Quantum Mechanics Made Simple – Wave Particle Duality

Hi all, I've started a new YouTube series on the ontology and physical basis of Quantum Mechanics with Episode 1 on Wave-Particle Duality and the Single Slit experiment, would love your feedback!

https://youtu.be/r9C6STg8HI0

Episode 2 will be out in a couple of weeks and cover the Double Slit experiment with observation (my favourite experiment of all time!) Hope it's of interest.

πŸ‘︎ 58
πŸ’¬︎
πŸ‘€︎ u/willb1898
πŸ“…︎ Dec 13 2021
🚨︎ report
Fluid dynamics and quantum weirdness - the ultimate combination. Watch some incredible experimental videos of droplets exhibiting wave-particle duality behaviour as they bounce along the surface of oil. Research from Rahil Valani at Monash University. youtu.be/RaqbTswDF9A
πŸ‘︎ 256
πŸ’¬︎
πŸ‘€︎ u/tomrocksmaths
πŸ“…︎ Nov 13 2021
🚨︎ report
Particle wave duality
πŸ‘︎ 1k
πŸ’¬︎
πŸ‘€︎ u/Seeared
πŸ“…︎ Oct 14 2021
🚨︎ report
Wave–particle duality quantified for the first time: Β« The experiment quantitatively proves that instead of a photon behaving as a particle or a wave only, the characteristics of the source that produces it – like the slits in the classic experiment – influence how much of each character it has. Β» physicsworld.com/a/wave-p…
πŸ‘︎ 586
πŸ’¬︎
πŸ‘€︎ u/fchung
πŸ“…︎ Sep 18 2021
🚨︎ report
ELI5: I’ve heard a lot about particle-wave duality, and I’ve heard Tesla’s quotes about everything being vibration; however, I don’t really understand the difference between or relationship of waves and vibrations.
πŸ‘︎ 8
πŸ’¬︎
πŸ‘€︎ u/GGtheGray
πŸ“…︎ Dec 11 2021
🚨︎ report
Could anyone please explain Milikan’s experiment (1916) regarding wave-particle duality?
πŸ‘︎ 8
πŸ’¬︎
πŸ‘€︎ u/schrodingerscat66
πŸ“…︎ Dec 12 2021
🚨︎ report
Arab Funny wave-particle duality & electroweak unification. v.redd.it/o8nqqlkoilx71
πŸ‘︎ 51
πŸ’¬︎
πŸ‘€︎ u/chavisvonbradford
πŸ“…︎ Nov 04 2021
🚨︎ report
David Deutsch and Wave/Particle Duality

Firstly please note that this is not just about interpretation. Wave-particle duality is a fundamental tenet of quantum mechanics.

David Deutsch, author of "The Fabric of Reality", is one of the leading proponents of the Many Worlds Interpretation. He holds that in the double slit experiment single photons interfere with photons from another world, rather than also being waves that can cause interference even if there is only one photon.

He seems not to believe in wave-particle duality.

https://www.bretthall.org/david-deutsch-mysticism-and-quantum-theory.html

David: Yeah. β€œParticle-wave duality.” Unfortunately, from my perspective, β€œparticle-wave duality” is part of the equivocation and nonsense that was talked by the early pioneers of quantum theory in an attempt to avoid the parallel universes implications. And in fact there is no particle-wave duality.

I am astonished to discover this, and seek confirmation from others that this is really the case.

How can he explain interference patterns if particles cannot act like waves?

Are there other quantum physicists who take the same position?

πŸ‘︎ 17
πŸ’¬︎
πŸ“…︎ Oct 13 2021
🚨︎ report
Wave particle duality. Dichotomy or spectrum?

I'm sure there are droves of these kinds of questions on here; thanks for answering.

