Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Club for Open-Minded Discussion & Debate

[Xris]

"There is nothing wrong with the split screen experiment, only its interpretation" Your words. So what interpretation convinces you that particles exist ?

The classical double slit experiment itself shows that electrons exist as particles as cathode ray tube behavior already strongly suggested. When electrons are projected toward the slits—and single electrons can be projected now—they pass through and register on the screen on the other side as points. Only when a large number have accumulated does an interference pattern start to emerge. Unless you make the source produce electrons of the same energy, the pattern will not be sharp, but it can be improved by using a more coherent source.

It's not the particle manifestation of electrons that needs interpretation, it's the wave manifestation—the interference pattern that emerges in the double slit experiment. de Broglie proposed that all matter has a wave nature, although it is not ordinarily observed. He derived an equation

pλ = h

where p is the momentum, λ the wavelength, and h is Planck's constant. It follows that anything with large momentum would have a very small wavelength. For objects on the ordinary scale wave phenomena would not be noticeable, but for very small particles the wave nature becomes significant as the double slit experiment shows. In fact the interference pattern of the double slit experiment has been demonstrated for large particles and even for large molecules. (It may be that even the photon has mass. It would be very small.) David Bohm extended de Broglie's idea and others have followed. I cannot judge whether it is right or not, but I understand there has been experimental evidence in favor of de Broglie's hypothesis.

So you have no interpretation that will satisfy the concept of a particle throughout the experiment?

[Prismatic]

So you have no interpretation that will satisfy the concept of a particle throughout the experiment?

What makes you think that? Read what I wrote.

[Wooden shoe]

Hi all.

I visualise the particle/wave phenomenon somewhat as a flight of flocking birds that I see at times, which when flying in large numbers at times perform as if they have practiced a ballet like performance and appear to flow as waves. But sometimes one will fall out and is no longer part of the wave. There appears to be an attraction between electrons in the sense that there is an attraction with the birds mentioned. I know this might seem foolish but it works for me.

Regards, John.

[Xris]

Hi all.

I visualise the particle/wave phenomenon somewhat as a flight of flocking birds that I see at times, which when flying in large numbers at times perform as if they have practiced a ballet like performance and appear to flow as waves. But sometimes one will fall out and is no longer part of the wave. There appears to be an attraction between electrons in the sense that there is an attraction with the birds mentioned. I know this might seem foolish but it works for me.

Regards, John.

The same pattern occurs Clogs even if one so called electron, at time, is fired or a stream. Prismatic has not grasped the significance of this experiment and I can not understand why.It is not I that has concluded the duel nature of the concept. Particles science has even tried to say it is neither a particle or wave but even then they maintain the concept. This idea that a particle can change its physicality by observation has to be confronted. Can they not understand the observation is not objective it has a subjective effect and only Gaedes ropes comes near to explaining this. These are logical arguments not mathematical interpretations that attempt to support a concept for fear of ridicule. While science and its educators teach the accepted concept it will never be seriously questioned.

-- Updated Tue Jun 19, 2012 11:42 am to add the following --

So you have no interpretation that will satisfy the concept of a particle throughout the experiment?

What makes you think that? Read what I wrote.

I see nothing in these experiments that change the duality or answers the observational effect of particles and gives a definitive answer to the quandary.

[Prismatic]

I see nothing in these experiments that change the duality or answers the observational effect of particles and gives a definitive answer to the quandary.

Make the quandary and your objections explicit: how does the description of the classical double slit experiment rule out electrons as particles? The interference pattern appears only when a sufficient number of images of electrons has been recorded. Your ideas are always vague and general and seem to be referring to other results, but science doesn't work that way.

[Xris]

I see nothing in these experiments that change the duality or answers the observational effect of particles and gives a definitive answer to the quandary.

Make the quandary and your objections explicit: how does the description of the classical double slit experiment rule out electrons as particles? The interference pattern appears only when a sufficient number of images of electrons has been recorded. Your ideas are always vague and general and seem to be referring to other results, but science doesn't work that way.

What? Well your not going to see an interference pattern with one are you? No one can give the slightest indication why a particle should express itself as a wave while this concept persists. Are you really telling me these pesky creatures are not observed as waves?

[Prismatic]

Make the quandary and your objections explicit: how does the description of the classical double slit experiment rule out electrons as particles? The interference pattern appears only when a sufficient number of images of electrons has been recorded. Your ideas are always vague and general and seem to be referring to other results, but science doesn't work that way.

What? Well your not going to see an interference pattern with one are you? No one can give the slightest indication why a particle should express itself as a wave while this concept persists. Are you really telling me these pesky creatures are not observed as waves?

Try to answer the question: how does the description of the classical double slit experiment rule out electrons as particles?

[Xris]

What? Well your not going to see an interference pattern with one are you? No one can give the slightest indication why a particle should express itself as a wave while this concept persists. Are you really telling me these pesky creatures are not observed as waves?

Try to answer the question: how does the description of the classical double slit experiment rule out electrons as particles?

I thought that was blatantly obvious. How can a particle be seen as a wave? Its no good calling it a wave but demanding it be a particle. The very point of the experiments are the obvious discrepancies with the concept of particles.

"What we call mass would seem to be nothing but an appearance and all inertia to be of electromagnetic origin." Henry Poincare

[Prismatic]

Try to answer the question: how does the description of the classical double slit experiment rule out electrons as particles?

