What is the Wave/Particle Duality? Part 1
Вставка
- Опубліковано 2 жов 2024
- Tweet it! - bit.ly/rqSUwR
Facebook it! - on. oRhE5d
Minute Physics provides an energetic and entertaining view of old and new problems in physics -- all in a minute!
In this episode, we discuss the Wave Particle Duality and why quantum mechanics is weirder than anything we're used to in our daily lives! Created by Henry Reich
Lol back in the day when he had to edit each video to be under 1 minute long
The Stickmen look funny.😂
is that true ???
A lot of crap vids are all a minute but short form content like this is best for education. Wave particle duality
lolook
It feels illegal to comment 13 years later
all of science: are you a particle or wave?
light: *yes*
Quantum physics: allow me to introduce myself
@@kumaripritika2799 WHY AND HOW THE CLEAR, THEORETICAL, AND TRUE PROOF OF THE ULTIMATE UNIFICATION REGARDING PHYSICS/PHYSICAL EXPERIENCE IS F=MA AS E=MC2: That SPACE is THEORETICALLY, ultimately, truly, and FUNDAMENTALLY QUANTUM GRAVITATIONAL is proven by the CLEAR fact that E=mc2 IS F=ma. This CLEARLY explains the term c4 from Einstein's field equations (regarding his general theory of gravitation). Gravity AND ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy are linked AND BALANCED opposites, AS E=MC2 IS F=MA; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is gravity. Great. Time DILATION ULTIMATELY proves ON BALANCE that E=mc2 IS F=ma, AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is gravity. This NECESSARILY represents, INVOLVES, AND DESCRIBES what is possible/potential AND actual IN BALANCE. The MIDDLE DISTANCE in/of SPACE AND the FULL DISTANCE in/of SPACE are thus NECESSARILY LINKED and BALANCED, AS E=mc2 IS F=ma; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is gravity. TIME is necessarily possible/potential AND actual IN BALANCE, AS E=mc2 IS F=ma; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. (Very importantly, outer "space" involves full inertia; AND it is fully invisible AND black.) BALANCE and completeness go hand in hand. It ALL CLEARLY makes perfect sense. Great !!! INSTANTANEITY is thus FUNDAMENTAL to what is the FULL and proper UNDERSTANDING of physics/physical experience, AS E=mc2 IS F=ma; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is gravity. "Mass"/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. Gravity IS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy. CLEARLY, I have mathematically, sensibly, and THEORETICALLY unified physics/physical experience; as E=mc2 is CLEARLY proven to constitute what is F=ma ON BALANCE. Gravity/acceleration involves BALANCED inertia/INERTIAL RESISTANCE, AS E=mc2 IS F=ma; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is gravity. GRAVITATIONAL force/ENERGY IS proportional to (or BALANCED with/as) inertia/INERTIAL RESISTANCE, as E=mc2 IS F=ma; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. The stars AND PLANETS are POINTS in the night sky. GREAT !!! Energy has/involves GRAVITY, AND ENERGY has/involves inertia/INERTIAL RESISTANCE. It ALL CLEARLY makes perfect sense. E=mc2 IS F=ma. Very carefully consider what is THE MAN who IS standing on what is the EARTH/ground. E=mc2 IS F=ma. GREAT !!! By Frank DiMeglio
Or, none.
Hey, no mass, no time, just "force"
Cheers!
i want hourphysics!
Like if you do to.
"its a bird, its a plane, ITS QUANTUM MECHANICS!" ^^ love it.
My giraffe was NOT parked where I left it at all. It buggered off to talk to bloody Pokemon Bats.
Slow down for stoned people, please.
You just need to smoke more, my friend. Or look up the double slit experiment. Might still not make sense in the end, but this video oversimplifies a lot.
frugihoyi Or He could just learn english
sober up and catch up?
Keep up the good work Henry! You are educating lot of people by explaining tough concepts in layman terms. Continue doing this stuff. We are here to support you!
First video to have good audio, lighting and the modern videos' voice!
these are wonderful. I definitely think you're gonna be really popular with these videos!
Spoiler alert
@@adam_papamastorakis this man is from the future
Spoiler alert
What if, the electron moving through space is the same as a bullet going through water. Waves are created around the bullet, while the bullet only hits one spot.
oh my...
dark energy
but its not the same as a bullet...
No It doesn't work like that. Anything with mass that is moving has a wavelength, yes when you are moving even you have a wavelength. The reason you slam into the wall and not diffract through it is because your wavelength is nowhere near as big as the wall is.
Interesting thought, but NO
Cause when you shoot a bullet, you can predict where the bullet would hit provided you know all the details (like wind speed, gravitational acceleration, direction of the gun etc). So with all that data, you can get a perfect prediction of where the bullet strikes (provided you do the math right ofcourse)
but it turns out with electrons that is not true. Regardless of how much data you collect when you just shoot the electron and try to do the math, it turns out, that electron can hit the screen ANYWHERE literally anywhere. So physicists can only calculate the probabilities or what are the odds of the electron hitting a particular spot. And that is the whole idea behind the electron travelling out as a wave of potential (probability)
Sometimes, I leave my giraffe parked on the street, and when I come back, there's 2 giraffes.
