The key to both experiments is the use of a quantum switch in the apparatus, which allows the interferometer to hover in a superposition of measuring wave or particle behavior. "In these traditional delayed choice experiments, somewhere in your apparatus you have a big, classical binary switch," says Peter Shadbolt, a co-author of the other study and a PhD student in quantum physics at the University of Bristol in England. "It has 'wave' written on one side and 'particle' written on the other side. What we do is replace that classical switch with a qubit, a quantum bit, which is a second photon in our experiment."
The quantum switch determines the nature of the apparatus—whether the two optical paths recombined to form a closed interferometer, which measures wavelike properties, or remained separate to form an open interferometer, which detects discrete particles. But in both cases, whether the interferometer was open or closed—and whether the photon zipped through the apparatus like a particle or a wave, respectively—was not determined until the physicists measured a second photon. The first photon's fate was linked to the state of the second photon via the phenomenon of quantum entanglement, through which quantum objects share correlated properties.
In the Bristol group's experiment, the state of the second photon determines whether the interferometer is open, closed or a superposition of both, which in turn determines the wave or particle identity of the first photon. "In our case that choice is more of a quantum choice," Shadbolt says. "Without this kind of approach, you wouldn't be able to see this morphing between wave and particle."
The device built by Tanzilli's group functions similarly—the interferometer is closed for vertically polarized photons (which therefore act as waves) and open for horizontally polarized photons (which behave as particles). Having sent a test photon through the apparatus, the researchers measured an entangled partner photon 20 nanoseconds later to determine the test photon's polarization, and hence on which side of the wave–particle divide it fell.
Because of the design of the experiment and the nature of entanglement, the test photon's wave or particle nature was not determined until the second photon was measured—in other words, until 20 nanoseconds after the fact. "The test photon makes its life in the interferometer and is detected, which means it is destroyed," Tanzilli says. "Afterward we determine its behavior." That order of operations takes the concept of delayed choice to the extreme. "It means that space and time seem to not play any role in this affair," Tanzilli adds.
Quantum information researcher Seth Lloyd of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology dubbed the phenomenon "quantum procrastination," or "proquastination" in a commentary for Science accompanying the two research papers. "In the presence of quantum entanglement (in which outcomes of measurements are tied together)," he wrote, "it is possible to hold off making a decision, even if events seem to have already made one."
The new experiments add another wrinkle to the warped world of quantum mechanics, where a photon can be seemingly whatever it wants, whenever it wants. "Feynman called it the one true mystery of quantum mechanics," Shadbolt says of wave–particle duality. "It's deeply, deeply strange. Quantum mechanics is deeply weird, completely without classical analogue, and we just have to accept it as such."
Rights & Permissions
See what we're tweeting about
53 Comments
Add CommentIt seems, to me though dismissed in the article that time and space should be the prime suspects in this mystery. I'm burdened with the notion that time and space are as responsible for energy as energy is for time and space. If that is the case, then how you "destroy" the photon may have as much to do with how it presents as anything else.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBeing two things at once and having the potential to be two things are not the same as being one thing subject to a complex conditional statement.
Quantum Mechanics is very spooky. That's for sure. The good old Bohr said, that if you didn't get dizzy of it, then you had not understood a word of anything in the observations. Quantum mechanics has for many years been used in new age to "prove" the existence of esp, paranormal activity, telepathy etc. ad infinitum, but those ideas are getting closer and closer to a scientific bluestamp.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI have been a fan of Sir Roger Penrose of Oxford University for many years. He was the first scientist to say that consciousness should be found in the quantum field rather than in the brain. I am so much a fan, that I made my own theory out of the idea that consciousness might be explained through a better understanding of antimatter and parallel universes.
My idea is that antimatter is the mirror of this universe, and that antimatter might be where memory is located.
I think that the subconscious mind and consciousness are located in parallel universes in the form of antimatter. That makes the spirit and maybe even God all physical, so basically I could be said to be an atheist, even though I consider myself spiritual.
