Jump to content
King E

Are we waves ?

Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)

Quantum particles are waves. We are made up of them. So does that makes us waves?

Sorry for such a stupid childish question.

Edited by King E

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, King E said:

Quantum particles are waves.

No, they're not. If measured in the right way, they share some properties with waves, but they also behave in ways that waves definitely do not.

We are made up of them. So does that makes us waves?

This doesn't follow.  Just because I'm made up of cells doesn't imply that I am a cell.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Some of our properties ( and of our constituents ) can be described by a wave model ( and associated probability distributions ).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If our brain can be described as an instrument (it certainly bares the trademarks of one), then the wave/particles of our bodies are in a constant collapsed state, because the brain, as a detector, is always turned on.

Just my two cents.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, Halc said:

No, they're not. If measured in the right way, they share some properties with waves, but they also behave in ways that waves definitely do not.

 

This doesn't follow.  Just because I'm made up of cells doesn't imply that I am a cell.

Give an example that quantum particles behave in ways that waves definitely do not. Quantum particles always behave in the way waves do

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, QuantumT said:

If our brain can be described as an instrument (it certainly bares the trademarks of one), then the wave/particles of our bodies are in a constant collapsed state, because the brain, as a detector, is always turned on.

Just my two cents.

There are two wave behaviors to consider: the wave function, from Schrödinger’s equation, and the matter-wave behavior from deBroglie’s equation. The two are not identical. The “collapsed state” issue applies to the former, not the latter. IOW, you will still have wave behavior even in a single quantum state 

1 minute ago, King E said:

Give an example that quantum particles behave in ways that waves definitely do not. Quantum particles always behave in the way waves do

No, I disagree. Quantum particles have quantized energy and a localized interaction region, which are not wave behaviors.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, swansont said:

There are two wave behaviors to consider: the wave function, from Schrödinger’s equation, and the matter-wave behavior from deBroglie’s equation. The two are not identical. The “collapsed state” issue applies to the former, not the latter. IOW, you will still have wave behavior even in a single quantum state 

No, I disagree. Quantum particles have quantized energy and a localized interaction region, which are not wave behaviors.

So you mean they have mass?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, King E said:

So you mean they have mass?

Many have mass, sure, but quantized energy and localized interaction do not require mass. Photons exhibit these behaviors as well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, swansont said:

Many have mass, sure, but quantized energy and localized interaction do not require mass. Photons exhibit these behaviors as well.

OK. what is the difference between particle and wave?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A classical particle can be localized, a wave cannot.
Even an elephant has a deBroglie wavelength.
It is exceedingly small, because it is equivalent to h/(m*v), and as such we don't even consider it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, swansont said:

IOW, you will still have wave behavior even in a single quantum state 

So, you're saying that (collapsed) particles display wave behavior? Where do we observe that?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, QuantumT said:

So, you're saying that (collapsed) particles display wave behavior? Where do we observe that?

Send a particle through a double slit, and it will interfere. Through a single slit it will diffract.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, Halc said:

No, they're not. If measured in the right way, they share some properties with waves, but they also behave in ways that waves definitely do not.

 

This doesn't follow.  Just because I'm made up of cells doesn't imply that I am a cell.

Good thinking +1

1 hour ago, King E said:

Give an example that quantum particles behave in ways that waves definitely do not. Quantum particles always behave in the way waves do

Quantum tunnelling.

For good measure here is an answer to the obverse question. "Give an example that quantum particles behave in ways that classical particles definitely do not."

Anomalous Quantum Hall Effect.

Edited by studiot

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, swansont said:

Send a particle through a double slit, and it will interfere. Through a single slit it will diffract.

Quantum particles are not little spherical balls. They are just localized waves. At all times, their behaviour is described by a wave function. If quantum particles are sent through double slit, we obtain an interference pattern which tells that they are waves. If the particles are sent through single slit, a non interference pattern is obtained. But the non interference pattern does not tell the opposite of what interference pattern tells. The non interference pattern does not mean particle. It just means we are inconclusive about waviness. So quantum particles are waves but their tininess can give them some semblance of location. In general double slit experiment is not a wave test or particle test. Its a 'which way' test. The point is to test which way something went. For example, did a photon went through slit A, slit B or both slits simultaneously.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
30 minutes ago, King E said:

Quantum particles are not little spherical balls.

Indeed, and nobody is claiming they are, although your choice of the term 'particles' carries a bit of that connotation.

Quote

If quantum particles are sent through double slit, we obtain an interference pattern

If one quantum particle is sent through a double slit, we observe one point (where it is measured), something a wave sent through the slits will not do.  The probability curve of where that measurement will be taken is what resembles an interference pattern.

No wave exhibits quantized behavior like that.  Sound (an example of an actual wave) passed through slits will be measured in all locations, not just one, and its intensity (yes, an interference pattern) will drop off as a function of distance from source to measurement.  A photon or electron exhibits no similar behavior, being measured at full mass/energy at the measurement location and not measured at all at any other location. Sound (or any other real wave) ceases to propagate if you take away its medium.  There is no medium for a photon or molecule passing through the slits, and yet they still arrive at the measurement location.

Edited by Halc

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, King E said:

Quantum particles are not little spherical balls. They are just localized waves.

Waves are localized?

Quote

At all times, their behaviour is described by a wave function. If quantum particles are sent through double slit, we obtain an interference pattern which tells that they are waves. If the particles are sent through single slit, a non interference pattern is obtained. But the non interference pattern does not tell the opposite of what interference pattern tells.

I never claimed it was “opposite”

 

Quote

The non interference pattern does not mean particle. It just means we are inconclusive about waviness. So quantum particles are waves but their tininess can give them some semblance of location. In general double slit experiment is not a wave test or particle test. Its a 'which way' test. The point is to test which way something went. For example, did a photon went through slit A, slit B or both slits simultaneously.

It’s a wave test, to be sure. Classical particles do not interfere.

Photons undergo interactions with only one atom, even though its wavelength is much larger than the atom, and other atoms are around. That’s not how waves behave.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good discussion on wave particle duality. The main point is all particles exhibits point like (particle like) and wavelike characteristics.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, StringJunky said:

There are no particles, there are only fields - Art Hobson. 

https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1204/1204.4616.pdf

One lesson that one can take from that article is that waves/particle/fields are not what these thing are, they are just how we describe them. 

The map, not the country

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
3 hours ago, Strange said:

One lesson that one can take from that article is that waves/particle/fields are not what these thing are, they are just how we describe them. 

The map, not the country

In all the years I have watched your posts. This is one of the best replies I have seen. Highly accurate +1. ( Not to say your replies have been inaccurate. I particularly like the ramifications of this simple but profound reply)

Fields for example is an abstract descriptive for a group of mathematical objects (scalars, vectors, spinors, tensors) under a geometric basis. In the QFT formalism which the Hobbs paper supports the field has probability path integrals (Feymann path integrals)

 Wavefunctions of the Schrodinger equation involves probability functions. The pointllike attributes can be described by the DeBroglie or Compton wavelength.

 In all the three dynamics they break down to descriptives. 

The OP is correct in that an elementary particle has no corspuscular (matter like ) constituents ie not little billiard balls.

 However particles can be described as field excitations which has both point like and wave like characteristics(side note another descriptive I have seen you often state.

Physics doesn't describe reality) is also very apt. Physics describes what we can observe. Though it also speculated on the unobservable for example virtual particles.

Edited by Mordred

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Mordred said:

In all the years I have watched your posts. This is one of the best replies I have seen.

Well, thank you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • 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.