Yes electrons can exist outside of an atom. Lightning is a good example of a bunch of electrons. CRT (old monitor/ TV) uses a beam of electrons to drawl the picture on the screen. Chemistry is based on manipulating the number of electrons to form bonds. You may be thinking of Quarks. They only exist inside the particle they make up.
The reason i LOVE this video is because you did one thing different from conventional teaching. You didn't just tell us that light has a wave/particle duality. But you applied it to sound. That makes it so much more understandable.
Exactly....that got to me too
Ye
"leave your giraffe.."
sir please start a course on quantum mechanics from basic to advanced like u do for special theory of realtivity .
Hi, I'm from the future. It turns out that subatomic particles are contained within an external bubble of thicker spacetime fabric, which is temporarily borrowed from any area surrounding it within the continuum. This fabric bubble prevents particles from disintegrating in slight friction. Fabric bubble surface tension is more repulsive with certain particles, so will allow some particle types to travel directly through dense matter (consisting of particles with their own bubbles of spacetime fabric). Bubbles are often much larger than the particles they contain, and will pass through other bubbles of spacetime fabric without colliding. Upon impact with particles (matter) that are dense or fast moving enough to disperse the bubble (or more importantly the density of the spacetime fabric surrounding it), the bubble will break and the particle will be free to integrate with or bounce off the impact material. Bubbles can be much larger than the particles they hold.
You know how copper wire needs to have a thin layer of insulation when you wind it around a bar of iron to create an electromagnet? Padding is required to avoid conflict. We can put it there ourselves to make things work, but padding occurs naturally too. Things smash together to create or destroy other things, but there are puddles of lucky calm, such as Earth's magnetic field protecting delicate life from solar winds. The primary padding of the universe is an assortment of radiations that are collectively known as 'the fabric of spacetime' at this point in history. This padding allows certain things not to touch.
[ The fabric itself is not able to be isolated for examination of its components without ripping it - this requires creating a sub-universe to achieve. Sub-universes are created by tearing a sphole (spherical hole) in the fabric using either gravity or by stretching a sphole open with anti-radiation. The gravitational method begins (in nature) as a black hole until it reaches a threshold exceeding the stretch limit (minimum density) of the fabric. After this point, a permanent sphole is left in the original universe that does not exert a gravitational pull because the sub-universe has torn away, allowing the matter that was inside to decompress instantly. This current universe we're in is a sub-universe of a previous universe. There is a way to find your way back out, but its as elusive as touching a rainbow using any technology homo sapiens will ever invent. ]
The density of the Fabric thickens around matter like a bubble. In the double slit experiment, firstly trillions of photons are sent through the slits creating a wave pattern, then secondly the photons are fired individually to disambiguate interference and still create a wave pattern over time, and thirdly, a sensor is placed over one of the slits and the outcome is two clear lines, mysteriously affected by the very act of observation. This has resulted in the theory of probability / uncertainty. So what is happening? Why do individual photons land on the detection wall in a wave pattern when they are not observed, and yet land in two straight lines when they are observed? What difference should observation make? Is MIND the fifth fundamental force? This led theoretical physicists to believe that galaxies only appear when someone views them through a telescope for the first time (nobody ever seems to find a giant face or a red gumboot among the stars, and if the human observer was unable to conjure imaginary objects and this theory were true, it would stand to reason that minds other than human minds had already observed these galaxies to make them exist), or that a cat is in a superposition inside a box of both simultaneously dead and alive until it is observed (they seem to have forgotten that the cat would be able to determine this via es own observation). So is a photon a wave or a particle or a string (rubber band)?
The answer is that time can run backwards for very fast particles, and our observations slow them down a bit. Why? Einstein did not have the technology to measure the varying speeds of electromagnetism. He did not know about the nature of the fabric except to say that it was displaced by gravity (stars directly behind our sun are visible during an eclipse). He spoke about relativity in an important way, but overlooked undetectable things. The fabric densens around subatomic and therefore all particles compared to empty space, cushioning matter from collision, but also warping its time signature depending on density. Photons and all electromagnetism can slow down from traveling backwards in time to traveling uniformly with us. Does it do this to be polite so we can observe it?
Bubbles of spacetime fabric coat particles in such a way that they slip right by each other much of the time, and it doesn't matter if they travel quickly or slowly as far as we're concerned - they are already there by the time we arrive to meet them. The fabric of spacetime not only displaces space, but also time. The more particles, the more dense the spacetime fabric, creating pockets of slower time. The density of a spacetime fabric bubble alters its relative speed - if particles overtake us then they can swing back into alignment as required to meet the required laws of physics, which exist for unknown reasons. Most particles traveling backwards in time are undetectable by us with current technology, although some other animals can see them. Perhaps the spacetime fabric is so dense around them that they are shielded as invisible. Sometimes they overshoot the present due to their speed and return from the future to boomerang back into our present, or they are affected by things yet to come for us, relatively speaking, and we need to wait until we get then to see them.
The reason the dual slit experiment produces two contradictory outcomes is due to the fabric density in each case: When the slits are NOT observed, the fabric density is low, allowing faster travel of the particles so they can overshoot the present, boomerang back from the future, and land in a supposed position according to it's predicted design of what is yet to come. When the slits ARE observed, the fabric density is high enough to slow the particle down to such a speed that it does not exceed our own observed timeline. By not traveling into the future and therefore not boomeranging back to a position that would have preempted what was yet to come, the particle acts as a single object that remains on par with our timeline.