If you would like to know more, then you can watch a full videopresentation of my theory on my blog:
www.crestroy.com
Wave-Particle Duality is Nature's pairness (self-contradiction) relativity logic, of infinite diversity states of Space.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWave-Particle Singularity (Superposition), is Nature's eternal oneness of Pairness (equator of self-contradiction),the Wavefunction and absolut logic of Spacetime-Continuum.
As can be observed in the intermediate states of numerical relations:
1 2 3 + 3 2 1 = 4 4 4
0123456789 + 9876543210 = 9999999999.
-Aiya-Oba, discoverer of Nature's absolute logic.
Roger Penrose approach will only take physics further.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIf you are looking for answers, please attend or participate in "Toward a Science of Consciousness 2013". Visit below links for details:
http://www.consciousness.arizona.edu/
Again, it's largely a matter of interpretation.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWaves passing through an opening much larger than the wavelength will travel in a straight line, for example. Fluid waves will show some minor ancillary diffraction to the sides, but, if we require that light always move at the same speed, that effect can be eliminated in straight line travel.
But, in fact, the "particle nature" of light comes from only one source, the quantum theory. And that only comes from one source, the photoelectric effect. In the photoelectric effect, substances that emit elections when exposed to light respond only to particyular frequencies. Huge amounts of the wrong frequency produce no photovoltaic effect, supposedly, while even modest amounts of the right frequency will show response. The "interpretation" was that matter absorbs energy instantaneously, it doesn't fill like up a bucket from the wrong frequency. And that energy is supplied instantaneously by light carrying energy in tiny packets or quanta. It was never considered that maybe it's the nature of matter. That matter can only absorb energy from certain wavelengths. The energy was never contained in discrete quanta of energy, it was smeared out in the wave front, and matter filled up with it, like water in a bucket, if it was the right frequency. The problem is that any measurement or observation of the effect was made with machines made of matter, which means that the matter of the machines introduced its own peculiar tendency to absorb energy from the uniform, continuous wavefront only at the right frequency. But, if the only permitted "interpretation" involved energy being carried in discrete packets, the real aspect of the behavior of the machines would be ignored.
Photons "choosing" destruction - how absurd! It is the perpetuation of such nonsensical ideas that should be banished! There are much more correct ways to express the phenomena being referenced that would not encourage misinterpretation.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBTW, we project our own ideas about our own supposed free will on photons that make 'choices', and as I understand their 'destruction' occurs when their momentum is absorbed by another particle, commonly an electron, which may in turn produce the reemission of another photon. Or, perhaps the witty photons have only tricked me, again! They are quite 'shifty'.
it seems to me that by adding the qubit, you have engendered a causality violation.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this/*..Quantum mechanics is deeply weird, completely without classical analogue, and we just have to accept it as such.*/
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWe have to believe in anything. In recent years prof. Couder demonstrated most of aspects of quantum mechanics in his fundamental experiments with undulating water surface (double slit experiment, Zeeman effect, entanglement, orbitals, tunneling and many other)
Aiya-oba i have never heard of or realized the Absolute Logic numerical relations before. That is really fascinating. My favorite is 12345678 + 87654321 = 88888888. 8 is great :-)
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisjohn hagelin used the principles of Vedic Cosmology (the universe is consciousness) to guide the mathematical tweaks he made to Flipped SU(5) at John Ellis's request back in the early 80's. This predates Penrose's writings by several years. Hagelin published 2 essays explaining his perspective that led to the tweaks:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishttp://old.mum.edu/pdf_msvs/v01/hagelin.pdf
http://old.mum.edu/pdf_msvs/v03/hagelin.pdf
Возможно фотон и частица Бозона-Хигса это составляющие информационного поля вселенной.Возможно информационные поля разных измерений в своих измерения ведут себя как обычные а при встрече действуют друг на друга как антивещество.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI don't know if I understood what you were trying to say, but doesn't your theory implies that you should be able to "fill the bucket" in two or more steps. That is, you could fill one quarter at one time, then another quarter and so on, and then, you should only see changes when the total amount was over the limit (1 or 100%)? My understanding is that that doesn't happen. Either you have an event or not. The cumulative addition of "smaller" doses of "energy/light" doesn't create an event. Am I wrong?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI hate math, but 12345678 + 87654321 = 99999999 :o)
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisForget what i said. I again forgot that a photon's energy is only determined by its frequency. Taking that into account is not possible to add "one quarter of energy" because that would mean a different frequency, and as such it would violate the assumptions that you have put forward.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBasically this means that your explanation and the "quanta" theory are the same, the only different being that you say that it is a wave front and the "quanta" theory says it is a "discrete" package. But is the "Photoelectric effect" really the only experimental evidence for the"quanta" hipothesis? I think it was either the first or the most important, at the time, but it is the only one?