When we talk about wave/particle duality, do we mean

  1. Things (everything??) are waves, but when we observe them, they collapse to particles. (This would suggest W/P is a dichotomy.)
  2. Everything is a wave, but the wavelength is often so small that we can safely treat it like a particle. (This would suggest W/P is a spectrum.)
  3. Other?
πŸ‘︎ 2
πŸ’¬︎
πŸ‘€︎ u/supposenot
πŸ“…︎ Nov 20 2021
🚨︎ report
Thoughts on the uncertainty principle, wave particle duality, and interpretations of quantum mechanics

So I had a discussion a couple weeks ago with someone on the physics forum about the nature of the uncertainty principle. They were adamant that it's fundamental to the math (which I don't dispute) but were also insistent that it has nothing to do with statistics or repeated measurements, which is nonsense. It did get me thinking though - if we interpret the math of QM to mean that particles literally ARE waves (as opposed to simply behaving in ways that are well modeled by wavefunctions) then that means the HUP is a fundamental limit, which seems to be the most common interpretation and I tend to agree with it.

Nonetheless, we don't actually know for sure (or even beyond a reasonable doubt) if the wavefunctions correspond to physical waves of some sort of if they're just useful mathematical abstractions. In fact, since the wavefunctions are inherently unobservable (at least that's my understanding anyway; someone please correct me if I've misunderstood) the only way the HUP is relevant outside of theoretical discussions is if we repeated measure the same particle's position and momentum (or some relevant pair of variables) ("resetting" the system prior to each measurement) multiple times or multiple particles in identical states and take the standard deviations of the data sets. What HUP actually says is that the product of the standard deviations must be at least hbar/(2) (or a similar constant, depending on which pair of variables we're discussing). That's all we actually KNOW from experimental evidence. We actually haven't even ruled out the possibility of it being due to hidden variables.*

And yet, the idea of wave-particle duality and hence the idea that HUP is a fundamental property of all particles is so commonly taught without making it clear that we don't actually if it's true. To be clear, it may well be true; my point is that we don't actually know. I think the main reason it's taught that way is because it's just the easiest way to conceptualize it for most people and it certainly seems a plausible interpretation. Yet, by presenting it as if we know for sure that HUP really is fundamental and as wave-particle duality is definitely a physical thing, we gloss all the unanswered questions there still are about QM. Currently they're usually considered philosophical questions because no one's come up with a way to test them empirically. But how can we expect anyone to do so if we don't even teach that there ARE still so many questi

... keep reading on reddit ➑

πŸ‘︎ 6
πŸ’¬︎
πŸ‘€︎ u/dcfan105
πŸ“…︎ Sep 24 2021
🚨︎ report
Wave–particle duality quantified for the first time: Β« The experiment quantitatively proves that instead of a photon behaving as a particle or a wave only, the characteristics of the source that produces it – like the slits in the classic experiment – influence how much of each character it has. Β» physicsworld.com/a/wave-p…
πŸ‘︎ 32
πŸ’¬︎
πŸ‘€︎ u/fchung
πŸ“…︎ Sep 18 2021
🚨︎ report
NEW VIDEO: fluid dynamics and quantum weirdness - the ultimate combination. Featuring some incredible experimental videos of droplets exhibiting wave-particle duality behaviour as they bounce along the surface of oil. Research from Rahil Valani at Monash University. youtu.be/RaqbTswDF9A
πŸ‘︎ 2
πŸ’¬︎
πŸ‘€︎ u/tomrocksmaths
πŸ“…︎ Nov 13 2021
🚨︎ report
Wave-Particle Duality
πŸ‘︎ 260
πŸ’¬︎
πŸ‘€︎ u/ContraMuffin
πŸ“…︎ Aug 05 2021
🚨︎ report
Quantum Trio - Duality: Particles & Waves (jazz) [2017] quantumtrio.bandcamp.com/…
πŸ‘︎ 3
πŸ’¬︎
πŸ‘€︎ u/omegacluster
πŸ“…︎ Oct 29 2021
🚨︎ report
Explain the particle wave duality of light as if you were a drunken Mel Gibson in the middle of a field sobriety test
πŸ‘︎ 20
πŸ’¬︎
πŸ‘€︎ u/diacewrb
πŸ“…︎ Aug 20 2021
🚨︎ report
Wave-particle duality quantified for the first time physicsworld.com/a/wave-p…
πŸ‘︎ 18
πŸ’¬︎
πŸ‘€︎ u/Dr_Singularity
πŸ“…︎ Sep 07 2021
🚨︎ report
Wave–particle duality quantified for the first time – Physics World physicsworld.com/a/wave-p…
πŸ‘︎ 13
πŸ’¬︎
πŸ‘€︎ u/ZephirAWT
πŸ“…︎ Sep 19 2021
🚨︎ report
Mmm, wave-particle duality, yes.
πŸ‘︎ 82
πŸ’¬︎
πŸ“…︎ Aug 23 2021
🚨︎ report
How does wave-particle duality manifest in astronomical scale?
πŸ‘︎ 3
πŸ’¬︎
πŸ“…︎ Sep 10 2021
🚨︎ report
What if Wave-particle duality isn't true?