This temporal relativity is a fundamental law of the universe. Without the radiations that make up 'the fabric of spacetime,' density would be universally non existent and all speeds would be the same. It is this variation of spacetime fabric densities that dictates the nature of what can pass by other objects with ease quickly, and what cannot. The smaller something is, the lower it's density. Subatomic particles ('quanta') have less of this 'glue', so they have the capacity to travel faster than our reaction times into the future. It must be reasoned that 'the future' is not infinitely laid out and set in stone like destiny, but rather imagine it this way: We are on an elevator (with all things, such as matter that moves at the same speed as us) traveling upwards. If things shoot up past us (faster through time than us), they are not traveling effortlessly into the void of tomorrow, but rather exiting the spacetime fabric and falling back down, like bubbles on champagne. This is what lies on the exterior of the universe. They therefore leave our universe (defined by the borders of the fabric of spacetime) due to their speed and boomerang back down, unless they slow down and we catch up. This is a theory.
It could also be that this elevator is traveling a path it has already traveled before, in the case of a torus shaped universe. Spacetime Fabric Radiations and their related density properties need to be measured and understood before we will be able to determine if one second into our future is outside of the universe, or somewhere we have been before. It might also be possible to monitor whether or not things appear momentarily for an instant, traveling quickly through our timeline on the way to our past from the future because they were either stationary in a timeline we will pass through, or are traveling quickly against our timeline. This might be possible to detect if we are fully aware of all detectable matter in our own timeline (in some kind of detection machine), and we observe all else, such as matter or energy that suddenly appears out of nowhere in a vacuum. It may also be possible to catch some of it, and conduct measurements that are the opposite of carbon dating - to discover how 'new' these things are, how far they have traveled and how fast. In this way, if the universe works in such a way that a lot of matter and energy is located in the future, we could develop the true science of fortune telling. We could see what was to come. It could even be possible that there are carriages in this elevator shaft, and we are detecting break off pieces of things that are always right in front of us, traveling at the same speed as our own. If there are beings in the future (or past) transmitting intelligible ideas to one another, it might be possible that such transmissible ideas could remain intact as they pass through synapses in our brain that are able to observe such things. The very nature of random future vision would also explain the non-random nature of some synchronistic and lucky events, if thoughts and telecommunications can indeed travel inter-temporally.
Zxenmusic Im scared...
Zxenmusic Okay, first off, in assessing the reliability of these claims; no scientific evidence and/or separate authors are quoted within the framework of this theory. Therefore we must assume that the theory was not formulated by a bunch of academics, rather, by this one guy.
This particular guy claims to be from the future, however upon looking at his youtube channel he appears to be a 'normal' modern day guy [therefore he is lying about who he is to get more authoritative appeal... (Uh, he's from the future, therefore he must be correct!)]. To add to this the implications made within the actual framework seem to make little mathematical and conceptual sense relative to the topics the guy is addressing at first glance.
Therefore after addressing the reliability of what is written in the above comment, I have got to say, he might have overdosed on that acid. . .
You're knocking acid? If gravity and electromagnetism are the same speed then it makes sense that it is the fabric of spacetime that is the most interesting thing to examine when trying to find the Unified Field Theory, don't you think? Also, try acid. The geometry that becomes visible in your mind appears insanely unnatural. It's amazing what you will see, and LSD is an excellent tool for understanding consciousness. Also, I don't think readers would have found me to have more authoritative appeal because I told them I was from the future. Nor would any good thinker immediately discard an explanation simply because it lacked mathematics and references. What does your imagination tell you is the reason for wave particle duality, /\ Cognito /\?
+Zxenmusic can we be best friends? You seem like someone i would hang out with all the time.
In QED, Feynman said that light is a particle. Not a wave. Not a wavicle. A particle. He spends quite a bit of time emphasizing that point because he knows a lot of people are confused. He explains duality as saying that the wave-like properties of photons, electrons, etc are due to the the probability of detecting the particles in space-time. Draw a map of where you've detected the photon and you get a map of a wave even though the wave is made up of particles. Imagine pointillism.
Some things in the universe and nature just are what they are. The universe is under no obligation to make itself easy for our brains to understand or to act and behave the way we think it should or want it to
WOUW I learned more in this minute explainision about wave/particle behaviour than the others long videos whit the same subject ( what is wave/particle and how it behaves).
Love it
Episode 3. Name changed from One Minute Physics, to minute physics.
I'm thinking of a snowplow that pushes snow out into a clumping pattern that goes out like a fan; The fan shape represents particles hitting each other and plowing forward from the single particle; The duality is an illusion because our senses cannot see what is really happening; which is that the inmate resistance of the Higgs field produces a frequency wave based on the momentum of a particle; The energy in the particle is this we seen but the other aspect of the particle it is affecting The Higgs Feild only
do you have any idea of how much you helped me in my chemistry curse? dude, i totally understood both videos, you explain it waaaay better than my professor :D thank you so much!
Still alive?
it's a quantum world. Everything vibrates and never completely stops moving. :) thanks for these videos minutephysics they really are very informative! SUBSCRIBED!
Wait. When the electron hits the wall and repels the electrons in the wall, it will bounce, right? Now imagine the wave bouncing. Isn't that the same thing? What if all matter is made out of waves?