it seems that not only does god throw dice, but also throws them in the corner where we have to search for them and just for fun, throws them in different corners sometimes, too!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThank you Greenhome123.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYour courageous venture into the yet unexplored Nature's absolute logic, is salutory.
Equator of self-contradiction (eternal oneness of pair), is the Absolute logic, and unit of self-creation of All in all (Cosmos).
Hence Nature's Absolute Logic:
(2A + B) + (2B + A) ... = 3(A + B).
Where A and B, can be any integer or value, but never both zero.
My fine sir, you should not point the Elephant in the Room so carelessly ;P
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisA photon in space is different than a photon in matter. I think a photon in space has mass and is a real particle. Since it has gravity it emits gravity waves, and so a photon in space gradually decays since it loses energy in the form of gravity waves. We have proof of this in the redshift of photons that travel billions of years.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIn matter, photons slow down, and so they act like waves. It is easy to view photons inside matter as being waves because atoms spread the energy of photons out in all directions.
We commend Julian Penrod for the brilliant post. The views: "Huge amounts of the wrong frequency produce no photovoltaic effect, supposedly, while even modest amounts of the right frequency will show response", can be further expanded by exploring true nature of light.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisLight is a transverse wave, which, by definition, is background neutral. No theory contradicts this interpretation. In all examples we can show of transverse motion, the background and the string remain in fixed position, whereas the wave travels along. If photon has zero rest mass, it cannot be a particle. On the other hand, if it is treated as only energy transfer, it explains many things including light. For example, when a boat races across blue sea, the displaced water appears as shining white. Similarly, if we treat light as only a wave, it can explain the apparent particle behavior also. After all, the energy displaces everything on its path, which shows different reactions.
basudeba
Well, it looks like Schrödinger's cat can be dead and brought to life by a flick of the switch. (:-)
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOur measurements are not the reality! What is going on is something we have not correctly figured out with our tests. We have spent many years refining and changing how and what we test but reality remains the same. As the tests change we see a new reality but it is really the same old thing, what IS.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWow, do these articles bring out the nut cases! I prefer to take this stuff at face value and admit that as an amateur, or citizen scientist, my knowledge doesn't run deep enough to explain it all. I *could* contrive a detailed explanation, with proofs, because I'm a pretty good writer. But unless I clearly labeled my "explanation" as SF it would just make me one more nut case.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAre you certain of your arithmetic? Just askin', cuz I'm not so great at math.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhat happened to the Heisenberg Principle?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou have correctly pointed out the malaise.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe problem lies in the method of measurement. Measurement is a comparison with similars. This comparison is done at a particular instant and the result is frozen for future use as the result of measurement. In the meantime the object of measurement evolves temporally. Thus, when we use the result of measurement, it no longer represents the current state of the object. As a corollary, time evolution of the object is independent of observation. We can only know the true state of the object at the moment of observation - neither before or after it. We impose our ignorance on the object and call other unknown states as the superposition of states.
