Wave-particle duality .... again

[hamo]

I'm not a physicist or mathematician so this article might be naive, but I'd like to hear your response. These are my thoughts while reading a book of Feynman lectures.

 

A non mathematical description of behaviour at the atomic level.

 

Wave-particle duality

If you consider the double slit experiment, the behaviour of electrons seems to be paradoxical.

 

You have an electron source, a surface with two slits, and a detector at the other side.

 

The pattern of electron detection follows an interference pattern which indicates the electrons are demonstrating wave behaviour in passing through the slits.

 

If you use a light source to detect which slit the individual electrons actually pass through, the detection pattern becomes that of pure addition which indicates the electrons are demonstrating particle behaviour in passing through the slits.

 

This leads to the wave-particle duality notion in the atomic world.

 

It also links to Heisenberg's indeterminacy principle, as it shows how the act of measuring an electron's state changes it's behaviour.

 

This behaviour in the atomic world seems paradoxical in our 3d space. If an electron is a 3d particle, then it should pass through one or other of the slits. When we detect it as a particle, this is exactly how it behaves. When we don't detect it, it produces wave behaviour which is as if the electron passes through both slits.

 

This behaviour does not have any explanation in the 3d world. The electron particle cannot be split, and a single point particle cannot pass through two slits simultaneously. It is not just a question of humans being unable to imagine behaviour at the quantum level, it is mathematically inconsistent in the 3d world.

 

This leads to the conclusion that there are higher dimensions involved in this behaviour.

 

An analogy can demonstrate how physical behaviour that is paradoxical in a certain spacial dimension can be perfectly reasonable in a higher dimension space.

Imagine two 3d objects casting shadows on a wall. In the 2d world, the shadows ability to pass through each other might seem inexplicable, but in the 3d world, one is simple passing behind the other.

 

An electron oscillates in higher dimensions and casts a wavelike shadow in the 3d world. Thus the 4+d electron does the 3d impossible act of passing through two slits simultaneously.

However, the act of measuring an electron, such as by deflecting a photon off of it, actually forces the electron to temporarily materialize in the 3d world. The higher dimensions collapse and it behaves like a 3d particle.

 

Lets examine another analogy. Imagine a particle is oscillating in 3d. It moves around in a fairly random but continuous manner and its vibration energy limits its path to a spherical shape. Now imagine you observe its interaction with a 2d plane that bisects the sphere. Every time it crosses the plane it marks a dot. You would observe the dots appearing randomly within a circle. At first they might appear completely random, but after a while you would observe that the dots appear more often near the centre. In fact you might eventually understand that there is a particular probability distribution to the appearance of the dots in the circle.

So a random oscillating but continuous path of a particle in 3d, appears as a discontinuous probabilistic appearance of dots in 2d.

 

The electron shadow in the 3d world seems to be a waveform. What sort of particle movement could have a waveform shadow. Consider, in fact, that the electron particle has it's own higher dimension space that expands like a bubble. The electron oscillates within this expanding universe of its own making. The projection of this expanding bubble in the 3d world is a waveform. The electron buzzing around its bubble has a particular probability distribution regarding its location on this 3d waveform. In fact, the 3d waveform is not so much the electron, but the shadow of the electron's private bubble universe. In the double slit experiment, this universe interacts with the 3d artifacts and produces an interference pattern. The bubble is effectively distorted accordingly. The electron probability distribution applies to its universe all the same and so will appear at the detector with a probability distributed across an interference pattern.

If, through an experiment, you observe the electron in the 3d world, then you temporarily fix it in the 3d world and its higher dimension universe collapses (the bubble bursts).

 

Quantum Entanglement

At the quantum level, there is another phenomenon that seems paradoxical. There is a process of producing linked particles such as an electron and a positron, otherwise known as quantum entanglement. These are linked because they have state parameters which are related to each other. This means that by measuring the state parameter of one of the particles, you can deduce the other. This seemed to be a way to get passed Heisenberg's indeterminacy principle. You could measure one state variable of one of the particles and another of the other one. Then you would be able to say that you knew the two state variables at the same time. However, in practice, the act of making a measurement on one of the particles also collapses the wave form of the other particle. So, even though the particles could be widely separated in 3d space, the act of measuring one of them has an effect on both of them.