The simplest explanation is that light is a wave with particle characteristics as a probabilistic future unfolds photon by photon. This idea is supported by the fact that light photon ∆E=hf energy is continuously transforming potential energy into the kinetic Eₖ=½mv² energy of matter, in the form of electrons. Kinetic energy is the energy of what is actually ‘happening’. The dynamic geometry of this process forms an uncertain ∆×∆pᵪ≥h/4π probabilistic future continuously unfolding relative to the electron probability cloud of the atoms and the wavelength of the light.
Could light and matter in the form of electrons be wave over a ‘period of time’ and have particle characteristics relative to the atoms of the Periodic Table when we have the absorption and emission of light?
Is the exchange of light photon ∆E=hf energy continuously transforming potential energy into the kinetic Eₖ=½mv² energy of matter, in the form of electrons, as an uncertain ∆×∆pᵪ≥h/4π probabilistic future unfolds?
i have my own thoughts on this. i think light or electrons and such are waves and only their excitations if energy is added "seem" like a particle, but it vanishes as soon as it interacts with something. think of the motion of light like sound in a material. in my opinion it's not light that moves but it's information / configuration. one could say, normal particles are "bound excitations" aka matter... and light or electrons are free flowing information packets that will behave like a particle when excited through external energy (observing aka. detecting). So think about this.... we are right now watching a pond from the side. We throw a stone into the pond to detect where the water is and as we detect the splash, we assume its position. What we don't see, is the pond. the splashing water is only the excitation through our interaction / detection (observation) with the stone and the waters surface. i am relatively sure that c is not some kind of "speed" but more like a limit of perception. it might even be just the "speed of time" but this will get complicated quickly and i am not finished thinking about this yet. To explain the double slit experiment with this... light behaves like a wave naturally, because its not altered through interaction til it hits the spot behind the slits. if you want to detect through which slit light is flowing, you're effectively interacting with that wave and you're building excitations with that and thus light will (til it hits the plate) act like a particle. Atoms are often displayed as spheres where some electron particles is circling around and in my opinion that's wrong. you got the bound excitations in the middle (aka protons neutrons etc.) and the "electron Pond" around. it's like the size of the pond that describes the amount of electrons. The amount of electrons is just the possible excitations through interaction with the "pond". What do you think about this?
You are wrong. ;-)
One way to think of free will is that the wave particle duality of light and matter in the form of electrons is forming a blank canvas for us (atoms) to interact with. We have waves over a period of time and particles as an uncertain future unfolds. The mathematics of quantum mechanics represents the physics of time with classical physics represents processes over a period of time as in Newton's differential equations.
@FishBowl911
Wir müssen wissen - wir werden wissen!
-----David Hilbert
Could the wave particle duality of light and matter in the form of electrons be forming a blank canvas that we can choose how we interact with forming a future of our own choice relative to the energy and momentum of our actions. In such a theory the mathematics of quantum mechanics represents the physics of ‘time’ as a physical process, with classical physics representing processes over a period of time as in Newton’s differential equations
An artist theory on the physics of 'Time' as a physical process. Quantum Atom Theory what about pilot wave / bohmian::: eliminating the notion of superposition??
I love the videos... the concept is great but it's like I'm getting a tantalizing taste and missing out on the meal! Request: Make longer, more detailed videos?
an electron travels as a wave because it has the probability to be anywhere in the room thanks to the uncertainty principle, but one it gets "observed" that it hit the wall, it can only hit the wall once, because... well it's only one electron. Probability waves are fun :D yay quantum tunneling!
I open the page, the video starts playing, I close the add, I turn off the Caption, I turn off the annotations, I change the video size and set the quality and as I'm about to watch the video but It's over.
You can just replay it
I dont think saying travel as a wave is correct.
When I think about water wave, I know that h2o exit at those space, in wave forrmation.
But in quantum, it is just a possibility that that practicle exit in those space, not 100% like in water wave
do one about what happens when you divide by zero
The PARTICLE TRAIN! Previously I suggested that eternal photons made electron positron pairs,
(as well as all standard model particles). Here's how.
Start with a PARTICLE TRAIN, each time you add an electron or positron car to the train, you get a new particle.
The only rule is the cars have to alternate from electron to positron. Think of a wave with trough always alternating with crest.
Photons as electron positron pairs could make the main parts of an atom in the brief time after the Big Bang under those extreme and never repeated conditions.
Charges are the cars on our particle train.
Positive positron (+),
Negative electron (-).
Positron (+)
Electron (-)
Photon (+) (-)
Proton (+) (-) (+) Anti Proton (-) (+) (-)
Neutron (+) (-) (+) (-) Anti Neutron (-) (+) (-)(+) .
The PROTONS and NEUTRONS are made from
ELECTRONS and POSITRONS!
When this production of particles was over, most anti particles with charge; positrons, and anti protons, didn't exist on their own. They were LOCKED INTO PROTONS OR NEUTRONS. That way conservation of charge was maintained. That also explains the MISSING ANTI MATTER PROBLEM!
This from Wikipedia article Matter Creation:
It is possible to create all fundamental particles in the standard model, including quarks, leptons and bosons using photons of varying energies above some minimum threshold, whether directly (by pair production), or by decay of the intermediate particle (such as a W− boson decaying to form an electron and an electron-antineutrino).