In case of Schrodinger's cat, the longevity of the cat is not dependent on observation, but release of the poison as one of the factors. The cat can die due to other reasons also like suffocation, hunger, etc. Observation only points out the state at that instant and not at other instants. However, since longevity is unidirectional, it only shows the state so far. If the cat is found to be dead on observation, it does not mean that it died at that instant. It might have died earlier, which is reflected in its state of decomposition, which is reality. Thus, there is no necessity to sensationalize and fictionalize it.
basudeba
The Heisenberg relation has been thoroughly misunderstood. Imagine an observer and a system to be observed. Between the two let us assume two interaction boundaries. All information requires an initial perturbation involving release of energy, as perception is possible only through interaction (exchange of force). Such release of energy is preceded by freewill or a choice of the observer to know about some aspect of the system through a known mechanism. The mechanism is deterministic – it functions in predictable ways (hence known). To measure the state of the system, the observer must cause at least one quantum of information (energy, momentum, spin, etc) to pass from him through the boundary to the system to bounce back for comparison. Alternatively, he can measure the perturbation created by the other body across the information boundary.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe quantum of information (seeking) or initial perturbation relayed through an impulse (effect of energy etc) after traveling through (and may be modified by) the partition and the field is absorbed by the system to be observed or measured (or it might be reflected back or both) and the system is thereby perturbed. The second perturbation (release or effect of energy) passes back through the boundaries to the observer (among others), which is translated after measurement at a specific instant as the quantum of information. The observation is the observer’s subjective response on receiving this information. The result of measurement will depend on the totality of the forces acting on the systems and not only on the perturbation created by the observer. The “other influences” affecting the outcome of the information exchange give rise to an inescapable uncertainty in observations.
The system being observed is subject to various potential (internal) and kinetic (external) forces which act in specified ways independent of observation. For example chemical reactions take place only after certain temperature threshold is reached. A body changes its state of motion only after an external force acts on it. Observation doesn’t affect these. We generally measure the outcome – not the process. The process is always deterministic. Otherwise there cannot be any theory. We “learn” the process by different means – observation, experiment, hypothesis, teaching, etc, and develop these into cognizable theory.
However, the mathematical format is wrong, as position has zero velocity and velocity has zero position.
This article as well as most of the comments piss me off, because they all depend upon the classical antiquated Copenhagen interpretation of Quantum Theory. EPR, wave-particle duality, Schrodinger's Cat, and quantum entanglement paradoxes all disappear with the Many-Worlds Interpretation. For some obstinate reason, people simply cannot come to grips with this (the correct) version of reality. All outcomes are realized. Counterfactual definiteness is lost as the price; and, yes the Born Law cannot be derived, but this is far better than the nonsensical notions of wave-collapse, choice etc. I mean just listen to yourselves for once. Get some books and study the subject more, and learn!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThis article as well as most of the comments piss me off, because they all depend upon the classical antiquated Copenhagen interpretation of Quantum Theory. EPR, wave-particle duality, Schrodinger's Cat, and quantum entanglement paradoxes all disappear with the Many-Worlds Interpretation. For some obstinate reason, people simply cannot come to grips with this (the correct) version of reality. All outcomes are realized. Counterfactual definiteness is lost as the price; and, yes the Born Law cannot be derived, but this is far better than the nonsensical notions of wave-collapse, choice etc. I mean just listen to yourselves for once. Get some books and study the subject more, and learn!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisLong ago the great Richard P. Feynman proved that there simply is NO DUALITY. Electrons and Photons just behave as they do.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe square of their wave function is the probability of presence at any given point in space and time. QED. Period.
