[a / b / c / d / e / f / g / gif / h / hr / k / m / o / p / r / s / t / u / v / vg / vm / vmg / vr / vrpg / vst / w / wg] [i / ic] [r9k / s4s / vip / qa] [cm / hm / lgbt / y] [3 / aco / adv / an / bant / biz / cgl / ck / co / diy / fa / fit / gd / hc / his / int / jp / lit / mlp / mu / n / news / out / po / pol / pw / qst / sci / soc / sp / tg / toy / trv / tv / vp / vt / wsg / wsr / x / xs] [Settings] [Search] [Mobile] [Home]
Board
Settings Mobile Home
/sci/ - Science & Math

[Advertise on 4chan]


Thread archived.
You cannot reply anymore.


[Advertise on 4chan]


File: file.png (137 KB, 875x521)
137 KB
137 KB PNG
>>
yes
pic related is light acting like a wave
>>
light is light.
Particle or wave are just theoretical concepts in our models.
>>
>>13639141
someone trying to sound smarter than they are
>>
>>13639144
what is particle in qft, then?
>>
>>13639149
its what light acts like sometimes
>>
File: Schwinger.jpg (65 KB, 280x396)
65 KB
65 KB JPG
>>13639153
you know shit.
>...these two distinct classical concepts [particles and waves] are merged and become transcended in something that has no classical counterpart – the quantized field that is a new conception of its own, a unity that replaces the classical duality.
>>
>>13639123
Wrong, it’s a field
>>
>>13639238
what is a field?
>>
>>13639238
So a wave?
>>
>>13639123
>is
No. Duality lies in the behaviour. Light behaves like a wave or a point-like particle depending on the degrees of freedom it's subjected to.
>>
File: 1626646391780.png (167 KB, 512x512)
167 KB
167 KB PNG
no its and photon
>>
Behaving like a wave or a particle is just a property of matter. It acts like a particle under certain conditions and like a wave under the other.
>>
>>13639123
Everything is. Wave-particle duality has been demonstrated in interference experiments for objects as massive as 10,000 atomic masses.

Above that limit, matter is still expected to exhibit wave-particle duality, but the wave qualities to be undetectable and practically irrelevant.
>>
>>13639475
light isnt matter anon
>>
>>13639123
Light is something we model using waves and particles. Each model captures the behavior of light well in specific situations but fails to encapsulate all the behavior we see from light. The understanding is that our classical theory of waves and particles do not suffice *isolated* to explain everything we see from light, especially at appropriately small scales.
>>
>>13639123
photons aren't real and are an artefact of our eyes and cameras taking boolean samples of a massive dense waveform. There is no proof that photons actually exist and aren't just the resultant wave packet from electro-magnetic field excitations.

In the double slit experiment photons act more like particles when "observed" because of polarizers being placed in the slits. Well if we observe the system from a dynamic waveform POV, because the polarizers only let through a specific orientation of light wave. Thus the output waveform interacts with the rest of the EMF as if it were its own new signal, once again creating an illusion of particles.
>>
>>13640098
Maybe it doesn't matter to you, but it certainly matters to me.
>>
>>13640192
>There is no proof that photons actually exist
there is. they can be counted individually, if you like. this is a standard lab that most undergraduates in physics/wngineering do. ask me how I know youve never been to college.
>>
>>13640307
College isn't real either
Labs aren't real either
4chan isn't real
You aren't real
>>
>>13640307
Yeah they're counted individually using statistical averages, there is literally nothing that can actually detect a single photon, just groups of single photons or signatures that imply single photons. Again, these concepts are no different than discrete wavepackets in the EMF.
>>
>>13640192
>double slit is about polarization
>interacts with EMF
extreme cringe
>>
>>13640379
emf is 3 dimensional nigger, thats why you don't get radio reception directly under a transmitter. polarization and waves aren't mutually exclusive.
>>
>>13640378
Yes anon, they can, in fact, be measured discretely thanks to photoelectrics. I have no idea what you think EMF stands for but I assure you it isnt relevant here.
>>
>>13640388
electromotive force is most certainly a scalar quantity, retard
>>
>>13640397
yeah it is, electrons are real and them moving around inside the EMF creates the discrete wave packets we know and call photons, even though they're really still just waves/oscillations in a field
>>
light is a wave, anything else is stupid.
>>
>>13640393
well photoelectrics have to be sampled to be measured, so again we're introducing a boolean into a fluxual system, the photon doesn't have to exist to measure peaks in EMF energy
>>
>>13639288
a mapping from R^3 to R^3 (in this context)
>>
>>13640425
one day you will do this very basic sophmore experiment yourself
>>
File: 20210214_081608.png (417 KB, 990x802)
417 KB
417 KB PNG
>>13640427
>so again we're introducing a boolean into a fluxual system
is this a bot? im convinced this is a bot. (You)
>>
>>13640455
no, im an EE dropout/professional that spends most of his time designing and building illumination systems for signage and events, much of it is digital but I still have to do a lot of work debugging analog signals at times. I spend a lot of time researching light in its lowest levels as side hobby from my job and I have yet to find anything that quantizes the existence of photons without sampling. So naturally im posting all of my thoughts in an attempt for Cunningham's law to work and someone to actually show me something I havent seen before.

