0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.
- light acts as a particle and a wave simultaneously
Quote from: aasimz on 10/03/2014 14:04:10 - light acts as a particle and a wave simultaneouslyThat's incorrect. In fact you have in backwards. Photons can act as a particle or wave but never at the same time.Also, this thread belongs in the New Theory forum, not here.
Quote from: Pmb on 06/04/2014 16:07:26Quote from: aasimz on 10/03/2014 14:04:10 - light acts as a particle and a wave simultaneouslyThat's incorrect. In fact you have in backwards. Photons can act as a particle or wave but never at the same time.Also, this thread belongs in the New Theory forum, not here.This is one of several experiments that concluded this statement:http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/11/121101141107.htm [Links inactive - To make links active and clickable, login or click here to register]
Surprisingly, when a photon is observed, it behaves either as a particle or as a wave. But both aspects are never observed simultaneously. In fact, which behaviour it exhibits depends on the type of measurement it is presented with.
For instance, quantum theory predicts that a particle (for instance a photon) can be in different places at the same time. In fact it can even be in infinitely many places at the same time, exactly as a wave.
An acquaintance of mine (also a physicist) used to teach QM and is now the author of a famous QM textbook author. Let me bounce this off of him and I'll get back to you.
The author of that page says something quite wrong too, i.e.QuoteFor instance, quantum theory predicts that a particle (for instance a photon) can be in different places at the same time. In fact it can even be in infinitely many places at the same time, exactly as a wave. That is total nonsense. Quantum theory does not say that. It says that there is a finite probability that a particle can be measured in infinitely many places at the same time.
Both statements are the same to me, if you are talking about the same particle that is measured.
Quote from: aasimzBoth statements are the same to me, if you are talking about the same particle that is measured.They are definitely not the same.
I don't understand your post, what are you trying to get at. You're using different words to describe the same thing, bosons are the force carrier's not azzmo.muzzo's are broken into smaller pieces,
they are called quarks, which are the building blocks of atoms. As far as the atoms are concerned in your statement of adding one proton.
Most of the characteristics of an atom, are in the electrons. Chemical bonding is electron sharing between different atoms to balance out the shells. Helium is a noble gas, because it shells are already full, so it is doesn't bond well with other atoms. If you look at a periodic table. This is why things are arranged in columns, things in the same column have similar properties.
Anyone is free to reply to this post, right?
I have 2 net friends who I asked about this topic and the 1st (a computer programmer) said that within quantum fields of our brain (of how it functions or somewhere there) he said that in their company, a large electronics company, while they were developing a new kind of gadget that could function within the eyes' visual spectrum -based on graphene research, they observed that the same phenomenon as to the relation between the universe's particle build up, speed, and functionality are also similarly close to any other matter, solid or not. The eyes, though may not be powerful as any other microscope or camera, can still see things that no other artificial machines can.
That said, when I received my second friend's reply, a chemist, at which he said, Anti-matter technology was still in a contained experimental stage. If it does actually explains the relation of this domain's differences, then it would as if you have rejected the idea that life is purely made up of rejecting-accepting atomic relationships.
This made me think that what we know so far are actually still not enough to give a definite answer to this theory..
... why do we find the Golden ratio -1.618- everywhere ...
Quote from: aasimz on 11/04/2014 00:30:35... why do we find the Golden ratio -1.618- everywhere ...In plants it's optimum-geometry arrived at by natural-selection ... http://www.maths.surrey.ac.uk/hosted-sites/R.Knott/Fibonacci/fibnat2.html#why [Links inactive - To make links active and clickable, login or click here to register]
The classical theory of electromagnetism provides a good understanding of inputs and outputs of this process, but a microscopic quantum mechanical description of how the light excites the electrons is lacking.
Although general relativity is not the only relativistic theory of gravity, it is the simplest such theory that is consistent with the experimental data. Nevertheless, a number of open questions remain, the most fundamental of which is how general relativity can be reconciled with the laws of quantum physics to produce a complete and self-consistent theory of quantum gravity.
Riding WavesThe idea that pilot waves might explain the peculiarities of particles dates back to the early days of quantum mechanics. The French physicist Louis de Broglie presented the earliest version of pilot-wave theory at the 1927 Solvay Conference in Brussels, a famous gathering of the founders of the field.
A Quantum DropWhen a droplet bounces along the surface of a liquid toward a pair of openings in a barrier, it passes randomly through one opening or the other while its “pilot wave,” or the ripples on the liquid’s surface, passes through both. After many repeat runs, a quantum-like interference pattern appears in the distribution of droplet trajectories.Now at last, pilot-wave theory may be experiencing a minor comeback — at least, among fluid dynamicists. “I wish that the people who were developing quantum mechanics at the beginning of last century had access to these experiments,” Milewski said. “Because then the whole history of quantum mechanics might be different.”
Even worse, says Corey Powell at Discover, is the NASA researchers' claim that the Cannae Drive "is potentially demonstrating an interaction with the quantum vacuum virtual plasma." When Powell asked Caltech physicist Sean Carroll what quantum vacuum virtual plasma was, Carroll responded that there is no such thing.
9. Why isn't there a simple explanation of how it's supposed to work without violating the laws of physics?Different research groups all seem to have their own theories -- Shawyer's is based on relativity, the Chinese one is based on Maxwell's Law and Nasa is now talking about pushing against "quantum vacuum virtual particles" and saying that this is "similar to the way a naval submarine interacts with the water which surrounds it." The Nasa report deliberately avoids any theoretical discussion on this point, with good reason.None of these explanations has gone unchallenged by theoreticians, and it might be fair to say that there is no accepted explanation as to how a close system of resonating microwaves can produce a thrust. There is no accepted theoretical explanation of how high-temperature superconductors work either, but because the effect has been replicated so many times, nobody doubts that it happens.If the new drive results continue to be replicated, then theory may have to catch up.
The researchers suggest that the reason that this ratio is so ubiquitous is that it is actually a property of space-time.
The researchers say that the “time has come to recognize that relativity and quantum theories can be integrated, and linked numerically to the value of a mathematical constant – whether in the context of space-time or biology”.
Look at this timeline charting over 200 years of discoveries.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_particle_discoveries [Links inactive - To make links active and clickable, login or click here to register]Why do you think it took that long? You have to ask yourself this question and review the answer in light of the way you have come to your own conclusions