The speed of light is only the connection speed between photons. In order to run this experiment probably you have to remove an ocean of photons and then run your particle through it. Albert Einstein's theory is wrong to an extent... the speed of light to Salida connection speed between photons... once you excelerate the photon frequency.. it can travel faster than the others. we are condensed photons. this is such a silly experiment unless you remove all photons... not just turning off lights.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisJust wondering here. I'm not a scientist but had a thought, based on the graphic for this article. Since we seem to think light can be a particle or a wave, or both at times. Might it be that light is most definitely a particle and the wave is simply the track left in some medium (higgs field?) as the photon travels through it? The same would apply to any other particle that can also be a wave and we are just viewing it as a single entity when in fact it is two separate entities that will always be found together.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThanks jtdwyer, for your keen observation.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisQuantum Superposition (Weirdness) is Nature's absolute logic, equator of self-contradiction (eternal oneness of pairness), the Substratum and Non-locality state of Nature's relative logic, the ordinary partial and local states of Space. -Aiya-Oba
I like to visualize the duality using a classical model I can understand a little better. It goes like this with an electron as example:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAn electron is a cloud of virtual particles (one kind positively charged and the other kind negatively, they are always created in pairs and annihilated in pairs). The cloud exists because of the electrical field let the virtual pairs borrow energy from the field and exist for a prolonged time. Now in this cloud that is ONE negative virtual particle more than there are positive particles. The extra negatively charged particle is not possible to locate because it also participate in the annihilation process with positive particles, any such annihilation however still leave one negatively charged particle too many. The cloud of particles obey the Schrodinger equation and behave like a wave however whenever the cloud is split up in say two paths there is only one path that contain the extra negative part and constitute the identity and temporary location of the electron. This simple classical model permit quantum behavior by admitting the creation and annihilation of identity. I have no ide if it is physically accurate though
The photon is the end of the path of a particle that travels faster than the speed of light and that in your brake becomes Photon, a particle of transition wave particle, a particle that is energy in part but with a definite mass. These experiments only show the validity of the hyperrelativity theory, a theory that is complementary to the of Einstein's and trafficking in the part that special relativity is lost, the movement at speeds greater than that of light, implying new concepts on speed and energy, we most remember the CERN´s luminic neutrino.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWave-particle duality is protector of quantum mechanics as Heisenberg uncertainty is. Everything is everything else. Light is wave and particle at the same time. It is not wave today and tomorrow is particle. It is wave and particle every moment.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisS. N. Tiwary
Director
Ex-Head, Dean, V. C. (act.)
Wow !! Incredible Universe. There is a deeper, deeper something hidden away with absolute time and space in its own reality.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMeasuring a moment may pose implications onto observation (relativity) As states (Schrodinger) are limited (running from an alive 1 to 0.1 0.01 etc to 0 death cat) observables emerge into unlimited (matrices of 01 etc) as relativity claims the ever bending/curvature of space unified to time, thus indirectly supporting the impossibility of simultaneous dp*dm=1/2*h/2 (momentum/energy and position/space of a particle) Relativity has been used in quantum chemistry to support uncertainty - finding a particles within a cloud, thus eliminating time on such scale. The problem of converting scalar to vector dynamics (differential form of math). Uncertainty, dissipation and entanglement may have a fundamental base 'reality' albeit reality can be forseen only through antireal space as space is defined to be matter/antimatter occupying time determined by interference of particles/strings/waves. Thus deterministic nature transforms into probabilistic which emerges into deterministic - trio of a sequential origin. Quanta/energy packages may compress and expand due media of. As particles are not particles, strings are not strings, and waves are not waves, there is only constant interference of P/S/W setting up time. If Earth was made out of a pure diamond, there would be no gravity. The core of Sun is anti gravitational likely as is the core of Earth. http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2011/2011EO230014.shtml
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisA wrong assumption is that the fundamental nature of light consist of a homogeneous physical entity ( a Newtonian sphere) It is likely dual with 'something' that causes annihilation to happen. It is also unlikely to look at a weak force including light as something fixed. If a steel sphere or/and a bullet hit series of barriers with hardness proximal to the object itself, the momentum/energy of it will dissipate in a such way that the sphere would turn into a curved sheet. yet, the hardest known substance is graphene and yet living tissues do not possess carbon in such forms , into contrary the interference of C to X runs time. Whether we are made of compressed photons , it is certainly uncertain as the process of signaling and the integral path as Richard Feynman claims is due interference of.
