0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
While the founding fathers agonized over the question 'particle' or 'wave', de Broglie in 1925 proposed the obvious answer 'particle' and 'wave'. Is it not clear from the smallness of the scintillation on the screen that we have to do with a particle? And is it not clear, from the diffraction and interference patterns, that the motion of the particle is directed by a wave? De Broglie showed in detail how the motion of a particle, passing through just one of two holes in screen, could be influenced by waves propagating through both holes. And so influenced that the particle does not go where the waves cancel out, but is attracted to where they cooperate. This idea seems to me so natural and simple, to resolve the wave-particle dilemma in such a clear and ordinary way, that it is a great mystery to me that it was so generally ignored.
Since 1954, when this passage was written, I have come to support wholeheartedly an hypothesis proposed by Bohm and Vigier. According to this hypothesis, the random perturbations to which the particle would be constantly subjected, and which would have the probability of presence in terms of [the wave-function wave], arise from the interaction of the particle with a “subquantic medium” which escapes our observation and is entirely chaotic, and which is everywhere present in what we call “empty space”.
When in 1923-1924 I had my first ideas about Wave Mechanics I was looking for a truly concrete physical image, valid for all particles, of the wave and particle coexistence discovered by Albert Einstein in his "Theory of light quanta". I had no doubt whatsoever about the physical reality of waves and particles.any particle, even isolated, has to be imagined as in continuous “energetic contact” with a hidden medium
For me, the particle, precisely located in space at every instant, forms on the v wave a small region of high energy concentration, which may be likened in a first approximation, to a moving singularity.
the particle is defined as a very small region of the wave
Strongly detecting the particle causes a loss of cohesion between the particle and its associated wave, the particle continues on the trajectory it was traveling and it does not form an interference pattern.
And yet, when we "strongly interact" by putting a fluorescent plate or photographic film behind the slits, we see what looks like an interference pattern.
"The interaction of the particle with a “subquantic medium”" is another way of describing a strongly interacting dark matter.Dark matter is not a clump of weakly interacting stuff that travels with the matter. Dark matter fills the space unoccupied by particles of matter and is displaced by the particles of matter that exist in it and move through it.
then the particle will build up to form an interference pattern over time.
Occam's Razor ...
This is logically impossible. The particle is travelling at a considerable speed (c in the case of photons) and can't move sideways or hang around waiting to interact with itself over time. A single electron or light photon does not have sufficient energy to generate a signal by interacting with a fluorescent screen or photographic film at more than one point, yet the received pattern (generated over time) occupies space.Wave mechanics describes and predicts the effect, but cannot be said to be the cause.
The counterintuitive part here is that an electron can interfere with itself.
then the particles will build up to form an interference pattern over time.
Exactly my point. The wave function describes the probability of a particle being in any given place, so eventually a sufficient number of particles will have appeared at the places predicted by the wave function, that it looks like an interference pattern. But a single electron can only form a single point on that pattern - it can't "interfere with itself" or spread out and appear partially in several places at once.
So you keep saying, but the aether concept, and wave-particle duality, doesn't explain anything better than quantum mechanics, which does not require this imaginary drivel, and also explains the existence of atoms, the shape of molecules, the photoelectric effect, the black body spectrum, lasers, masers, and how this computer works.Why mess about with a useless, unnecessary, discredited and outdated fantasy?
Being the devil's advocate here you can measure quantum wavefunctions (at least square magnitudes) many different ways. The following link is about one direct method and mentions some indirect ones:http://physics.aps.org/articles/v6/58Beyond that delocalization can have observable physical consequences. For example:http://physics.aps.org/articles/v9/43Where the very shape of the water molecule is predicted to change due to the delocalization its hydrogen atoms.Now none of this is supports the concept of an aether. However, to dismiss the quantum mechanical wavefunction as purely mathematical does a great disservice to many experimentalists who've done very clever things to prove that the opposite.Here is some more work to support the reality of the wavefunction:http://www.nature.com/nphys/journal/v11/n3/full/nphys3233.htmlIn my opinion it is best to give up on both classical wave and classical particles and accept that the waves of quantum mechanics have properties that aren't like either classical waves or classical particles. In short there isn't a wave particle duality there is just the wavefunction which has properties that we associate with classical waves and properties that we associate with classical particles. It isn't a wave under some cases and a particle under others. Nor is it somehow a wave and a particle at the same time. it is an entirely different entity that has both what we would call wave and particle properties. This is particularly surprising as it isn't the first time out classical notions have proven insufficient.
Classical notions are sufficient.
Quote from: stacyjones on 28/04/2016 07:00:54 Classical notions are sufficient. But completely unnecessary, nonpredictive, and selfcontradictory.
I know that is what most, if not all, physicists hold to be the case. However I myself would never speak of it in such terms. The reason for my position is that such a self-interference of a single particle with itself cannot be observed. It's not even clear to me what it means in practice. I know that it sounds nice and comfortable to speak of it that way but I have my reasons to disagree, and I hold that these reasons are strong. Here's my reasoning. Take a single particle and fire it at a double slit screen such as the one in Young's double slit experiment. The particle will strike the screen at one single location. In that experiment there is no evidence of a particle interfering with itself. If we have a large ensemble of identical setups there will be a pattern which emerges when we compare the results from all experiments. That does not imply that the particle interferes with itself.
So why is there a pattern? What determines the geometry of the pattern? There's a pattern because the double slit is in reality a potential well. The shape of the potential well determines what the wave function will be.