Im not saying im smarter than anyone here or anything like that, its just that from what I've learned and what I've observed in reality and all of the time I've spent measuring analog waveforms, it really seems like the photon is just a convince for physics and isn't actually something that exists. Or if we are to say the photon exists, it only exists because of measurement/sampling.
>>
>>13640617
Different anon here, how about black body radiation and Planck’s constant? Doesn’t the fact that EM transfers energy discretely imply a particle-like quality by nature? I don’t think the point you’re making holds water.
>>
>>13639123
A photon has always been an extended object. A photon has never been some small microscopic ball of energy. They are akin to clouds.
Where are clouds located? On the center of the cloud? You obviously cannot tell their location by a coordinate.
>>
>>13639162
No, its like a cloud. A cloud is a classical object that is spread in space and takes a large volume, has no clearly defined sharp borders or position. Photons are the same.
>>
>>13640730
correct. and yet they can still be discretized
>>
>>13640762
I mean each photon is its own cloud. We had a term for the cloud approximate size before quantum theory: Spatial coherence.
You will see interference effects when a path difference is smaller than the size of the cloud. When the cloud is very small we say the light is incoherent and interference is much harder, the cloud behaves more like classical point particles than like an extended object.
>>
File: Electromagnetic-Spectrum.jpg (350 KB, 2514x1200)
350 KB
350 KB JPG
>>13639123
Correct. Radio, light, x-ray, microwave, gamma radiation, all the same particle/wave phenomenon, just different energy levels.
>>
>>13640721
>how about black body radiation
easy, thermal energy is already just the energetic motion of atoms. electrons do indeed change from excited to ground states. Instead of "releasing a photon" what actually happens is that the energy of the atom or its vibration in space combined with the electron shell configuration of that atom produces an electromagnetic field. So when an atoms electons change from an excited state to a ground state, they thus stop transmitting the emf signal and assume a new frequency or mode of vibration and resultant emf modulation depending on shell config.
>Planck’s constant
is this defined by photons or the speed of light? I would say that particles are not needed to measure how fast a wave travels.
>Doesn’t the fact that EM transfers energy discretely imply a particle-like quality by nature?
What exactly is the difference between a particle and a the peak of a wave at a specific place in space and time?
>>
>>13639123
The languages we’ve developed as a species only provide approximations of reality, and only at length/time/energy/etc scales that are relevant to our everyday life.

The words “wave” and “particle” are macroscopic in their applicability and there’s absolutely no reason why the world at a totally different length/time/energy/etc scale should conform to our language. When we say things like “light is both a wave and a particle”, we are trying our best to assign words to phenomenon beyond the applicability of our coarse language.

Personally, I find it best to just think of matter as being its own thing that, under certain conditions, can exhibit properties that are similar to “waves” and “particles” in a macroscopic sense, but are not wholly either because, as previously stated, our language is insufficient to describe the quantum world.
>>
Light isn’t a thing. Stop trying to make it a thing.
>>
File: wave.jpg (53 KB, 649x680)
53 KB
53 KB JPG
>>13640871
>>
>>13641547
Could someone explain this meme to me like I have 70 IQ?
>>
>>13641558
>t. fellow 70iq retard
Google "double-slit experiment". The idea is: light behaves differently if and when it is "observed"
>>
>>13641742
Ty based fellow 70 IQ fren.
>>
>>13641742
how does it know when it's being observed?
>>
>>13640307
> there is. they can be counted individually,
Simply because there is no other way detector or sensor "sees" them. Light did not exist you see the interactions of waves with matter.
>>
>>13640192
>In the double slit experiment photons act more like particles when "observed" because of polarizers being placed in the slits.
You are sure, i never heard of that. If true than it is a scam to hide that fact.
>>
>>13640762
>correct. and yet they can still be discretized
You can call a single wave out of a storm as stormon (single particle of a storm) out of the same reason.
>>
>>13642122
thats not what a photon is though
>>
>>13639123
Nope. It's just a wave. When it's a "particle" that's really just a vortex ring.
>>
>>13639123
protip: this experiment has never been performed it was s thought experiment from Feynman who himself believed it could never be performed.
>>
>>13642075
It doesn't
>>
File: 1518674798839.png (157 KB, 552x560)
157 KB
157 KB PNG
>>13642075
A black paint absorbing light does not count as an observer. Light only has an interference pattern when observed. The same pattern would be created if the observer emitted or reflected some of the light it observes. The best analogy is that the light source is like a vibrating tuning fork and the observer is an identical tuning fork, or more accurately a radio receiver tuned to the same frequency.

