PDA

View Full Version : Wave Partical Duality


griff38
04-05-2003, 06:55 PM
I need a tiny break from the Iraq stories.

Does anybody know about the Wave Particlesl Duality of light?

It seems that everything is divided into either energy or matter. Matter is composed of and travels as particles . Energy exist as and travels in waves.

This is a given standard agreed upon by all Physicist.

But apparently there are experiments that show Light an energy travels as both particles and waves. This defies physical laws, or at least implies that our knowledge on this subject is incorrect.

If light has some unique quality that allows it to exist as both matter and or energy, the implications are enormous.



All coments welcome.

Eldritch
04-05-2003, 08:21 PM
I think that this topic is above the head of most forum goers. :D
Having said that, I think that the fact that light particles have mass (a property shared by matter) is potentially a reason that light travels as particles as well as in waves.
Michael Crichton wrote an interesting book using the Wave Partical Duality of Light as a plot point; the book was called Timelines. Great book, and the movie should be out soon as well.

ET Warrior
04-05-2003, 11:15 PM
Unfortunately, the movie has been pushed back. It was supposed to be out the 11th, now it's looking like late summer :(

Although that book was about Quantum Physics and Wormholes..not really about the Wave Particle Duality of Light.....

Reborn Outcast
04-05-2003, 11:48 PM
Originally posted by Aru-Wen
Having said that, I think that the fact that light particles have mass (a property shared by matter) is potentially a reason that light travels as particles as well as in waves.

But does light really have mass? Can you capture it and measure it? What organic compounds is light made of?

Eldritch
04-06-2003, 12:42 AM
Originally posted by ET Warrior
Although that book was about Quantum Physics and Wormholes..not really about the Wave Particle Duality of Light.....
Where did I say the book was about it? I said it used it as a plot point. Big difference. I also don't remember any wormholes being mentioned...

Originally posted by Reborn Outcast
But does light really have mass? Can you capture it and measure it? What organic compounds is light made of?
Yes, light really does have mass. It can be captured and measured (with some difficulty and really pricey equipment). It's not made of organic compounds, though... it's not really made of anything (except energy), and that's part of the mystery of it.

munik
04-06-2003, 01:57 AM
Light can be affected by gravity, right? Does that mean that it has mass?

Eldritch
04-06-2003, 03:19 AM
Originally posted by munik
Light can be affected by gravity, right? Does that mean that it has mass?
Yep. Light is indeed affected by gravity - yet more evidence that it has mass.

ET Warrior
04-06-2003, 03:41 AM
Originally posted by Aru-Wen
Where did I say the book was about it? I said it used it as a plot point. Big difference. I also don't remember any wormholes being mentioned...

Granted i've not read the book for awhile, but i'm almost positive the point was that after they were sent through the wormholes into the multiple universes. That's where the thing about quantum foam came into play, because the wormholes were found in the quantum foam........


And now, suddenly I do remember the part about light.....when they described how the multiple universes affect each other.......that's right.......:D

Eldritch
04-06-2003, 11:43 AM
Originally posted by ET Warrior
Granted i've not read the book for awhile, but i'm almost positive the point was that after they were sent through the wormholes into the multiple universes. That's where the thing about quantum foam came into play, because the wormholes were found in the quantum foam........


And now, suddenly I do remember the part about light.....when they described how the multiple universes affect each other.......that's right.......:D
Oh yeah, the quantum foam. I remember now.
Seems you remember something as well. Good, we're all happy now. :D

griff38
04-06-2003, 01:56 PM
Fictional accounts based loosely on scientific data can be fun, but I prefer something as little harder.

I recomend Stephen Hawkins "Brief History of Time". It's a great primer for anyone, and I mean anyone interested in the relation of space & time and our place in them.

I agree light does have a mass ( although almost undetectable ) and this might be a simple explanation for light not traveling like all other energy; IE waves.

But another possiblity is offered by Heisnbergs uncertainty principle, that implies particles (matter) sometimes have the property of waves(energy). They do have a definite position, but are "smeared out" so to speak.

So an alternate view is, light DOES always travel as waves, So light is not traveling like matter, but some matter particles act like energy waves.

Eldritch
04-06-2003, 07:50 PM
It seems like one big grey area to me. I'll be watching to see when they come up with a more definite answer, though.

History of Time was great. Hawking certainly has a brilliant mind. Some other books I'd like to suggest for those that have an interest in this time of thing are A Wrinkle In Time by Dr. George Smoot, and Hyperspace by Dr. Michio Kaku. Both are excellent books, they're NON-fiction (though their titles sound like sci-fi) and quite informative.

Homuncul
04-08-2003, 04:16 AM
So an alternate view is, light DOES always travel as waves, So light is not traveling like matter, but some matter particles act like energy waves.

There is a comparison with electromagnetism theory where one could not exist without another (I'm sure everyone understands what I'm talking about here). The same there could be with light yet our best scientists have not yet put it in to a fine-looking theory, while the suggestions have been already given to this matter.
I've read about the experiments with matter and energy. When splitting the matter there is always the energy adjecting, but when trying to back effect - everything is the same. The Matter comes from the energy but the result last for such few moments that only super-devices could notice. And still it takes an interpretation of an experimentator to say that the current event has actually happend.
The same I think will come to lght as a wave-particle if there would be a well-reasoned theory that one can not exist without the other

And do not pay too much attention to the words because I'm not a professional but I would except any critics with only gratitude

ioshee
04-08-2003, 01:13 PM
I’m not trying to be rude, but I fail to see “serious” and “controversial” debate properties in this thread.