Thanks S.N. Tiwary and 36. Bochay1, for your insights.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNature's Absolute logic is Singularity of relativity, the eternal oneness of pairness of All in all. It's the grand frontier and common crux of religion, philosophy and science. http://mathforum.org/kb/thread.jspa?threadID=2384604
Space Is Newtonian And Einsteinian:
http://mathforum.org/kb/thread.jspa?threadID=2390782
Sorry coinsguy, but the answer is no. Google "interference pattern" to see why not.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisA doubt from an illiterate in particle physics. As the non-existence of ether was long ago shown by Michelson and Morley, and in accordance with our everyday experiences, waves are vibrations of something, noises are waves in the air, waves are waves in the surface of water, and so on; how can one imagine a wave, i.e: a vibration, propagating on nothing, on the absolute empty? Is it possible thinking in wave-particle duality when a wave can't exist alone, so it must always be attached, linked, or acting in something material? Does this duality apply to other forms of energy, such as radio, gamma rays and other types of waves, differing only in its inherent frequency, linked to the inherent energy level in the radiation type? A medical student proposed to a congress in physical therapy in the 70's that all types of physical therapy were just vibrations of different number of hertz, from one every several seconds as in physiotherapy, to very short waves, of frequencies of 10 raised to 20, as in Radiation Therapy; the proposal was immediately adopted, but how can one match the vibrations of a leg to the vibrations of what? in the upper part of the radiation spectrum? A teacher of physics told us about an electron sent towards a wall with two holes, and showed that it passed thru both of the holes. Physics is more intriguing than any of the "Occult sciences". Salut +
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisDear Sir,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWith humility you have expressed a great thought. Unfortunately, most "scientists" do not believe in common sense interpretation, but insist on "mathematical" modelling, even though their "mathematics" does not follow logical consistency.
The Michelson and Morley experiment was testing ether drag on light. Light is a transverse wave and by definition all transverse waves are background invariant. In other words, they were trying to find out something that should not reveal itself. This non-revelation has been treated as a null result for ether. If we cannot find something, it does not prove that it is non-existent, though it also does not prove that it exists. We should look for other evidence to verify the correctness or otherwise of the theory.
There is no evidence that there is no universal background structure. The Schrodinger equation is medium based. Since the speed of light varies in other mediums of different density, the so called "space" or "vacuum" need not be empty. It can also be "least dense" making it a background structure. For this reason, we have described the so-called "dark energy" as the universal background structure. It is called dark as it does not interact with "common matter". It is called energy, because unlike matter, it is smooth and persistent. But energy is never perceived directly. It is always perceived from its effects on matter. Since it is not interacting with matter, it cannot be energy. Hence we have proposed it as a universal background structure since it is spread out everywhere.
Once we accept a medium based theory, both the double slit and diffraction experiments are explained easily. The momentum of the photon or the electron disturbs the medium like a speed boat that creates bow shock effect ahead of it that leads to a chain of back reaction. Apart from the "particle (boat)", the different waves also affect other bodies or the momentum spread on the medium "river).
Similarly, we have explained the superposition, entanglement, tunneling and other so-called quantum effects with macro examples. There is really no quantum fuzziness - it is only fuzzy minds that create these weirdness.
Regards,
mbasudeba@gmail.com
If one agrees to the assumption that particles and time, even our entire picture of our world are hypothetical, than the fact that something shows up as well as particle as as wave shows us a border of the usefullness of our hypotheses of particle and of wave.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe phenomenon of quantum entanglement shows us a border of the usefullness of our hypotheses of time.
By taking the assumption that our picture of the world is a hypothetical one we can avoid logical problems as the weirdness of quantum mechanics and we can avoid the weirdness of changing what we take for "entities" again and again.
There is no logical reason to interpret for inatance particles or time as entities: The motivation for this dogmatic point of view is emotional and possibly hard-wired and it leads to severe logical problems.
