Can the particles be split into two?

[Asexperia]

Particles (electrons and quarks) are energy points without spatial dimension. Because of this they can split into two in space when they are forced in an experiment. The splitting property of the particles allows them to behave like waves. Light is a particle that behaves like a wave. The splitting property explains the quantum entanglement and the experiment of the double slit with the electron.

 

[Asexperia]

I correct the title: Can particles can be split into two?

The double slit experiment.

 

[James R]

Rather than saying that particles split into two in the double-slit experiment, I think it's better to say that quantum particles don't really act like point objects under certain circumstances. Quantum objects have both particle-like and wave-like properties, each of which can be more or less prominent in a given experiment.

To say it another way, in a sense there are no "point particles". Everything has wave-particle duality.

 

[Asexperia]

Rather than saying that particles split into two in the double-slit experiment, I think it's better to say that quantum particles don't really act like point objects under certain circumstances. Quantum objects have both particle-like and wave-like properties, each of which can be more or less prominent in a given experiment.

To say it another way, in a sense there are no "point particles". Everything has wave-particle duality.

Then an electron is a particle that travels as a wave?
That's why it goes through the two slits.

 

[James R]

Then an electron is a particle that travels as a wave?

No. An electron is a quantum thing that sometimes acts similar to a particle and sometimes similar to a wave.

That's why it goes through the two slits.

Describing it as a wave that goes through both slits explains the observations, certainly.

 

[Write4U]

A question occurred to me.

If we could created a recording device with a shutterspeed of 1/186,000 sec. would we be able to record a photon in flight as a particle?

At SOL, a particle would register as a stationary object, no?

 

[river]

A question occurred to me.

If we could created a recording device with a shutterspeed of 1/186,000 sec. would we be able to record a photon in flight as a particle?

At SOL, a particle would register as a stationary object, no?

Depends on the density of the photon . The amount of light energy it has .

 

[Write4U]

Depends on the density of the photon . The amount of light energy it has .

The registering of the particle in the camera would be no different than the photgraphic plates in the double slit experiment, which physically collapses any wavefunction. Discounting quantum tunneling, a photon hitting a wall
comes to a dead stop.

The difference with recording a photon in mid-flight might be that the wave function does not collapse. It would only be an observation and registering of an object in flight?

 

[river]

river said: ↑
Depends on the density of the photon . The amount of light energy it has .

The registering of the particle in the camera would be no different than the photgraphic plates in the double slit experiment, which physically collapses any wavefunction. Discounting quantum tunneling, a photon hitting a wall
comes to a dead stop.

The difference with recording a photon in mid-flight might be that the wave function does not collapse. It would only be an observation and registering of an object in flight?

To your last statement ; could be . And to me I think true .

You would need many photos , from many different angles

 

[Write4U]

About the double slit experiment and the question of splitting a particle or the particle/wave paradox itself;

David Bohm proposed that the particle is a particle at all times and that the observed wave function is the much larger Pilot Wave which has nothing to do with the particle itself but which enters both slits and causes the interference pattern which guides the particle to a probable position, i.e the interference bands on the plate.

The result is nearly the same as the standard interpretation, but has the advantage of avoiding the particle/wave paradox. Quantum weirdness may hide an orderly reality after all.

Underlying order ,

in 1952, Bohm suggested that the quantum world only appears weird because we don’t know enough about its underlying reality. Beneath the quantum weirdness, he said, reality is orderly.

“It’s a very deterministic description, where all the particles in nature have definite positions and follow definite trajectories,” says Aephraim Steinberg of the University of Toronto in Canada.

Take the debate over whether an electron is a wave or a particle. Bohm’s theory says that it’s both: an electron is a particle with a definite trajectory, but this path is governed by a wave upon which the electron rides. The wave can also be influenced by other particles, which in turn changes the trajectory of the electron.

https://www.newscientist.com/articl...rdness-may-hide-an-orderly-reality-after-all/

p.s Bohm had the quantum chops to make such a proposal and defend it.
.....Bohmian Mechanics is no longer hidden in the shadows where was for a long time......

Bohm is back,
Now Steinberg and colleagues have performed the ESSW experiment themselves – and concluded that Bohm is back in the game.