I'm watching this video 2024😊😅
I do understand that the scientific community has pretty much accepted particle/wave duality, but I believe there is a simpler answer that makes more sense. The double slit experiment makes perfect sense if light is a waveform because of the interference patterns. The reason people believe its a particle and wave could be partially due to the assumption that what they are emitting is light. If an electron is emitted, it will create an electromagnetic field around it much like a wake from a boat or when it impacts other matter. The electron itself is not light. This theory is very testable. perform the double slit experiment in a total vacuum, there should be no interference pattern.
Another reason why people believe light as it's particle form is because of the way it behaves in space. For example, how could light travel through space if its a vacuum, or why does a black hole or massive objects cause light to change direction.
This could be answered the same with sound waves. Does sound travel in space? No. Does Light travel in space? Actually no. Electrons striking the atmosphere impact create the electromagnetic wave which we see as light. If you were to put a camera in space, the electrons would contact the CCD on the camera and create the electromagnetic wave directly on the camera. But technically by this theory the light doesn't exist in space until it contacts matter. This makes perfect concerning black holes. black holes have a lot of mass, electrons have mass. The same could be said about sound in space, an object traveling in space hits your space helmet, you would hear it as the object would create the wave when it contacts you. So the sound doesn't travel in space, but you will hear it when it hits you. black holes effect the trajectory of electrons, problem solved. According to common scientific belief, "photons" have no mass. How does gravity effect the path of light then?
My theory has huge consequences on the way everyone views the universe. Speed of light is not constant, just like sound. Sound travels slower or faster depending on the propagation medium just like light. In fiber optics, this concept is known as refractive index, because light waves travel 1/3 slower through fiber optics. This would mean that there may be some errors in the way which people theorize the distance of the stars using the speed of light, although the actual light waves do not travel through space.
+jakeflow27 There are many reasons to believe light is a particle - first, the photoelectric effect, second, the ultraviolet catastrophe, and third, and probably most importantly, the mathematics of quantum mechanics. Light is definitely a particle, but can show wavelike characteristics, just like any other particle.
Could the wave particle duality of light be acting like the bits or zeros and ones of a computer? In this theory the physics of quantum mechanics represents the physics of ‘time’ as a physical process. The spontaneous absorption and emission of light is forming a blank canvas that we can interact with turning the possible into the actual within our own ref-frame! Time is an emergent property with the future coming into existence photon by photon relative to the actions of the atoms.
This is an invitation to see an artist theory on the physics of time as a physical process!
Based on just two postulates:
1 The quantum w-particle function Ψ or probability function represents the forward passage of time itself with the future coming into existence photon by photon.
2 Is that quantum uncertainty ∆×∆p×≥h/4π that is formed by the w-function is the same uncertainty we have with any future event within our own ref-frame that we can interact with turning the possible into the actual!
Are the last 8 seconds a deliberate silent pause following your terrible pun?
am i the only one who got the "toot your horn" joke???
But those waves are just composed of those very small things. And the particles are 1 part of what can be larger waves. So it is not too weird, because the sound wave is composed of many many small things that all act like wave/particles. If you didn't focus on just one small thing it all acts the same and is the same. Drop many many balls and it will act like a wave.
I thought sound was always a wave. Then I go on Wikipedia and learn about this "phonon" shit? So now SOUND has particles!
My thought is that diffraction of light (or particles) is the result of the combination of refraction and interference.
Awesome episode guys. Please make more brain food. 1 minute isnt' enough =D
isn't the huge BH is the center of the galaxy who attract the stars? which form then a galaxy.
Not everything Einstein theorized was 100% correct, and quantum theory came largely after Einstein, so ya, he wasn't entirely correct.
In this theory the quantum wave particle function Ψ represents the forward passage of time itself with the future coming into existence photon by photon. Quantum uncertainty ∆×∆p×≥h/4π is the same uncertainty we have with any future event within our own ref-frame. The wave-particle duality of light is forming a blank canvas that we can interact with turning the possible into the actual!
By the way this is an invitation to see an artist theory on the physics of ‘time’ as a physical process!
sorry i didn’t mean to dislike lol
Great videos! I do have a few questions, though. How is it possible for an electron to expand like a wave when it is clearly just one particle? How can something that spreads like a wave only collide with an obstacle at one point? Is this point the same every time, and can it be predicted? And last but not least, am I misunderstanding this entirely? I don't expect to get an answer, but thanks anyway :D
hi i am replying to you after 11 years :)
My physics suggestions, challenges a lot of present ideas. But they are built on what we know now.
The following is a list of facts about photons, that physicists already accept: but that will still challenge most readers.
The list also contains two items that I suggest are accurate, but are not accepted by physicists.
Read the list and find the two of mine out of the twelve listed.
There are clues at the end to help.
HERE GOES:
Photons can create electrons and positrons in pair conversion (Energy can make mass).
Electrons and positrons annihilate into photons or energy.
(Mass can annihilate into pure energy.)
Photons are outside of space.
Photons are outside of time.
Photons are all in a single point.
Photons may be eternal.
Photons were the singularity that began the Big Bang.
Photons can make all the particles in the standard model.
Virtual Photons pop in and out of a vacuum, and are responsible for the Casimir Effect.
A photon can be in a superposition of two or more states.
Two photons that are entangled remain connected, no matter the distance between them.
