Physicists Finally See Light as a Particle and a Wave at the Same Time

[LionKing]

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/next/physics/physicists-finally-see-light-as-a-particle-and-a-wave-at-the-same-time/

what do you think?

[Luke Pemberton]

I think the title of the article is misleading, as we cannot see light as a wave and a particle at the same time. In fact the idea of 'see' has no real concept in quantum mechanics. We can observe, but not really see. The act of observing plays a central theme in quantum mechanics, it causes the wave function to collapse. We can measure the effect of making an observation.

However, the experiment demonstrates the steps made forward in physics and from the perspective of what has been reported, it is very interesting.

[LionKing]

I think the title of the article is misleading, as we cannot see light as a wave and a particle at the same time. In fact the idea of 'see' has no real concept in quantum mechanics. We can observe, but not really see. The act of observing plays a central theme in quantum mechanics, it causes the wave function to collapse. We can measure the effect of making an observation.

However, the experiment demonstrates the steps made forward in physics and from the perspective of what has been reported, it is very interesting.

thnx
can you expand on why observing causes the wave function to collapse?  I have read things about consciousness and stuff related to this topic

also can you comment on the double-slit experiment and quantum physics explanations? thnx

[Luke Pemberton]

thnx
can you expand on why observing causes the wave function to collapse?  I have read things about consciousness and stuff related to this topic

Many of the great quantum physicists exclaimed that those who claim they understand quantum mechanics don't really understand it at all. In quantum mechanics, a particle is described by the wavefunction. It has no physical meaning in the purist sense of quantum mechanics. As an undergraduate one is led to believe that it describes the particle as a wave in the same way the wave equation describes a wave on a string. This does not truly describe the wavefunction in quantum mechanics. Wave functions are continuous mathematical functions, and if you were to play them you would get what appears to be a particle trajectory or wave. This is the wrong interpretation, and the wave function needs to be used on conjuction with its conjugate to determine a probability density. A particle can exist in many states, but some states are more likely than others. It is only when we observe a particle do we actually see a particle in a particular state. The wave function just helps us with the expectation of that state, namely which one is most likely.

also can you comment on the double-slit experiment and quantum physics explanations? thnx

This is a bit cheesy, but it explains the idea of observation on the wave function.

[LionKing]

thnx
can you expand on why observing causes the wave function to collapse?  I have read things about consciousness and stuff related to this topic

Many of the great quantum physicists exclaimed that those who claim they understand quantum mechanics don't really understand it at all. In quantum mechanics, a particle is described by the wavefunction. It has no physical meaning in the purist sense of quantum mechanics. As an undergraduate one is led to believe that it describes the particle as a wave in the same way the wave equation describes a wave on a string. This does not truly describe the wavefunction in quantum mechanics. Wave functions are continuous mathematical functions, and if you were to play them you would get what appears to be a particle trajectory or wave. This is the wrong interpretation, and the wave function needs to be used on conjuction with its conjugate to determine a probability density. A particle can exist in many states, but some states are more likely than others. It is only when we observe a particle do we actually see a particle in a particular state. The wave function just helps us with the expectation of that state, namely which one is most likely.

also can you comment on the double-slit experiment and quantum physics explanations? thnx

This is a bit cheesy, but it explains the idea of observation on the wave function.

Thanks dear Luke,
I read more and I watch more videos such as this

and it is coming down to consciousness..matter being somehow conscious (now I wonder if at any level thsi goes with the theory of evolution?)

what do you think of the video because the role of the detector is explained and is weird enough. I am not sure if you agree with what the physicist here. he seems to be saying that the probability is determined by the detector, not the particle itself.

[LionKing]

also on Entanglement!!!

hmmm

[Zakalwe]

and it is coming down to consciousness..matter being somehow conscious (now I wonder if at any level thsi goes with the theory of evolution?)

That's a heck of a conclusion to jump to! Quantum Mechanics is weird enough without anthropomorphising it.

[LionKing]

thnx
can you expand on why observing causes the wave function to collapse?  I have read things about consciousness and stuff related to this topic

Many of the great quantum physicists exclaimed that those who claim they understand quantum mechanics don't really understand it at all. In quantum mechanics, a particle is described by the wavefunction. It has no physical meaning in the purist sense of quantum mechanics. As an undergraduate one is led to believe that it describes the particle as a wave in the same way the wave equation describes a wave on a string. This does not truly describe the wavefunction in quantum mechanics. Wave functions are continuous mathematical functions, and if you were to play them you would get what appears to be a particle trajectory or wave. This is the wrong interpretation, and the wave function needs to be used on conjuction with its conjugate to determine a probability density. A particle can exist in many states, but some states are more likely than others. It is only when we observe a particle do we actually see a particle in a particular state. The wave function just helps us with the expectation of that state, namely which one is most likely.

also can you comment on the double-slit experiment and quantum physics explanations? thnx

This is a bit cheesy, but it explains the idea of observation on the wave function.

this is a new explanation rather than the 'collapse' theory

I am confused

[grmcdorman]

I think LionKing may be making the common mistake of misunderstanding the physics definition of observing. In physics, particularly QM, observing simply means that something detected (or interacted with) the system. It could be as simple as a piece of film. No intelligent, or conscious, entity is involved.

[Andromeda]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Observer_effect_(physics)

[LionKing]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Observer_effect_(physics)

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/1998/02/980227055013.htm

Apart from "observing," or detecting, the electrons, the detector had no effect on the current

[Andromeda]

The article you have linked to describes the Observer Effect, LionKing.

I'm not sure what the purpose of the quote is?

[grmcdorman]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Observer_effect_(physics)

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/1998/02/980227055013.htm

Apart from "observing," or detecting, the electrons, the detector had no effect on the current

Like Andromeda, I'm not sure what you're getting at here, especially with the quoted passage. The article confirms what I, and Andromeda, are saying: in physics, an "observer" is not an intelligence or consciousness. Perhaps you could elucidate?

[LionKing]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Observer_effect_(physics)

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/1998/02/980227055013.htm

Apart from "observing," or detecting, the electrons, the detector had no effect on the current

Like Andromeda, I'm not sure what you're getting at here, especially with the quoted passage. The article confirms what I, and Andromeda, are saying: in physics, an "observer" is not an intelligence or consciousness. Perhaps you could elucidate?

well, the QM says that it is an extension of our consciousness. We put it to observe, so it is not separate from our consciousness

[Andromeda]

QM doesn't say anything about consciousness - the Observer can be a machine.