Scivillage.com Casual Discussion Science Forum

Full Version: The Wave/Particle Paradox
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
Pages: 1 2 3
It was only a temporary ban. Here was my answer at that shit hole. I much prefer Stryder’s freedom of speech style and for obvious reasons. Bwahaha!

Postulates of special relativity:

1. The laws of physics are the same in all inertial reference frames.
2. The speed of light in vacuum is the same in all inertial reference frames.

It’s relative to the stationary observer. If light was at rest it would violate the second postulate of SR.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Postul...ial_relativity

Here’s the thing, though. If we simply think of our perception of light traveling at c, it doesn’t violate the second postulate, does it? We’re the stationary observer, right?

Here’s a partial transcript from this video...
Niels Bohr said we are to stop asking questions of the sort. What is—what is light? What is an electron? We have to redefine the question itself. Instead we are to talk only of observed behavior. How are things observed to behave? So, for example, take the case of the electron in the T.V. tube. We can ask how the electron moves through space before it hits the screen. The answer is that it is observed to move through space like a wave. Or alternatively, we can ask how does it interact when it gets to the screen. How does it give up its energy? The answer is that we observe it to give up its energy as dots, tiny particles. Either we’re asking how it moves through space or how it interacts when it gets to its destination. We can’t be asking both questions at the same time. So, there’s never any call to have to use the concepts, wave and particle at the same time. Depending on what type of observation we’re talking about, it’s one or the other. It’s never both. Hence, the wave/particle paradox is solved according to Bohr but the solution comes at a price. The price is that we’re not allowed to ask questions of light or anything else outside of the context of us observing the light, or observing the electron, or whatever. Such questions are meaningless. Suppose for example, out there is empty space, there’s an electron on its own, not being observed, not interacting with anything. Under those circumstances, what is it? Is it a wave or is it a particle? No, you can’t ask that question. It’s meaningless. The very words, “wave,” “particle,” “electron,” even. They’re all words used specifically to describe observations. It’s a misuse of language to try to use those same words to describe what might exist in between the observations.

In effect, what Bohr was saying is that we used to believe that it was the job of the scientist to describe the world—the world as it is. Okay, and in order to do that you have to look at it through a microscope on a small scale or a telescope on the large scale, and experiment on it, but having done all of that—having observed it. What we eventually write down in a science text book is a description of the world whether or not you’re still looking at it, but Bohr—what Bohr says is, “No-no.” What you’ve written down here is a description of you looking at the world. What it’s like to interact with the world. It’s not about the world as it might be in itself. You’ve said nothing about that and never will.

Werner Heisenberg backed up Bohr and declared that it is possible to ask whether there is still concealed behind the statistical universe of perception a “true” universe in which the law of causality would be valid. But such speculation seems to us to be without value and meaningless, for physics must confine itself to the description of the relationship between perceptions. The relationship between observations. We can’t say anything about the world in itself—a world that is not being observed. What a shocking idea. But not surprisingly, not everyone goes along with it. Einstein in his discussions with Bohr for instances, Einstein maintained to his dying day that the goal of science remains what we always assumed it was—the descriptions of an objective world out there independent of whether we happen to be observing it. But it has to be said that eighty years—eighty years of fruitless argument and we’re still no closer to realizing Einstein’s dream today than he was then. And with each succeeding year it could be argued that it looks more and more as though Bohr was right. We really are up against the barrier of the knowable.



So, here’s my big ->What if? What if it’s simpler than that?
What if special relativity could account for the wave/particle duality?
Isn’t the collapse of a wave function instantaneous?
Isn’t the photoelectric effect nearly instantaneous?
What if that’s Einstein’s hidden variables?
What if what we’re observing is time dilation and the Lorentz contraction of light itself?

Is that way too naive, C2?  Blush
SS Wrote:Is that way too naive, C2?
Yes it is way too naive. <- I'm channeling rp here. The speed of light is an effect of spacetime not a cause - the geometry of spacetime would be the same even if we had no eyes and/or no light.
Muons - must do muons but need to sleep. I'll be back!
(Oct 12, 2018 02:14 AM)confused2 Wrote: [ -> ]
SS Wrote:Is that way too naive, C2?
Yes it is way too naive. <- I'm channeling rp here. The speed of light is an effect of spacetime not a cause - the geometry of spacetime would be the same even if we had no eyes and/or no light.

Muons - must do muons but need to sleep. I'll be back!

I know that but I'm not saying that an observer changes anything. I’m not saying that anything changes except for our descriptions. Take the muon for example, we know that these effects apply to it because it would never even make the journey. It would decay. The photon, however, is actually traveling at c. The same effect must apply to it, as well, because it never ages at all, right?
Quote:It was only a temporary ban. Here was my answer at that shit hole. I much prefer Stryder’s freedom of speech style and for obvious reasons. 
I'm still chuckling. You're out of jail. Glory!
You may have got me laughing inside but the question posted there (physics) this a.m. had  me roaring out loud. Has anyone ever been suspended just for the question? Anyways, life goes on. Sorry to interrupt.