I was thinking about the double slit experiment, specially the variation with the measurement device observing the particle before it passes through the openings, wouldn't the the measuring device influence the particle's trajectory? The device must interact with the particle to receive information, right? The interaction could be simply an invisible field that the particle travels through or the device could be sending out some sort of beam of sorts to interact with the particle. Wouldn't this instant interaction still effect the particle and its trajectory? Lets say for instance that the measurement device is producing an invisible energy field between two points. The particle has to also interact with this field so the measuring device can detect it. This interaction in turn forces the particle into one trajectory a.k.a through one of the two slits, therefore the reason we don't get an interference pattern. This would prove that everything is a wave and as Einstein proved with light, come in "packets" that we label as particles.

πŸ‘︎ 6
πŸ’¬︎
πŸ“…︎ Jun 23 2021
🚨︎ report
Is particle-wave duality true if position and momentum wave functions are Fourier pairs?

Shouldn’t this mean everything is always a wave all the time? The wave function can collapse but it’ll never collapse completely to a particle due to the uncertainty principle. Does this mean what we call a particle is just a highly localized wave function?

Mathematically this must also mean the eigenspace must have at least 2 state vectors since there’s always a superposition. Is this true? Do particles actually not exist?

πŸ‘︎ 5
πŸ’¬︎
πŸ‘€︎ u/LemonLimeNinja
πŸ“…︎ Aug 25 2021
🚨︎ report
ELI5: How do atoms and its components become the tangible things we feel at the human scale if they're not tangible at the atomic level (and have weird properties like the particle wave duality)?

Is there any explanation as to how the interaction between atom components then atoms then molecules and then macrostructures like a tree are so different from one another even though they have the same components?

πŸ‘︎ 8
πŸ’¬︎
πŸ‘€︎ u/Katsono
πŸ“…︎ Jul 15 2021
🚨︎ report
Remember when Nelly Furtado discovered particle-wave duality?
πŸ‘︎ 81
πŸ’¬︎
πŸ‘€︎ u/HalpWithMyPaper
πŸ“…︎ Aug 26 2021
🚨︎ report
How do we know that wave-particle duality extends to large objects?
πŸ‘︎ 4
πŸ’¬︎
πŸ‘€︎ u/SAINGS-Nolls
πŸ“…︎ Aug 24 2021
🚨︎ report
Centrism is when wave-particle duality
πŸ‘︎ 34
πŸ’¬︎
πŸ‘€︎ u/BannedIPMaybe
πŸ“…︎ Jun 15 2021
🚨︎ report
Molecules can exhibit wave / particle duality? Some details please?

Hi, Im aware that experiments have verified the wave like nature of atoms and molecules with double slit experiments. Im willing to accept that the wave function collapses (or perhaps the actual waves in quantum fields if you like Objective Collapse theory) A detail I dont understand is, how do you 'fire' a molecule through the slit? Is the molecule 'real' at the point of firing it, then becomes a wave, then becomes 'real' again when measured? i.e, popping into and out of existence pretty on repeat? Or does the experiment simply set up the 'conditions' for the creation of the molecule which initially exists as a wave, and once observed, it 'stays real' from that point on?