Dear Sir,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou have introduced an interesting line of argument. If the world is hypothetical, then it cannot be real and not describable. We can describe it only because it remains as it is and evolves according to fixed rules. Otherwise, everyone will perceive it differently and the same person will perceive it differently at different times making it theoretically not describable. After all, even your arguments are based on some fixed assumptions and those have to be real to be meaningful.
Particle is that which has a position with fixed dimensions, exists in time (thus subject to time evolution which requires inherent energy), perceivable to and describable unambiguously by the observer. Wave is only the transfer of momentum in a field. Thus, they are not and cannot be the same. Time is the interval between events like space is the interval between objects. Dimension is the differential perception of "outer space" of an object (implying existence of many objects) from its "inner space" (implying existence of many components of the objects).
Entanglement is not a purely quantum phenomenon. A pair of socks or our two hands or the two poles of a magnet are also examples of entanglement. Contrary to popular belief, entanglement does not last over long distances. Thus, there is no need for fantasizing about reality.
Regards,
basudeba
In reply to basudeba Dear Sir
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI thank You for Your replay and for making me aware of the fact that I didn't express myself in an unmistakable manner.
My assumption is that there is something, but that we only can aproach this something by making hypotheses and by testing how far this hypotheses work and by trying other hypotheses if we reach a point where our tests are showing us that the older hypotheses do no longer work. I think our world is real, but our picture of our world can only be a hypothetical one, and in this sense for instance time, particle, wave are hypotheses.
We can only deal with our World without coming into logical problems by dealing with our hypotheses about our world, and these hypotheses can never go to the extent to be identical to our world. A picture about the universe can never be identical to the universe.
A more sophisticated article concerning the supposition that our picture of our world can only be a hypothetical one can be found at:
http://peter-peters.info
Dear Sir,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisKindly excuse us if our post appeared to be offensive. It was not intended to be so. We will clarify our position.
We fully agree with your clarification. Only the path one chooses can differ. In a larger context, the universe or reality behave like fractals. The same structure or the same principles permeate everything provided we see rightly. For example, superposition is not a quantum phenomenon. All measurements are done at a specific time. We freeze that result and use it at subsequent times as the result of measurement. In the meanwhile the object is temporally evolving and is no longer the same. Yet we ignore this. Since we cannot know the real state before or after the measurement, we combine all such unknown evolving states and call it the superposition of states. For example, in a sea beach sometimes the crests and troughs of waves may combine and become a flat surface, which again dissipate into different forms. Before such combination, they were troughs and crests. After the combination, they became different and it is no longer possible to differentiate or distinguish between them. Thus, they are in a superposition of all possible states. Similarly, we have given examples of macro entanglement. Elsewhere we have explained dark matter and dark energy with examples from the world we experience. Yet, these have been sensationalized by introducing weird concepts. This is what we are objecting to.
Regards,
basudeba
The particle/wave duality is a misconception, resulting from the desire of the human brain to classify things in overly simplified specific categories, based on their most easily observable characteristics. The classic example is the "There are only two kinds of ..." mindset. Friend/foe, good/bad, fun/boring/ interesting/uninteresting, here/there, me/you, one could go on forever. The indication in the article that there might be in-between states is a clue to where I think the most interesting path to explore further lies. The duality lies more in our methods of measuring and in our interpretations of the data from the measurements, than it does in the nature of photons. The nature of photons is something else entirely, and we will never fully understand it. Because the human brain is rather primitive, just a step and a half up from the chimpanzees. Actually, trying to fit things into preexisting "either/or"-definitions is one of the most primitive strategies of the nervous system when faced with threath, confusion or the unknown. Maybe a concept something like "waveticle" could be useful in the future, analogous to the merging of the concepts space and time into spacetime.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this*sigh* Where to begin . . . where to begin . . .
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisFirst off, a wave isn't a "thing" to be studied. It's an effect. It can be studied- absolutely- but it is not a thing in itself, therefore there is no "wave state" of the photon.