Why these experiments never seem to be done with infrared or radio frequencies instead is beyond me.
>>
>>13642311
pretty weird that I did this experiment at 18 when barely entering comminity college for the first time, then
>>
>>13642359
They absolutely are done with IR and radio.
>>
>>13642346
Most accurate response in the whole thread
>>
File: Alright.gif (201 KB, 328x286)
201 KB
201 KB GIF
>>13642495
Can you show me some good examples of them done with radio?
>>
File: 634349.jpg (35 KB, 640x480)
35 KB
35 KB JPG
>>13642539
No.
>>
>>13640288
what's the matter with you?
>>
There are no particles, not anywhere
even 'solid' 'matter' aren't particles, but waves
photons and all the fundamental physics particles are waves
>>
>>13642821
Correct they are just waves. Now when a wave packet is pretty compact like a pulse then it sorta looks like a single point particle. There's no wave particle duality its just always waves.
>>
>>13639123
It is a whole wave of paticles. Particles have wave function describing its probability in the wave it's a part of.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UgBvOhsFvKk
>>
>>13639123
It's an excited state of a quantum field
>>
>>13639123
it is a wavy particle,

like ruffles have ridges
>>
>>13643096
groovy
>>
>>13643091
Also my guess is that particles may bounce back and forth in the chamber until they give their energy to the sensor, and such a pattern is caused by walls of hte chamber being mostly parallel and the slit itself has walls too. I had a diagram but probably some more proficient physicists should model this probability.
>>
File: fhf.jpg (28 KB, 420x339)
28 KB
28 KB JPG
>>13639123
It can be a wave and a particle or both, depending on the medium and the way it is observed.
>>
>>13642098
lol yeah the Copenhagen interpretation IMO is a giant disinformation campaign. We use polarizers as an "observer", funny thing is when you actually read real papers from real scientists they don't try to make it sound like something special is happening.

https://batch.libretexts.org/print/url=https://chem.libretexts.org/Bookshelves/Physical_and_Theoretical_Chemistry_Textbook_Maps/Supplemental_Modules_(Physical_and_Theoretical_Chemistry)/Quantum_Tutorials_(Rioux)/Quantum_Fundamentals/25%3A_Double%E2%80%90Slit_Experiment_with_Polarized_Light.pdf

linkrel
>>
File: tYiWN.png (88 KB, 1024x665)
88 KB
88 KB PNG
>>13643512
>they don't try to make it sound like something special is happening.
It's special, see Delayed Choice Quantum Eraser experiment.
>>
>>13640378
QRNG chips generate and detect single photons.
>>
>>13639139
Or a collision pattern of light particles passing through a uniform neutrino particle field.

QM is bullshit cope that doesn't truly describe any experiments without classic alternatives.
>>
I watched the PDP video too.
>>
>>13639123
read up on the eraser experiment reducing light to just particle/wave does not cut it there is more.
>>
>>13647867
>truly
You don't actually know what a model is, do you?
>>
>photons are like bullets
>>
>>13647952
I do, which is why I don't build entire fields of theoretical study based on a misinterpretation of modelling applied to particular experimental parameters.
>>
>>13647851
idk it seems like its still just a statistical proof of single photons, having to generate single photons through secondary emissions is very handwavy and even then a 10n long emission peak sure as shit doesnt sound like single photons to me. for reference your computer is able to do billions of clock cycles in the same amount of time they claim to measure a single photon. I would still argue that our current knowledge of "photon emissions" isnt considering how these photons are being made and measured.
>>
Particle physics is a joke
>>
>>13647986
technobabble. a bot typed this post.
>>
This is probably the most dumb free video for you fucks who can't understand this:


https://youtu.be/Q1YqgPAtzho
>>
>>13642426
>pretty weird that I did this experiment at 18 when barely entering comminity college for the first time, then
no. you didn't. you never performed an electron diffraction experiment.
>>
>>13650582
no one ever did
>>
>>13647978
>"shot noise" isn't real
>>
>>13648931
How can something tangible be both particle and wave?
>>
>>13652339
Its just a wave. Not a wave or a particle. Just a wave. An extended object with some finite spread, like a cloud. Or what is called a wave packet.
When the wave packet is small it behaves somehow like a particle, but its just a small packet.
The packet size is called spatial coherence. Its never 0 as in a stereotypical point particle, it can go from microns in white light to meters long in lasers.
>>
>>13652339
It's just a property of matter, while "tangibility", on a fundamental level, is not
The tangibility you perceive is a result of electrons in organized matter repelling each other, until no force that you can exert can overwhelm that repulsion. Free particles penetrate matter to various degrees, they can't even be said to have a definite position or size.
>>
>>13647867
cope, individual photons shot through the slits one at a time still produce the interference pattern
>>
>>13647867
>QM is bullshit cope that doesn't truly describe any experiments without classic alternatives.
like the classical derivation for the spectral lies of the hydrogen atom?
https://www.sigintsys.com/src/Hydrogen.pdf



Delete Post: [File Only] Style:
[Disable Mobile View / Use Desktop Site]

[Enable Mobile View / Use Mobile Site]

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.