Im also a bit iffy on the term 'observation'. Does that mean 'interaction with anything'.?

thanks

πŸ‘︎ 22
πŸ’¬︎
πŸ‘€︎ u/stefoid
πŸ“…︎ May 04 2021
🚨︎ report
Experimental Confirmation of the Fundamental Principle of Wave-Particle Duality scitechdaily.com/experime…
πŸ‘︎ 3
πŸ’¬︎
πŸ‘€︎ u/DamnInteresting
πŸ“…︎ Aug 30 2021
🚨︎ report
Does the wave particle duality collapse when looking at the computer screen?

Sorry if I sound dumb but does looking at a monitor doing any sort of computation with collapsing the particle wave duality?

πŸ‘︎ 3
πŸ’¬︎
πŸ“…︎ Jun 04 2021
🚨︎ report
On wave-particle duality: Could particles just an artificial construct we came up with to relate to our more intuitive macroscopic world?

Okay I know this is going to sound crazy but humor me here. I was talking with a friend of mine about the double slit experiment*.

His theory was that the idea of a particle was an artificial construct built to sync with how we perceive the world macroscopically. Maybe we were trying force a discrete interpretation into a continuous universe.

After some discussion this is how I interpreted the world he was describing. Instead of a discrete bit of mass maybe each particle was really probability distribution and itself simply a perturbation (wave) of the interstellar medium a continuous field.

In this interpretation when one particle is attracted to another particle it's because their probability waves overlap. Since the particle is the probability wave it means the particles are really already touching and 'smashing them together' doesn't mean anything except that the crest of their waves will interact.

In the macroscopic world the waves are localized at the atomic or sub-atomic level by balancing destructive particle/waves.

Mass would either be located at the crest of the probability wave or just itself be a reflection of amount of sub-atomic wave activity (the more sub-atomic wave activity = more energy to 'move' = more inertia & mass).

So that's about it. I know it sounds crazy but I was interested in what real scientists thought about this.

'* specifically the version where a single electron is shot through the slits repeatedly and over time the electron still acts like a wave interfering with itself until you put a particle detector on one slit and then they act like particles.

πŸ‘︎ 21
πŸ’¬︎
πŸ‘€︎ u/MrMathamagician
πŸ“…︎ Dec 01 2013
🚨︎ report
Wave-Particle Duality
πŸ‘︎ 10
πŸ’¬︎
πŸ‘€︎ u/InTheSweetBiAndBi
πŸ“…︎ Aug 05 2021
🚨︎ report
Are superposition and wave-particle duality related? If so, how?

Intuitively it seems like they should be somehow related because they are both fundamental to quantum mechanics (right?) and they both deal with objects that are simultaneously both one thing and another, but I have never read anything that directly connects the two or refutes a connection.

πŸ‘︎ 2
πŸ’¬︎
πŸ‘€︎ u/Gradath
πŸ“…︎ Apr 19 2016
🚨︎ report
In the research, the photon frequency conversion icon shows that when photon energy is raised, its particle characteristics is shown more obvious than its wave characteristics due to particle-wave duality of the light.
πŸ‘︎ 41
πŸ’¬︎
πŸ‘€︎ u/CrosSeaX
πŸ“…︎ Mar 08 2021
🚨︎ report
Wave Particle Duality - Quantum Mechanics Made Simple

Hi all, I've started a new YouTube series on the ontology and physical basis of Quantum Mechanics with Episode 1 on Wave-Particle Duality and the Single Slit experiment, would love your feedback!

https://youtu.be/r9C6STg8HI0

Episode 2 will be out in a couple of weeks and cover the Double Slit experiment with observation (my favourite experiment of all time!) Hope it's of interest.