Photons, electrons, and positrons are all different versions of the same thing.
CLUES:
One of the things that you really have to realize is the speed of light is very, very special. It's not just simply a speed of something moving through space. As you go faster and faster and closer to the speed of light, time itself begins to slow down. And space begins to contract. As you go close to the speed of light, the entire universe becomes smaller and smaller until it basically just becomes a single point when you're going at the speed of light. And time, as you go closer to the speed of light, gets slower and slower until basically time is a single point at the speed of light.
Light does not experience space or time. It's not just a speed going through something. All of the universe shifts around this constant, the speed of light. Time and space itself stop when you go that speed. Michelle Thaller.
This from Wikipedia article Matter Creation:
It is possible to create all fundamental particles in the standard model, including quarks, leptons and bosons using photons of varying energies above some minimum threshold, whether directly (by pair production), or by decay of the intermediate particle (such as a W− boson decaying to form an electron and an electron-antineutrino).
By studying ancient light radiated shortly after the big bang, a physicist has calculated the minimum lifetime of photons, showing that they must live for at least one billion billion years, if not forever. Scientific American.
The ANSWER
The two items that are not yet accepted by physicists are,
1 Photons were the singularity that began the Big Bang
2 Photons, electrons, and positrons are all different forms of the same thing.
The law of conservation of energy states that energy can neither be created nor destroyed - only converted from one form of energy to another. This means that a system always has the same amount of energy, unless it's added from the outside.
Yes, that was bullshit. ;-)
So with particles...it's not a WAVE...it just looks like waves, we're using the wrong word. It's more of a fuzz because of the speed of it flailing around in so many directions so fast. Think of waving a sparkler on the 4th of July...looks like waves but is a solid object...a particle. There is no mystery here just terminology problems.
There's an in-wave and an out-wave, every C has an anti-C or positron-wave+/- electron-wave!
The in-wave is wound-up into matter inbetween Neutron stars and active cores of Galaxies. Magnetic fields are always at right-angles to the electric fields forming opposing Fibonacci vortex spacetime sequences and where the two waves meet creates the wobbly particle effect, as 'like charged wave-centers' repel becoming equally spaced along the curvature of spacetime! The Fibonacci ratio is everywhere!
Wave Particle Duality. You're Vibrating Aether (Energy). You're Vibrating Aether into the Material. Prediction: It Will Be Higher, Where "G" is Lower. (Less Loss, to Surrounding Aether).
This video was just to short for trying to explain this conundrum.
Think about light, you know, where all this wave/particle theory came from. Now we know that light as a wave because just like waves in water, if you run it through two slits it creates bars on the back wall equivalent to the shadow lines of wave tanks where the waves either amplify each other or cancel each other out. Now sometime in history, and I’ll be honest I forget who it was who came up with this theory, said that light was acting like a particle by knocking electrons loose when it hits certain objects. But what if instead of being a billiard ball knocking the electron loose we look at the electrons as surfers and the light as waves. As the light wave of sufficient energy strikes the Object certain electrons in the proper orbit around the atom can take this energy wave and ride it like a surfer. No impact, no collusion, no particle.
Now consider if you release one photon of light, the smallest amount of light we know of. As it goes through the double slits it will hit the back wall but It will only be detected at one point. That point though will always comply with the rules decreed by wave theory. So why is it that it is only detected in one spot? Let’s go back and look at water waves. If you look at waves in water you’ll come across what is known as a rogue wave. A rogue wave is simply the amplitude of several waves amplifying each other. I theorize that this light wave is so weak that as it goes to the double slits there is only enough energy to create a singular Rogue Wave that is strong enough to be detected by the sensors.
Can I prove my theory? No. However if you think about it you will see that it eliminates the need for both waves and particles when it comes to light and the fact that light travels in waves is undeniable. Everyone excepts it. It has been proven over and over. I understand this goes against what most people have been taught or they just don’t care and have never seen this information before, but remember, all science is theory so consider this theory without bias and see where it takes you. A simple theory where light is a wave and only a wave. And the electrons are not knocked loose but are like surfers riding that energy wave.
Just a thought.
Would be nice if you had a second channel in which you gave more of an explanation to the videos you post.
I never knew the detail about electrons going in 'all directions' and only reaching one place and would like to know more about that. Is there a name for this effect? Do other particles behave in the same way?
well check the famous> double slit experiment
Well if you have already taken a coarse of Quantum Mechanics at Stanford, it will all be Ho! Hum! But you know with a very small amount of study you can bring yourself to a much higher state of understanding.
In 6 years, this will be a Legal video.
Sorry Drake
This is soo funny. Why cant people understand this? A single electron is not a wave. It is a single partical that moves in an expanding spiral. It just "seems " to be a wave because of our math. It is just too small to see the spiral, and the math only says where it could possably hit.
see but just from a logic stand point here.. a shot guns pellets spread out like a wave but lacks in power penetration because the original energy source was spread between many pellets. like a lazer compared to a flashlight.
meaning if all your voice was not spread out in a wave the 1 person you were talking too would be deaf lol and the one wave you created with the force of your boat would cut the beach in half.
are you entirely sure the wave and the particle are of the same origin. would the wave not be the power or delivery souce and the particle the pellet.
Um, what do you mean "what if"? Sound waves *do* have wave-particle duality, and the particles of sound waves are called "phonons" (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phonon).
