Happy Halloween

General Forum Message

Forums: Atm · Astrophotography · Blackholes · Blackholes2 · CCD · Celestron · Domes · Education
Eyepieces · Meade · Misc. · God and Science · SETI · Software · UFO · XEphem
RSS Button

Home | Discussion Forums | Misc. Topics | Post
Login

Be the first pioneers to continue the Astronomy Discussions at our new Astronomy meeting place...
The Space and Astronomy Agora
Re: Thoughts On Wave/Particle Duality

Forum List | Follow Ups | Post Message | Back to Thread Topics | In Response To
Posted by daViper on July 16, 1999 23:34:46 UTC

: : In dealing with the wave particle duality theory, it helps to look at it through a different perspective. On a deeper level everything Is based on Vibrational frequecies. Energy Vibrates at a higher frequency where as Matter is a much slower, denser frequency. That also brings into effect the law of conservation of Mass/Energy & E=MC^2(Energy = Mass times the speed of light squared) : This means that by speeding up the vibration of Matter times the speed of light squared, it becomes energy. (Or more correctly, slowing down the vibration of energy) This is why we have wave particle duality because they are in essence the same thing. Its like a Frequency scale with matter on one side and energy on the other.

: A Practical example. It you heat up(Raise somethings vibrational frequency) say a piece of metal; it turns red to yellow to white, as it climbs up the light spectrum. eventually it will melt and become liquid, and if you keep heating it it will eventually become plasma, and if you keep heating it, it will eventually "phase out" and become energy which will immediately disperse.

: does anybody have any other thoughts? : ::::::: I'm a lay person at this Quantum Theory stuff, but Dr. Stephen Hawking (and others as well) say that any good theory should be able to be explained in terms people like me can understand. Relativity can, Cosmology can, but Quantum Mechanics seems sorely lacking in this area.

Your attempt here is a good one, but I still have a problem with the fundamental wave/particle duality issue itself. Some folks grasp it, some don't. It seems actually illogical to me and it seems to stem from what is really our technical inability to measure to the degree of precision required to resolve any possible difference between the two. The Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle and all that.

"Richard" here has posted some stuff I'm still looking into but, but when physics gets to the point that it has to admit there is "uncertainty" involved in the ability to measure the results of experimentation, how can anything beyond that be more than just speculation. I'd still have to say that a lot of the cutting edge theories are just a Language Removed shoot.

In the time since I was a child, we have come from defining waves or particles, to dealing with the issue by hypothesizing that they are the same thing. Hmmmm. I'm just plain to skeptical to accept this blindly based on our current limitations, and the lack of a good theory that actually fully explains why it is so. It seems that duality is more of a way to describe what we do not understand than it is a definition of something we can actually prove is so.

I would say that E=MC^2 actually indicates that they are in fact two separate entities. Otherwise, why would the "conservation" in the conversion of one to the other be necessary? If they are one entity, what "conversion" are we talking about? At what level?

Your explanation goes to this as I see it, but even tho I can see how matter vibrates, how energy itself does evades me.

Follow Ups:

    Login to Post
    Additional Information
    Google
     
    Web www.astronomy.net
    DayNightLine
    About Astronomy Net | Advertise on Astronomy Net | Contact & Comments | Privacy Policy
    Unless otherwise specified, web site content Copyright 1994-2021 John Huggins All Rights Reserved
    Forum posts are Copyright their authors as specified in the heading above the post.
    "dbHTML," "AstroGuide," "ASTRONOMY.NET" & "VA.NET"
    are trademarks of John Huggins