I’m just wondering why it has not been moved to yoda’s swamp.

Eldritch
04-08-2003, 04:21 PM
Originally posted by ioshee
I’m not trying to be rude, but I fail to see “serious” and “controversial” debate properties in this thread.

I’m just wondering why it has not been moved to yoda’s swamp.
Dude, you really need to drop it. Let's compare the threads, shall we?

On the one hand, we have a thread on the theory of Light Particle Duality. Serious. Scientific. Thought provoking.

On the other hand, we have a poll on whether or not you like the latest Zelda game. Trivial. Uninteresting. And since it's a poll, it doesn't even require a post - one could just vote whether or not they liked it and then leave.

Now, the Senate is the place where people come to avoid threads like yours because they want to have an intellectually stimulating discussion... and even if you really liked the new Zelda game, you just wouldn't get that much out of it. So drop it already and move on; don't go trashing other threads just because you posted something in the wrong place.

ioshee
04-08-2003, 04:34 PM
I was just teasing Eldritch

You don't have to be so rude.

Eldritch
04-08-2003, 04:48 PM
It doesn't look like teasing. Looked like the post of a serious and bitter person to me.

Just teasing.

ioshee
04-08-2003, 04:58 PM
Originally posted by Eldritch
It doesn't look like teasing. Looked like the post of a serious and bitter person to me.

Just teasing.

How about you never address me directly again and I'll do the same for you.

just teasing:D

Seriously I know you want to be a moderator and all, but you need to wait until you are one before you start bossing people around.

Eldritch
04-08-2003, 10:51 PM
Who's bossing? I never said you had to drop it. I just said you should drop it, and gave you the reason why, in my opinion, it doesn't belong here.

If I stepped on your toes a bit, Ioshee, I apologize. But I was just a little fed up with reading multiple protests. Again, sorry.

ioshee
04-09-2003, 11:12 AM
I apologize to you as well Eldritch. I got a little out of hand. Please forgive me, and I really don’t mind if you keep me in check. Just go easy on me will ya’? I’ve got sensitive skin.

ON TOPIC: I think the fact that the physical properties of light seem to defy our current knowledge is just further proof that we have a long way to go. I personally believe that there are things that we will never be able to understand (I’m not saying this is one of them.) I’m just saying we have gotten so proud of ourselves in all that we have discovered.

It’s easy to look back on past science and say “They were so ignorant but we know practically everything now…”
I honestly believe that scientists of the future will be able to do the same thing with today’s science. It’s just hard to imagine.

ShadowTemplar
04-15-2003, 07:32 PM
Ioshee, Eldritch: Take your mudslinging to the PMs or the Feedback Forum or PM C'Jais or some other MOD about it, please. I'm with Eldritch on this one, but you're chocking the thread. Just my .02€. Besides, I can't see why it's not serious discussion. It's far more seriously discussed in the scientific community than Evolution/Creationism. Yet the latter is somehow more 'serious' with respect to these boards?

Topic: Old news. Was around already at the time of Einstein and Bohr.

Infact I've even seen it cited as 'evidence' for the failure of science to explain the world... That's quantum-gappers for you...

As far as I know, we are still unsure as to whether light has a mass. It's effected by gravity, true, but that's time-space-geometry, not Newtonian dynamics, I believe, though I am far from an expert.

I've recently bought a Special Issue of Scientific American called The Edge of Physics. It has some articles in it that might be of use here, though most of it is unknown lands to me.

The wave-particle duality is, as far as I know, still an unsolved puzzle. Maybe it'll be answered in a coming übertheory, though the current work on such a structure seems awfully speculative to me (probably because I don't understand a living word of what they are talking about).

But you're into quantum mechanics, and as such you're approaching the edge of human understanding very fast. Let's just hope that that edge is pushed... And that I'm more awake when I make my next post here... Interesting topic. Let's hope that it is taken up (again) by someone more knowledgeable (and considerably less tired) than I.

It’s easy to look back on past science and say “They were so ignorant but we know practically everything now…”

True, true. Future science may indeed. If there is a future for science, that is. Difference is, the science of today doesn't claim to know everything. Infact there are many things that it does not know (such as the precise position and velocity of an object).

Eldritch
04-15-2003, 08:30 PM
Originally posted by ShadowTemplar
Ioshee, Eldritch: Take your mudslinging to the PMs or the Feedback Forum or PM C'Jais or some other MOD about it, please. I'm with Eldritch on this one, but you're chocking the thread. Just my .02€. Besides, I can't see why it's not serious discussion. It's far more seriously discussed in the scientific community than Evolution/Creationism. Yet the latter is somehow more 'serious' with respect to these boards?
Yeah, we're done. It's settled. It's a non-issue now. :)
Infact there are many things that it does not know (such as the precise position and velocity of an object).
Well, that's not exactly true. It's just the more accurately you measure the position, the less accurately you measure the velocity, and vice versa.