Secondly, as a photon can be OBSERVED as either a "wave" or a "particle", and since a wave is an effect, not a thing in itself, it stands to reason that the so-called particle form of the photon is likewise an effect, and not a thing.
I have long suspected that the photon is an effect, not a thing unto itself, and that it is an effect which passes through space, space itself being the medium that, because of its nature, regulates the speed of light.
The photon itself is but an intersection between matter and velocity. It only appears to present as both a particle and a wave because the intersection of matter and velocity, at 300,000 kps, is the point at which ALL particulate matter is converted into a single photonic wave-form. This is the speed at which matter interacts directly with space. The photon is the effect produced by this interaction.
What has not been addressed, to the best of my knowledge, is this same process in reverse. We know that new matter is bubbling into existence as the universe expands, but it seems that no one has yet made the connexion that these two phenomena are related.
Dear Sir,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou are absolutely correct that what is called as the photon is an effect of the wave front created due to the passage of momentum through the medium called space. When the medium is least dense, the transfer of momentum is maximum. This gives an alternative mechanism to study the density of outer space.
Regards,
basudeba
That's not quite right about particles. The position of a particle only appears to be fixed.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisJust as a photon is the intersection between matter and velocity (SOL), particles too are markers of intersection between fields.
Waves impart velocity relative to space, up to 300,000 kps, but at that point the intersection that gives rise to matter loses its point-to-point cohesion, much like a walker slipping on ice, except that in this instance the walker becomes light energy.
This doesn't mean that the walker has lost mass: rather, the mass aspect has been severed, as it is a byproduct produced by intersecting planes.
Think of a laminate consisting of various layers possessing various interactive properties. These layers are so thin, the layers so attracted to one another, that "holes" are forced by the presence of adjoining layers. These "holes" are what we refer to as particles. The layers are able to interact via these "holes", and the flavour of their interaction determines what type of hole or particle presents itself.
Waves pass through these adjoining layers, and if the waves reach a certain energy, the layers lose their consistency, at which point the photon effect takes place.
Dear Sir,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhen you say: "Waves impart velocity relative to space", you must treat as the field in which the momentum transfer takes place. Your examples do not match this description. Would you like to reconsider?
Regards,
basudeba
I suspect that the secret to understanding wave/particle duality may be revealed once we understand the relationship between the extra-dimensional structure of the space-time fabric and the oscillatory motion of particles through it. I have my own ideas on the subject at: antigravitationalforce.com
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisDear Sir,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisDimension is the perception of differentiation of the "outer space" of an object from its "inner space". This describes the "form" of the object. Since "form" is perceived through electromagnetic radiation where the electric field and the magnetic field move perpendicular to each other, which is perpendicular to the direction of motion, we have three mutually perpendicular dimensions. Since time is not "space", it cannot have "form" and hence cannot be a dimension. Would you kindly explain the theory behind extra-dimensions, which has remained elusive for over a century? If it exists, why it has not been discovered yet? Does it really exist? How long we will fool ourselves?
Space describes the order of arrangement of objects and time describes the order of arrangement of events, i.e., the changes in objects. Both co-exist independent of each other. An object placed in space does not change "the space" or "it's space" in time. It only gets transformed in time. That is temporal evolution, which does not depend on the space. An object will evolve in the same manner irrespective of the space it occupies. Yet, both space and time being infinite, cannot be separated from each other as no mathematics is possible with infinities. The manipulations called renormalization are not mathematically valid, as it fails the test of logical consistency. Thus, while the space-time fabric is true, motion has nothing to do with it. Motion comes into existence with the application of force, which generates a chain reaction, which may affect time evolution. However, it is different from time evolution, which can occur even while the object is relatively at rest in its space.
Would you kindly reconsider or clarify!
mbasudeba@gmail.com
Finally, a voice of reason. I wish there was a forum where scientific topics could be discussed by lay persons without "nut case" input.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this