πŸ‘︎ 25
πŸ’¬︎
πŸ‘€︎ u/willb1898
πŸ“…︎ Dec 07 2021
🚨︎ report
Quantum Mechanics Made Simple – Wave Particle Duality

Hi all, I've started a new YouTube series on the ontology and physical basis of Quantum Mechanics with Episode 1 on Wave-Particle Duality and the Single Slit experiment, would love your feedback!

https://youtu.be/r9C6STg8HI0

Episode 2 will be out in a couple of weeks and cover the Double Slit experiment with observation (my favourite experiment of all time!) Hope it's of interest.

πŸ‘︎ 14
πŸ’¬︎
πŸ‘€︎ u/willb1898
πŸ“…︎ Dec 13 2021
🚨︎ report
Quantum Mechanics Made Simple – Wave Particle Duality

Hi all, I've started a new YouTube series on the ontology and physical basis of Quantum Mechanics with Episode 1 on Wave-Particle Duality and the Single Slit experiment, would love your feedback!

https://youtu.be/r9C6STg8HI0

Episode 2 will be out in a couple of weeks and cover the Double Slit experiment with observation (my favourite experiment of all time!) Hope it's of interest.

πŸ‘︎ 5
πŸ’¬︎
πŸ‘€︎ u/willb1898
πŸ“…︎ Dec 13 2021
🚨︎ report
Quantum Mechanics Made Simple – Wave Particle Duality

Hi all, I've started a new YouTube series on conceptualising and making accessible Quantum Mechanics and Episode 1 is on Wave-Particle Duality and the Single Slit experiment, would love your feedback!

https://youtu.be/r9C6STg8HI0

Episode 2 will be out in a couple of weeks and cover the Double Slit experiment with observation (my favourite experiment of all time!) Hope it's of interest.

πŸ‘︎ 2
πŸ’¬︎
πŸ‘€︎ u/willb1898
πŸ“…︎ Dec 13 2021
🚨︎ report
David Deutsch and Wave/Particle Duality

David Deutsch, author of "The Fabric of Reality", is one of the leading proponents of the Many Worlds Interpretation. He holds that in the double slit experiment single photons interfere with photons from another world, rather than also being waves that can cause interference even if there is only one photon.

He seems not to believe in wave-particle duality.

https://www.bretthall.org/david-deutsch-mysticism-and-quantum-theory.html

David: Yeah. β€œParticle-wave duality.” Unfortunately, from my perspective, β€œparticle-wave duality” is part of the equivocation and nonsense that was talked by the early pioneers of quantum theory in an attempt to avoid the parallel universes implications. And in fact there is no particle-wave duality.

I am astonished to discover this, and seek confirmation from others that this is really the case.

How can he explain interference patterns if particles cannot act like waves?

Are there other quantum physicists who take the same position?

πŸ‘︎ 4
πŸ’¬︎
πŸ“…︎ Oct 13 2021
🚨︎ report
What if Wave-particle duality isn't true?

I was thinking about the double slit experiment, specially the variation with the measurement device observing the particle before it passes through the openings, wouldn't the the measuring device influence the particle's trajectory? The device must interact with the particle to receive information, right? The interaction could be simply an invisible field that the particle travels through or the device could be sending out some sort of beam of sorts to interact with the particle. Wouldn't this instant interaction still effect the particle and its trajectory? Lets say for instance that the measurement device is producing an invisible energy field between two points. The particle has to also interact with this field so the measuring device can detect it. This interaction in turn forces the particle into one trajectory a.k.a through one of the two slits, therefore the reason we don't get an interference pattern. This would prove that everything is a wave and as Einstein proved with light, come in "packets" that we label as particles.

πŸ‘︎ 7
πŸ’¬︎
πŸ“…︎ Jun 23 2021
🚨︎ report

Please note that this site uses cookies to personalise content and adverts, to provide social media features, and to analyse web traffic. Click here for more information.