This poses at least two problems:-

How does the information pass between the two particles seemingly instantaneously?

How do the particles know of each others existence?

 

In fact, the particles start this process by co-existing or interacting with each other. A typical experiment generates entangled particles by splitting a single high energy photon into two lower energy photons. It is postulated that the single particle higher dimension space is shared even as the two particles diverge in the 3d world. They are therefore linked by sharing a common higher dimension space. The act of measuring either one of the particles collapses this higher dimension space and forces both of them to be ' fixed' in the 3d world. It is as if their common bubble is burst. The particles are no longer linked and presumably they gone on to oscillate in new independent sets of higher dimensions.

 

 

Quantum tunnelling

It is a known observation that electrons of a certain energy level can appear at the other side of a barrier which should require more energy than the electron has to cross. In the 3d world, if you don't have enough energy to get over a wall, then you have no probability of being on the other side.

But the unobserved electron doesn't behave like a particle in the 3d world. It behaves as a probabilistic wave distribution. The electron is not bound by impossibilities in the 3d world, just like the 3d object shadow is not bound by impossibilities in the 2d world.

Therefore, you do not limit a 4+d electron according to 3d particle laws. The 4+d electron behaviour maps to a probabilistic pattern in the 3d world and it behaves according to this pattern even if it seems to violate laws that would apply to 3d particles.

 

 

Other points

The use of the term 'private universe' is a deliberate reference to the 3d universe. Our universe is not infinite. It is defined by the limits of expansion of its contents. Outside of this, and before the big bang, there is no concept of space and time. The electron higher dimension private universe is similarly generated by the electron itself. It's vibrations create and stretch this universe. If you fix the electron in the 3d world, the other dimensions collapse.

 

D.

[UncleAl]

A non mathematical description of behaviour at the atomic level.

 

You are terribly wrong. Learn quantum mechanics or pontificate on other things. A molecular beam of C60 buckminsterfullerene diffracts, molecular weight 720.64. The first maximum is exactly BETWEEN the slits. They also diffracted C60F48, MW = 1632.56.

 

Quantum interference

Wave–particle duality - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Wave—particle duality of C60 molecules. Nature 401, 680 (1999)

Experimental verification of the Heisenberg uncertainty principle for fullerene molecules. Phys. Rev. A. 65, 03219 (2002)

 

There is a process of producing linked particles such as an electron and a positron Absolutely not. The experiment is to push a photon of wavelength lambda through a mixing crystal to obtain two photons of wavelength (lambda)/2 with exactly opposite linear momenta and orthogonal but entangled polarizations. Then the Bell Inequality - observing the polarization of one photon instantaneously sets the polarization of its entangled partner. There is no lightspeed barrier, but there is no information transferred, either. Results only obtain when the two sets of polarization data are compared - and that cannot happen faster than lightspeed.

 

An electron oscillates in higher dimensions and casts a wavelike shadow You posted 100 lines of empirical drivel.

[hamo]

Hey, I'm quite prepared to accept that I am completely wrong.

 

But I think you are a bit harsh to try to shame me for posting my thoughts. I admitted upfront that they might be naive.

 

D.

[Qfwfq]

Yeah, Unk is a naughty little boy, we've a hard time keeping him on the leash; don't let him get to you. A dog that barks doesn't bite.

 

Unfortunately I've little time to read your essay, I still have trouble with my new portable so I'm still on town library terminals. I'll be reading it better when I can. Meantime, keep in mind that matters are extremely complicated and subtle, if you like the Feynman lectures that's a good starting point. :hihi:

[Ben]

Hey, I'm quite prepared to accept that I am completely wrong.

 

But I think you are a bit harsh to try to shame me for posting my thoughts. I admitted upfront that they might be naive.

 

D.

I sympathize to some extent - Al was unhelpful to you, and also rather rude, in my opinion.

 

However, as a self-confessed naif, you might be better to frame your thoughts as questions rather than as assertions. Like "having read about this stuff, here's what I seem to be getting..............am I anywhere near close?"