I thought that was blatantly obvious. How can a particle be seen as a wave? Its no good calling it a wave but demanding it be a particle. The very point of the experiments are the obvious discrepancies with the concept of particles.

No, a particle is not seen as a wave. The distribution of particle images registered on the screen reveals an interference pattern characteristic of waves. Again try to answer the question: how does the description of the classical double slit experiment rule out electrons as particles?

[Xris]

I thought that was blatantly obvious. How can a particle be seen as a wave? Its no good calling it a wave but demanding it be a particle. The very point of the experiments are the obvious discrepancies with the concept of particles.

No, a particle is not seen as a wave. The distribution of particle images registered on the screen reveals an interference pattern characteristic of waves. Again try to answer the question: how does the description of the classical double slit experiment rule out electrons as particles?

This is going no where. When you can explain how particle can be observed as wave then we might just proceed but up till now you have done no such thing. This term "characteristics" has no value, not unless you are refering to Gaedes ropes.

[Prismatic]

This is going no where. When you can explain how particle can be observed as wave then we might just proceed but up till now you have done no such thing. This term "characteristics" has no value, not unless you are refering to Gaedes ropes.

That's because you do not understand the experiment. A particle is not observed to be a wave. You're trying to bluff your way through.

In the classical double slit experiment with electrons an electron gun first electrons at a screen with two slits, either of which may be open or closed. Electrons passing through either slit register an image on a second screen behind the first containing a photographic plate or other recording device. When only one slit is open electrons pass through that slit and accumulate to form a band on the other side of it. When both slits are open, the distribution of electron images on the other side reveals an interference pattern with bands. Interference patterns are created when waves interfere with each other.

How does this phenomenon rule out electrons as particles?

Here is a picture of what happens:d1heidorn.homepage.t-online.de/Physik/D ... palt1x.png

[Xris]

This is going no where. When you can explain how particle can be observed as wave then we might just proceed but up till now you have done no such thing. This term "characteristics" has no value, not unless you are refering to Gaedes ropes.

That's because you do not understand the experiment. A particle is not observed to be a wave. You're trying to bluff your way through.

In the classical double slit experiment with electrons an electron gun first electrons at a screen with two slits, either of which may be open or closed. Electrons passing through either slit register an image on a second screen behind the first containing a photographic plate or other recording device. When only one slit is open electrons pass through that slit and accumulate to form a band on the other side of it. When both slits are open, the distribution of electron images on the other side reveals an interference pattern with bands. Interference patterns are created when waves interfere with each other.

How does this phenomenon rule out electrons as particles?

Here is a picture of what happens:d1heidorn.homepage.t-online.de/Physik/D ... palt1x.png

Well I think you had better announce your discovery to the world."When waves interfere with each other" they are not particles. If they were particles they would not cause an interference pattern as shown. I am amazed we are even having to debate this simple accepted fact.

[Prismatic]

Well I think you had better announce your discovery to the world."When waves interfere with each other" they are not particles. If they were particles they would not cause an interference pattern as shown. I am amazed we are even having to debate this simple accepted fact.

Perhaps the news has not yet reached Cornwall. An experiment with fullerenes has demonstrated matter waves intereference. Have a look:

Quantum superposition lies at the heart of quantum mechanics and gives rise to many of its paradoxes. Superposition of deBroglie matter waves1 has been observed for massive particles such as electrons2, atoms and dimers3, small van der Waals clusters4, and neutrons5. But matter wave interferometry with larger objects has remained experimentally challenging, despite the development of powerful atom interferometric techniques for experiments in fundamental quantum mechanics, metrology and lithography6. Here we report the observation of de Broglie wave interference of C60 molecules by diffraction at a material absorption grating. This molecule is the most massive and complex object in which wave behaviour has been observed. Of particular interest is the fact that C60 is almost a classical body, because of its many excited internal degrees of freedom and their possible couplings to the environment. Such couplings are essential for the appearance of decoherence7,8, suggesting that interference experiments with large molecules should facilitate detailed studies of this process. When considering de Broglie

google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&am ... ozby68BE6A

[Xris]

Your starting to waffle Prismatic. This article has been around for more than ten years and it is completely erroneous to suggest it answers the question. I admired your knowledge of the subject but your reticence to accept that the double split experiments prove conclusively the so called particles travel as waves makes me wonder what your motives are. The question of particles travelling as waves has never been resolved so this strange attempt is beyond me.

[Half-Six]

An experiment with fullerenes has demonstrated matter waves intereference.

Sorry to throw the cat amongst pigeons again, but looking at the C60 experiment it looks to me (and do correct me if I’m wrong) that we only have evidence (“a smoking gun” or better “a bloodied knife”) that the fullerene connects with the laser. We don’t see this (“the knife entering the victim’s body”) – we don’t see the fullerenes being thermally ionised, we see an electron count at the Channeltron electron multiplier. I’m not saying this supports many of the conclusions that Xris is jumping to, nor that QM isn’t a complete description of reality, I think it is. But it provides ammunition to those who want to rubbish science if we don’t acknowledge this. I also think that, whatever we might mean by microscopic particles, as opposed to macroscopic particles – it is important that human beings aren’t consciously aware of them, we are only consciously aware of the evidence. I think this is a philosophical problem, not a scientific problem, because science presupposes conscious awareness.