Yeah, I know...this is how this stuff is taught in physics classes but, it's still all wrong. Sound (and light) is NOT propagated as either particles or waves. So, the whole wave/particle duality thing is hokum anyway. Get out of the box and think of the third way that sound (and light) could be transmitted from one place to another. Hmmmm....that would take some effort, eh....probably not worth the bother....and, besides, you time is so precious....don't wanna waste it on this.
well. not true about the sound. it would be more like. the shortest click. would only arrive at one person. if you spoke, you would probably have emitted many of these sound quanta and many of them would have spread out. but i get what you're trying to say. well. not really. sound is just vibrations traveling through a medium. so a quanta would be.. a particle vibrating? then. I HAVE NO IDEA what im thinking.
sub orbital trajectories are NOT parabolas, if all the earth's mass was at its center, so the ball wouldn't hit, its trajectory would be an oval, hence, sub orbital trajectories are parts of an oval. very different from a parabola
No, I don't think that quite answers my question. I'm not talking sound waves here. When you get down to subatomic particle sizes these particle/waves are not traveling through oxygen as oxygen atoms would be far too large to be the medium as these could, conceivably pass through the spaces between the atoms depending upon the frequency of the wave. Thanks for the reply though.
Where is my post on butterfly
Using wave partial duality with insulated wings using the wave and little hole in dust lens law magnetic flux that binds the butterfly to the Schumann resonance ?
I see. Sort of lol. Would this explain the two-slit light experiment, where particles pass through both slits instead of just one? If you know what I mean? Where when a light is shown at two slits like: II you'd expect to get II but what you see is IIIIII ? Or am I completely off base here?
I like it...you are different.UA-cam needs more educational content, all i provide is stupid shit that will deteriorate you mind and soul....so thank you for giving balance to the universe. By that i mean UA-cam *it's my universe
I see this in real life..yes the macroworld acts diferently than particle world..however the way reality is described and given that we are particles ourselves much like everything else..well..
Perhaps there really isn't a duality at all: An electron is a particle that creates waves around it, like a boat cruising across the waters. But it's still a particle, and remains so at it arrives at its destination. Just because it creates waves as it moves doesn't mean that we can characterize it as a wave.
that would make for some pretty boring surfing-
Oh, okay then. Youuu.. want me to click the next part. Fine.
This might be a stupid question, but what are these waves travelling through? To call something a wave implies that there's a medium for it to travel through, doesn't it?
flip floppers? lmfao have you ever thought that this illusion of something flipping from side to side is your own distorted perception? or the manipulation of others?
If...if...if...if...pigs had wings they could fracking fly.
This is truly a refreshing piece of work among the piles of crackpot shit about "quantum phenomena" that propels New Age ignorance on UA-cam.
Hats off to you.
what if electron moves very fast that it appears to be in different places at the same time untill it hits a wall cuz it is one it will hit in one spot and maybe bounce back.
The Wave Particle Duality and why quantum mechanics is weirder than anything we're used to in our daily lives.
dear. Please add subtitle of english with the video... So that we can slowly understant from other countries...
Them : Removes One
The Video Audio Compared To last Increased By 10X Quality
physics is usefull after all.. i mean now i can draw better with crayons.. thbkxz physics.
they're called 'directional speakers', but I can't find the specific video you're talking about
From regions of intense wave pressure Atoms and particles are really Wave Centre's Made of vibrating sinusoidal spherical wave fronts concentrically layered like onions compressing+/-decompressing two opposing vortices "Fibonacci."
Output is the negation of the input: 0 goes to 1,1 to 0.
The higher the frequency Planck's constant is multiplied by a larger amount more violent opposed vibrating motion slower time runs within that 3D centred ref-frame now absorbing and emitting EM Waves in unison
Weeeeeeeell, one giraffe only if you tie it.
thank you so much
@ProceoGames
Particles do travel with a wave-like pattern/motion (like tennis balls!), but it's so small it is only noticeable with very small particles (like electrons.)
Trying to get my head round all this. How do they know for sure they're only firing one electron at a time? I know I'm probably picturing this wrong when I think of the electrons being fired out, but I imagine a gun, securely set up, firing one bullet at a time hitting, or being very,very close to where the first bullet landed one after the other. So why do the electrons go all over the place when fired one at a time? Why aren't they behaving like bullets would? I mean, even a sub machine gun firing one bullet at a time wouldn't spray them about, well it might if I was holding and firing it, but if it's securely held in place I wouldd've thought the bullets would more or less hit the same spot. Any budding physicists out there know where I'm going wrong with my gun/bullet analogy and how they know for sure they're only firing one electron at a time?
+Jay Kaner You're actualy picturing this electron gun quite right. Explaning how they make sure only one electron is being fired in at the time in detail is pretty complicated. For example, the solar cells in power station use a physical effect called "Compton Scattering", basicly it says, if a photon hits a atom with enough energy, the photon transfers its energy to an electron and kicks it out of the orbit around the core. After the electron has left the orbit it can be easily guided through a megnetic field to follow a determined path. For this electron "gun" to work, you have to make sure that you only generate one single photon to kick out an electron. As single photon can be generated by arranging a laser, lenses, mirrors, polarisation filters and using the knowlege of a photons properties and behavior to make sure that only one photon will leave the apparature. So basicly its a combination of optics and magnetic fields that helps create a single electron.