The de Broglie–Bohm theory, also known as the pilot wave theory, Bohmian mechanics, Bohm's interpretation, and the causal interpretation, is an interpretation of quantum mechanics.

In addition to a wavefunction on the space of all possible configurations, it also postulates an actual configuration that exists even when unobserved.

The evolution over time of the configuration (that is, the positions of all particles or the configuration of all fields) is defined by the wave function by a guiding equation. The evolution of the wave function over time is given by the Schrödinger equation. The theory is named after Louis de Broglie (1892–1987) and David Bohm(1917–1992).

The theory is deterministic[1] and explicitly nonlocal: the velocity of any one particle depends on the value of the guiding equation, which depends on the configuration of the system given by its wavefunction; the latter depends on the boundary conditions of the system, which, in principle, may be the entire universe.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_Broglie–Bohm_theory

 

[exchemist]

A question occurred to me.

If we could created a recording device with a shutterspeed of 1/186,000 sec. would we be able to record a photon in flight as a particle?

At SOL, a particle would register as a stationary object, no?

Just think for a moment: how can you observe a photon without absorbing it?

 

[exchemist]

About the double slit experiment and the question of splitting a particle or the particle/wave paradox itself;

David Bohm proposed that the particle is a particle at all times and that the observed wave function is the much larger Pilot Wave which has nothing to do with the particle itself but which enters both slits and causes the interference pattern which guides the particle to a probable position, i.e the interference bands on the plate.

The result is nearly the same as the standard interpretation, but has the advantage of avoiding the particle/wave paradox. Quantum weirdness may hide an orderly reality after all.

https://www.newscientist.com/articl...rdness-may-hide-an-orderly-reality-after-all/

p.s Bohm had the quantum chops to make such a proposal and defend it.
.....Bohmian Mechanics is no longer hidden in the shadows where was for a long time......

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_Broglie–Bohm_theory

'Ere we go, 'ere we go, 'ere we go,
Cos it's the only f***ing song that we know......

 

[Write4U]

Just think for a moment: how can you observe a photon without absorbing it?

That occurred to me also.

But then, if we observe anything are we not absorbing photons from that object. If so what happens to that object?

 

[Write4U]

'Ere we go, 'ere we go, 'ere we go,
Cos it's the only f***ing song that we know......

And apparently you only know one song also and that song is known to present paradoxical lyrics. The standard “Copenhagen interpretation”.

The Heart of Quantum Mechanics
The physicist Richard Feynman called the double-slit experiment “impossible, absolutely impossible, to explain in any classical way,” and said it “has in it the heart of quantum mechanics. In reality, it contains the only mystery.”

Bohmian mechanics is not woo. The Pilot wave model is gaining renewed recognition. Those are not my words, but words from a reliable science magazine.

Moreover it works in the double slit experiment, without presenting the paradox. That's worth something. Yet, you instantly dismiss it because you are not familiar with it?

I am merely the messenger. Don't blame me for the content of the message.

The message merely says that a wave function is present with or without the presence of photons and that photons ride that wave function by a guiding equation. That proposition does not in any way sound like a f*** song, but very much like a harmonious melody with everything else we know about spacetime.

I admit my personal lack of in-depth knowledge of quantum mechanincs. But that does not mean I need to blindly accept any argument from authority, just because it has been around for awhile. So has Bohmian mechanics and it has reputable and serious adherents..

To de Broglie, the double-slit experiment didn’t require an abstract, mysteriously collapsing wave function. Instead, he conceived of a real particle riding on a real pilot wave.

The particle passes like driftwood through one slit or the other in the double-slit screen, even as the pilot wave passes through both. On the other side, the particle goes where the two wavefronts of the pilot wave constructively interfere and doesn’t go where they cancel out. De Broglie never actually derived dynamical equations to describe this complicated wave-particle-slit interplay. But with bouncing droplets in hand, Couder and a collaborator, Emmanuel Fort, moved quickly to perform the double-slit experiment, reporting their astonishing results in Physical Review Letters in 2006.

Early on, de Broglie did offer a kind of compromise, a version of his theory that was promulgated again in 1952 by the physicist David Bohm, and which is now known as Bohmian mechanics or de Broglie-Bohm theory.

