation states "The interference pattern has peaks and valleys of wave energy density which influence the path of the particle between the slits and the detector".

 

This seems to me to be at variance with the statement of simultaneity, " Individual wave-particles can display both their wave and particle nature at that same time",

 

because in order for the peaks and valleys pattern to influence anything it must be present ie it must be there when the 'particle' arrives ie fractionally before the particle.

 

Please explain how this apparent discrepancy is overcome?

 

Yes. Since I already mentioned my wave energy density model, where everything is composed of wave energy, of which the wave-particle speculation is a part, the explanation for how the wave portion arrives in advance of the central high energy density core is based on the universe being filled with wave energy.

 

The explanation for a universe filled with wave energy coming and going in all directions at all points, and therefore having a fluctuating wave energy density "value" at all points, is part of the explanation, but I'll just refer to that energy as being light and gravitational wave energy emitted and absorbed by all particles and objects.

 

Light energy is the spherically outflowing wave from the photon, and that spherical wave has a source at the center of the spherical out flow; the source is the high energy density core of the photon wave-particle, and the gravitational wave energy is the outflow of wave energy from all particles and objects.

 

To explain the wave-particle in that environment is to envision it as a standing wave pattern, and since the photon travels at the local speed of light, it gets all of its inflowing wave energy from the forward direction of motion. I refer to the local speed of light, because in the wave energy density model, the local wave energy density is the value of the fluctuating wave energy density in the immediate vicinity, made up of the spherically outflowing wave energy from all surrounding particles and objects. The out flowing standing wave component from distant objects is the inflow to the local particle, and the out flow of the local particle contributes to the inflowing component of the standing wave patterns of the distant objects.

 

Keep in mind that there is constant relative motion which I explain as a combination of two forces, quantum gravity and wave energy density equalization.

 

So, the wave particle has a presence which is its complex standing wave pattern, and the pattern is sustained by the directionally inflowing wave energy density, and so particles and objects move in the direction of the net highest wave energy density source. This means that the photon wave-particle has a leading wave energy wave front that spreads out spherically in advance of the central high energy density core of the wave particle, goes through both slit slightly in advance of the central high energy density core, and thus forms the wave interference pattern.

 

Also, how exactly do the peaks and valleys of the wave influence the path of the particle?

Also, if these are "energy waves" where does the energy go? Does something stop the waves when the particle is detected?

 

Are you the Strange from CosmoQuest; small world isn't it, but you do pose an appropriate question at just the right time. The spherically outflowing wave energy component of the wave-particle, which leads the advance of the core portion, has a consistent wave density as it leaves that central core of the wave-particle. When it passes through both slits, the energy emerging from each slit has the same consistent source (the outflowing wave energy component of the photon as it approaches the slits).

 

The slits act as elongated "pinholes", and we know that light emerges spherically from pinholes. So beyond the slits, each spherical pinhole type wave is the energy of the wave-particle, and when those waves converge, a very consistent interference pattern is produced, and is characterized and high energy peaks and low energy valleys.

 

That is the wave energy environment that the photon's high wave energy density core enters when the core passes through one or the other of the slits. But remember, the core is continually emitting the spherically outflowing wave energy component, and so when it passes through one of the slits, it brings with it the wave energy outflow too. This changes the local wave energy density as the photon core portion traverses the space between the slits and the detectors.

 

When we don't know which slit the core passes through, we do know that its very presence affects the wave interference pattern, and the net resulting peaks and valleys no longer have that very clean consistent pattern of peak and valleys. We don't know what the path of the core portion will be, except to say that it is influenced by the complex interference pattern made up of the consistent wave out flow that enters the space behind the slits, and to the major contribution of the spherical wave energy outflow that accompanies the particle portion where ever it goes.

 

As for where the energy goes, can you answer that from the above explanation in regard to the spherically outflowing wave energy component being the inflowing wave energy component of surrounding particles and objects? That leaves the wave energy contained in the wave-particle core to be accounted for in regard to your question, "does something stop the wave when the particle is detected". Yes, that is the case. When the high wave energy density core strikes the detector, there is transfer of wave energy from the core, to the particles that it encounters, exciting those particles, which makes the impression on the screen.

Edited by bogie
Link to comment
Share on other sites

!

Moderator Note

 

Bogie - whilst you are inquiring and investigating you should not worry about the trashcan. If you start insisting that all we know about quantum field theory is actually wrong and you alone have the key to knowledge - that's where we start locking and trashing; as you seem to have hooked one Expert and two esteemed members then I guess you are a long long way from that. :)

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

bogie post#20

Yes. Since I already mentioned my wave energy density model, where everything is composed of wave energy, of which the wave-particle speculation is a part, the explanation for how the wave portion arrives in advance of the central high energy density core is based on the universe being filled with wave energy.

 

Thank you for replying to my question.

 

Do you then agree that the particles arrive after the waves in your hypothesis, not simultaneously as you originally stated?

 

How does this affect your hypothesis?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thank you for replying to my question.

 

Do you then agree that the particles arrive after the waves in your hypothesis, not simultaneously as you originally stated?

 

How does this affect your hypothesis?

Thank you for replying to my question.

 

Do you then agree that the particles arrive after the waves in your hypothesis, not simultaneously as you originally stated?

 

How does this affect your hypothesis?

 

Is there a assumption being made on your part that the wave and the particle are somehow separate? They are the two portions of the wave-particle that make it act like a wave and a particle at the same time. The wave portion surrounds the core portion and leads the advance of the wave-particle where ever the wave-particle goes, because it is a spherical outflow of wave energy from the core portion. But they travel together until their path is too narrow for the spherical portion of the local wave particle to entirely pass through just one slit. It is broad enough to pass through both slits, but the core portion is compact enough to pass through either slit.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is there a assumption being made on your part that the wave and the particle are somehow separate? They are the two portions of the wave-particle that make it act like a wave and a particle at the same time. The wave portion surrounds the core portion and leads the advance of the wave-particle where ever the wave-particle goes, because it is a spherical outflow of wave energy from the core portion. But they travel together until their path is too narrow for the spherical portion of the local wave particle to entirely pass through just one slit. It is broad enough to pass through both slits, but the core portion is compact enough to pass through either slit.

 

No

 

Please read my post#20 very carefully.

 

I am not saying you are right or wrong nor am I proposing alternatives.

 

I am examining it for logical self consistency and consequences.

 

I think this is a good thing to do because there is a danger of 'running away with oneself' when proposing a hypothesis.

 

 

You have made contradictory statements that the particle and wave are at the same point at the same time and that the wave arrives before the particle.

 

Please clarify this as they cannot both be right.

 

Incidentally your description of wave-particle sounds something like the wavelet or wavicle models.

 

Incidentally it is a mistake to fall into the trap of thinking that light has to be either a wave or a particle.

 

It has some characteristics (but not all) of each, but is actually more complicated than either.

 

Another example of such a physical phenomenon is that of (ordinary) glass.

 

Glass has some characteristics of a solid and some of a liquid but not all of either and is in fact more complicated than either.

 

:)

Edited by studiot
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.