Your analogy with the gun was right, but its the bullet that's the problem. The Bullet analogy only applies to the particle like behavior of electrons, but since a bullet is a structure that can be observed with the naked eye even mid air, it doesn't match the properties of the electron. The difference is that you can't aim an electron like you can aim a bullet. If you ajust the guns sights and have perfect conditions (humidity, wind, etc.) you will always hit the spot you're aiming for, but a electron doesn't have a clear tragetory to its destination. Mid flight an electron can't be oserved, therefore it behaves like a wave and is technicaly everywhere at the same time. But the moment the wave hits the target the electron switches back to particle and can be traced. Mid air an electron doesn't have a definitive path it only has the probability to be at a certain time in a certain point, but as already said, this propability isn't defenitive.
Hope that helps, english isn't my native language.
Jon Pliskin“Hope that helps” Firstly, thank you very much for your reply. You really have helped, especially how you explain where my analogy was going wrong with the bullet and why an electron wouldn’t repeatedly hit the same spot like I thought a bullet would. My first reaction was “of course! An electron is so much smaller than a bullet that the atoms in the air molecules could have an effect on its trajectory”. I was picturing the electron hitting atoms and ricocheting off them at slightly different angles to explain why they don’t hit the same spot every time. But then after re-reading your reply again, I realised that that way of seeing it is wrong too. Because the electron is acting ‘wavelike’ then that electron is potentially everywhere it could possibly be, and because it doesn’t act like a particle until it hits the target then it can’t be affected by any of the things I wrongly assumed would or could affect it, like say the ricocheting off atoms image I had. It’s the probability of where the electron is that affects where it ends up and explains the seemingly randomness of its journey. It makes a bit more sense now. Not that QM makes much sense in the normal sense of the word lol. Like most laymen, I find all this really fascinating. I’ve wondered about the electrons in this experiment for some time, unable to find an answer until now. My main reason for wanting to know about this is the implications that observation has on it (I’m also, as a layman, just as interested and fascinated in consciousness). I mean, if the double slit experiment is correct and the act of observation really does have an effect on its outcome then the implications that we somehow ‘create’ reality are astonishing! I really appreciate you going out of your way to help me and my understanding of what’s going on here. It was really good of you. Thank you Jon. Oh yeah, one more thing... I gotta say, if English isn't your first language then not only did you explain something about QM really well, you did it in a foreign language too!! Now that's doubly impressive lol ;)
+Jay Kaner I'm glad I could help, have a nice day.
Also go and check out something called the double slit experiment
Also go and check out something called the double slit experiment
That’s not real waves, that’s statistics.
I've never seen it before.
But I suggest you see some interesting videos on SALEH THEORY-com about behaviors of photon.
How can you say electrons travels in all directions they can travel in one direction at once??
So then where do the waves go if they don't hit the shore? Bad example. Sorry
What!!!!?????
That did make any sense. Electrons don't just float around; they would bond to a molecule with a week outer electron layer that wants an extra electron.
I don't get it...
Jones Njoroge If that were always true (these has to be positively charged molecules to begin with), a CRT TV wouldn't work. A CRT TV (the old, fat ones) generate a picture using a beam of electrons.
More than a duality.
For instance, when a particle is projected against a wall that is only in one reality. In infinite other realities that particle is being projected (or not), like a star's light is. So when that particle hits the wall. There could be many particles hitting that wall simultaneously, coming in from other existences, or no particle at all or many particles spread out across the wall. Reality is funky like that
@LOLxWILLxLOL yes that royce will be gone even if it wasnt stolen.
my scince teachers cant teach but you do it in less than half the time he does
I have a question to everyone here, if the double slit experiment is based on probability, should it not still be measurable, I mean in a probability game we use probability because we can afford to compute all the variables that could affect the result, so in atomic scales we use probability because of my example with the probability game, so in theory eistein would be right as long as we believe that there is some force actting on the particles, right?
1. The branch of science concerned with the nature and properties of matter and energy.
And if it were not, and if what we're discussing was called something like 'dingdong', would there be any difference in the content? A rose by any other name would smell just as sweet.
Oh, and let me guess: you're going to complain about me using a Shakespeare quote twice, then post a paragraph about how I am a "kiddo" with various insults.
Nope. As you jump in the train, you remain the velocity of the train (in horizontal direction), which you keep while jumping.
However, if the train were to stop, while you're in the air, you'd still be moving at the speed the train was when you jumped, and you'd fly forward. (You might have experienced such thing while sitting in a car that's stopping). If the train had kept moving, you'd also fly forward, but you wouldn't notice it as the train moves along with you at the same speed.
There is no duality and it's really not that complicated.
We can only see the electron or whatever else when it hits said object, but we can see the waves it leaves in it's wake as it moves, up until it hits something. So it's just like a submarine, or a plane that's above the clouds. Regardless of whether or not we see it, it's still doing it's suby/planey things; making waves and such, but we can only observe its interactions with the medium it moves through.
I dont really get it....the video says the electron travels in a wave-like motion but only hits a surface at a point...and then it says that's because there's only one electron. What about more than one electron at a time? It is understood that water and sound diffuses through space in all direction and hits all obstacles at any time becauses their energy is carried by more than one particle...