(Oct 12, 2018 01:20 PM)Zinjanthropos Wrote: [ -> ]I'm still chuckling. You're out of jail. Glory!
You may have got me laughing inside but the question posted there (physics) this a.m. had  me roaring out loud. Has anyone ever been suspended just for the question? Anyways, life goes on. Sorry to interrupt.

http://reddittt.com/r/Thighsexual/

Yeah, I don't get it. Some troll meme, I suppose. An inside joke, perhaps? Hmm...maybe that's it. It's an inside joke. Get it? Big Grin
(Oct 12, 2018 02:34 PM)Secular Sanity Wrote: [ -> ]
(Oct 12, 2018 01:20 PM)Zinjanthropos Wrote: [ -> ]I'm still chuckling. You're out of jail. Glory!
You may have got me laughing inside but the question posted there (physics) this a.m. had  me roaring out loud. Has anyone ever been suspended just for the question? Anyways, life goes on. Sorry to interrupt.

http://reddittt.com/r/Thighsexual/

Yeah, I don't get it. Some troll meme, I suppose. An inside joke, perhaps? Hmm...maybe that's it. It's an inside joke. Get it? Big Grin

The Internet is an interesting thing for sure.

Should be a category for questions one is afraid to pose because it reveal a serious lack of knowledge. 

That's what instantaneous does for me. Anyways I have wondered about it for a long time but difficult for me to put into words.

 I always picture a scenario where everything moves at c. In this situation I can't figure out if there's a place to go. I mean a photon can go from A to B instantly but if B is another photon then how in hell does it catch up? Then I thought that no object at c will ever overtake or contact another moving at c. But then I read photons do collide. So if a photon deflects off another then it had to do it instantly and if that same photon then hits your eye, can there be two (or more) instantly's for a single photon? When I reread what I just typed then I understand why I never asked on an open forum before Big Grin

Edit: IOW's.... until the photon hits your eye there's no accounting for how many instants it can have. I mean it's instantly moving from one place to another without time being a factor? In fact to me it seems it can simply be in many places at once instantly, as long as it moves. I guess that would be from a photon's frame of reference? So when I catch the photon I'm only going to see it from it's last rendezvous with whatever someplace. The photon, as long as it isn't absorbed, can be in a lot of places at once it seems? Instant just seems so wrong to me but what do I know?

A photon inside the Sun may take thousands of years to reach the surface. I would think c can be slowed but regardless, it's still a photon traveling at c no matter if slowed. Just how many instantaneous trips would a photon take on its way to Sun surface, considering it's a little turbulent and perhaps it smacks into something on the way out once in a while.
Saying photons don't experience time, i.e. move instantly, ignores the fact that photons have no proper frame of reference. We might think that a photon moving instantly only violates SR by exceeding c and moving at an infinite speed, but it's even worse than that. Since speed is d/t, making either distance or time zero is meaningless. 0/t = 0 speed and d/0 = undefined (not infinity).
Special Relativity (SR) is a theory about the geometry of space and time. SR says nothing about quantum mechanics - Einstein wanted it to but had to admit defeat - or at least it is generally accepted he was defeated (wrong). The c (usually called 'the speed of light') is a constant in the geometry of spacetime. By chance a large number of photons (under the right conditions) will often seem (statistically) to move from source to destination at 'the speed of light'. Precisely how a photon gets from source to destination is a can of worms (Quantum Mechanics) - described by Feynman as "Shut up and calculate.". In the very simplest analysis photons exhibit a frequency (red light,blue light, radio waves, ultraviolet, gamma and so on) also a wavelength - so they are certainly not frozen while travelling 'at the speed of light'. When to use special relativity and when to use quantum mechanics is a matter of choosing the right horse for the course.
(Oct 12, 2018 02:14 AM)confused2 Wrote: [ -> ]The speed of light is an effect of spacetime not a cause - the geometry of spacetime would be the same even if we had no eyes and/or no light.
That is not an either/or situation. The speed of light is not an effect of spacetime, nor is it the cause. c is just the causality that orders events, which has consequences for space, time, and light equally. Space and time contract and dilate to accommodate causality, not vice versa.
(Oct 12, 2018 10:13 PM)confused2 Wrote: [ -> ]The c (usually called 'the speed of light') is a constant in the geometry of spacetime. By chance a large number of photons (under the right conditions) will often seem (statistically) to move from source to destination at 'the speed of light'.
No, since spacetime, itself, can expand faster than the speed of light, c cannot be dependent on spacetime geometry. Nor is the speed of photons just some statistical reality. Causality is fundamental, and your change in velocity actually alters the space and time in your frame relative to another...all while light moves at its invariant speed.
Syne Wrote:c is just the causality that orders events, which has consequences for space, time, and light equally. Space and time contract and dilate to accommodate causality, not vice versa.

The muon thread https://www.scivillage.com/thread-6274-p...l#pid24042 was created to address (some of) these points. There are examples in quantum mechanics (entanglement and just about everything else) that work with no regard to 'causality' and the speed of light. It is my 'view' that (as far as SR is concerned) causality will follow from the geometry. I agree that when designing a universe you might (possibly) start with causality and end up with the geometry - this is a rather deeper argument than I am equipped to deal with. I just play 'em as I see 'em.

Syne Wrote:No, since spacetime, itself, can expand faster than the speed of light,
This is beyond the scope of a thread that asks about SR and flat space. Since GR is derived from SR I would guess the geometry still works at a local level but will fail outside its domain of applicability.
Pages: 1 2 3