Quantum 101 Episode 1: Wave Particle Duality Explained
Вставка
- Опубліковано 3 лип 2023
- You may have heard that light can act like a particle and like a wave. It can bounce off a mirror like a particle, and it can bend and spread out like a wave.
With careful experiments, we can see how light waves can interfere with each other. But did you know that particles can act as waves, too?
This video outlines the concept of wave particle duality, one of the central ideas in quantum mechanics.
Join Katie Mack, Perimeter Institute’s Hawking Chair in Cosmology and Science Communication, over 10 short forays into the weird, wonderful world of quantum science. Episodes are published weekly, subscribe to our channel so you don’t miss an update.
Want to learn more about quantum concepts? Visit perimeterinstitute.ca/quantum... to access free resources.
Follow our host "AstroKatie" Katie Mack:
Twitter: / astrokatie
Instagram: astrokatiem...
Follow Perimeter:
Twitter: / perimeter
LinkedIn: / perimeter-institute
Instagram: / perimeterinstitute
Facebook: / pioutreach
Perimeter Institute (charitable registration number 88981 4323 RR0001) is the world’s largest independent research hub devoted to theoretical physics, created to foster breakthroughs in the fundamental understanding of our universe, from the smallest particles to the entire cosmos. Be part of the equation: perimeterinstitute.ca/donate - Наука та технологія
A particle can be thought of as an interaction between two waves, an event, not an object. That’s why only a measurement that triggers an interaction can detect a particle.
Its the fact that taking a measurement changes the outcome...
@@gamerfortynine
I don't think so. You could say a measurement causes an outcome where only probabilities existed before. Most waves are a superposition of multiple probabilities and an interaction decoheres the superposition. Something like that.
Thank you for blowing my mind.
Yes, the observer being the observed. It’d be interesting to hear about how the fundamental foundation of wave particle duality may have provided the thought experiment for the holographic principle and eventually AdS/CFT.
We used single slit and YES each photon has a magnetic field which creates the wave. Only the electron pushes and the Muon Attracts. Our Light experiments show this and we created Fission and fusion. Photons SPIN not wave...we also show that using CMOS. ua-cam.com/video/dqow9JrWffk/v-deo.html
Somewhat in line with the infamous "double-slit experiment"; this as I understand having a single barrier with two closely spaced, side by side, vertically parallel, very thin openings, placed at a specified distance between the beam source (emitter) and the sensitive plate (observer);... Have other barrier opening variations and shapes, like an "X" (criss-cross), or an "O" (donut), or an "H", for example, been tried?
If so, what have the results shown?
For that matter, have barriers been tried and tested, with them made from different materials, having different atomic structure properties, or placing the barrier and/or plate at different angles, or having these structures at differing voltage potentials. with DC +/-, or with AC frequencies? (think grid in a triode).
It is difficult for a layman like myself, to find many answers to these questions I pose online, as all I'm seeing is always referred back as the simplified explanation, first proposed and shown by Thomas Young. WikipediA does give some examples of variations, with gold foils, buckyballs, hydrofoils etc., but still it makes me more curious about other methods that could possibly been overlooked or have been tried and/or passed by.
*Edit: Gramma
Have the double slit experiments for light and particles been done in the vacuum of space? To see if the light or particles are not interfering with air or gravity?
Since we can make photons from both (electron and positron) and (proton and antimatter), and reverse the process, it would be fair to say that whatever they are made of that they are interchangeable. Hence, some rules should apply to both light and particles. I will also agree that dark matter is a possibility rather than just a math mistake.
Wait, I always thought electrons were considered point particles. However, in the video, around 2:54, they seem to have a size! Can someone explain this?
I just had a thought. If sending one particle at time produces the same effect, then the particles sent as stream still aren't interfering with each other, but with only itself.
This may sounds weird, but it can get weirder. What happens if you only use one slit?
A interference pattern will appear too. It will take longer, and will be more smared out, but it will form, too.
At 1:22 you say that electrons are interfering with each other. Is that true? I think electrons only interfere with themselves, which is shown when you send one electron at the time.
The word Wave is kind of important in this context...
"The electrons are behaving like waves and interfiring which each other"
@@eljcd So why can 1 electron contribute to create the diffraction pattern?
@@otrondal Consider this. In Quantum Mechanics, a particle is what a detector detects.
In the two slits experiment,You got a particle source and the detector beyond the wall with the two slits. Now, you know the electron comes out of the source, and where it ends, because it hits the detector. Send one electron after another 10, 100, 10000000 times. and you'll see how in the detector appears a banded pattern that is accurately described as a wave function. And that's weird. Sending particles from a sole source, through two slits, common sense would expect to see two bands on the detector. But it doesn't happen.
@@eljcd That is not the point. At 1:22 she say that electrons are interfering with each other.
If you send 1 electron through the device, and wait 100 years, then send the second electron and so on.
After several million years you will have the same diffraction pattern in the device, right.
Are electrons interfering with each others over this time span?
If you have an electron-beam. Is it a high probability for two or more electrons to go through the slits at the same time? ( Same time is within the uncertainty in time, in the order of a photon to go the distance from one slit to the other (say 10 cm ) ).
I think this probability is very low.
So most of the time you only send one electron after the other. Even with a dense electron beam.
Thank You. Katie Mack 🎉🎉🎉
2:55 but in QM an electron has zero size, so it is infinitely smaller than a baseball.
🏆💙🏆
Happy Independence Day Blessings!🎉🎉🎉🎉
Invisible gravity . Dark matter.
We have the wave particle nature of light and matter in the form of electrons forming an interactive process or what I like to call a blank canvas that we can interact with. When we interact with the light waves by coming in contact with them, we form new photon ∆E=hf oscillations with particles characteristics. As part of an emergent process, this represents a new particle in space and a new moment in time. This is a continuous process unfolding all around us with the spontaneous absorption and emission of light. Within such a process the uncertainty of quantum mechanics would be the same uncertainty we have with any future event. With an emergent uncertain future represented at the smallest scale of this process by Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Principle ∆×∆pᵪ≥h/4π.
We used single slit and YES each photon has a magnetic field which creates the wave. Only the electron pushes and the Muon Attracts. Our Light experiments show this and we created Fission and fusion. Photons SPIN not wave...we also show that using CMOS. ua-cam.com/video/dqow9JrWffk/v-deo.html
Concentrate more on your art. Your physics is complete and utter nonsense. At first I thought is was a parody ( it honestly made me chuckle quite a bit) but you have been at this for at least 15 years. It will never ever be taken serious and makes you come across like a person who has mental health problems. If you do then please get help! If not: your time is sooooo much better spend on your art. That is something you should be remembered for not for being yet another cook with a completely unproven and clearly nonsensical theory.