In this picture, there’s an abstract wave function that extends through space — an entity that’s just as mysterious in this theoretical framework as it is in the Copenhagen interpretation — as well as real particles somewhere in it.

Proofs in the 1970s showed that de Broglie-Bohm theory makes exactly the same predictions as standard quantum mechanics.

However, with one element of classical reality restored — concrete particles — new mysteries arise, like how or why a mathematical wave function that’s spread everywhere in space is bolted in certain places to physical particles.

“Quantum mechanics is not less weird from that perspective,” Tomas Bohr said. Most physicists agree, but it’s really just a matter of taste, since the experimental predictions are identical.

https://www.quantamagazine.org/famo...ve-alternative-to-quantum-weirdness-20181011/

Question;
Is an ocean wave "bolted" in certain places to a (rudderless) boat riding the waves? Or is the boat being "guided" by the ocean waves?

 

[exchemist]

That occurred to me also.

But then, if we observe anything are we not absorbing photons from that object. If so what happens to that object?

Nothing, as it was emitting them anyway. Obviously.

 

[exchemist]

And apparently you only know one song also and that song is known to present paradoxical lyrics. The standard “Copenhagen interpretation”.

Bohmian mechanics is not woo. The Pilot wave model is gaining renewed recognition. Those are not my words, but words from a reliable science magazine.

Moreover it works in the double slit experiment, without presenting the paradox. That's worth something. Yet, you instantly dismiss it because you are not familiar with it?

I am merely the messenger. Don't blame me for the content of the message.

The message merely says that a wave function is present with or without the presence of photons and that photons ride that wave function by a guiding equation. That proposition does not in any way sound like a f*** song, but very much like a harmonious melody with everything else we know about spacetime.

I admit my personal lack of in-depth knowledge of quantum mechanincs. But that does not mean I need to blindly accept any argument from authority, just because it has been around for awhile. So has Bohmian mechanics and it has reputable and serious adherents..

https://www.quantamagazine.org/famo...ve-alternative-to-quantum-weirdness-20181011/

Question;
Is an ocean wave "bolted" in certain places to a (rudderless) boat riding the waves? Or is the boat being "guided" by the ocean waves?

You're such a obsessive bore on this subject. You wrench almost any topic round to it sooner or later.

OK enough, back on Ignore.

 

[Write4U]

Nothing, as it was emitting them anyway. Obviously.

I don't think this is obvious at all.

Then why should a"quanta" of energy not be able to emit some of that without destroying the wave function of the quanta itself?

 

[Write4U]

You're such a obsessive bore on this subject. You wrench almost any topic round to it sooner or later.

OK enough, back on Ignore.

Pushing a key is easy enough but does not refute anything I posted.

Now please do explain how a vibrating oil bath as the wave medium for "walking oil drops", is in any way comparable to a probability wave of a photon in transit.

OTOH, when we use Bohm's theoretical "Universal pilot wave" as the medium in which a photon travels, then we get this statement (as a fricking afterthought?).

“Quantum mechanics is not less weird from that perspective,” Tomas Bohr said. Most physicists agree, but it’s really just a matter of taste, since the experimental predictions are identical."

WOW Nellie, the Bohm double slit experiment yields the same result as the Copenhagen interpretation, but without the particle/wave duality?

Does that excite anyone's curiosity at all? Well of course it does, it is a subject of deep discussion in quantum mechanics, nothwithstanding exchemist's vehement objections.

 

[James R]

A question occurred to me.

If we could created a recording device with a shutterspeed of 1/186,000 sec. would we be able to record a photon in flight as a particle?

What kind of recording device? A camera, for example, relies either on photons being emitted directly by the object being photographed, or else on photons being reflected from the photographed object (which is, at the micro-level, essentially the same thing).

How are you going to record the photon in flight? Try to reflect something off it? Like what?

But then, if we observe anything are we not absorbing photons from that object. If so what happens to that object?

Huh? When you see any object, your eye is absorbing photons coming from the object, directly or indirectly.

 

[origin]

If so what happens to that object?

If we observe something what do you think will happen to that object, evaporate?