-3
$\begingroup$

I have watched many videos and read many articles and it says that a particle is acting like a wave. So why we try to understand on which hole the particle went through?

Clearly a wave will pass in both slits and that's why we get the stripped pattern.

enter image description here

A short (not extended) theory would be:

Each particle contains informations of the whole object. So a light that passes through 2 slits contains particles that are related to each other.

In the same way we people, are made from particles, and each of them contains informations and is connected with each other, that's why me is me and you are you.

So if all my particles passes through those slits in the end will produce me. But if your particles passes through those slits will produce you and not me. So it makes sense that those particles contains information about the whole object and are connected to each other.

Similarly is pre-defined that the the light will produce a stripped pattern therefore each particle is a wave but it contains informations about the whole object and is connected with other particles of that object.

So what is weird about quantum mechanics?

$\endgroup$

closed as off-topic by my2cts, WillO, Kyle Kanos, Jon Custer, Dvij Mankad May 14 at 4:24

This question appears to be off-topic. The users who voted to close gave this specific reason:

  • "We deal with mainstream physics here. Questions about the general correctness of unpublished personal theories are off topic, although specific questions evaluating new theories in the context of established science are usually allowed. For more information, see Is non mainstream physics appropriate for this site?." – my2cts, WillO, Jon Custer
If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.

  • $\begingroup$ Try watching minute physics's video on YouTube it would help you $\endgroup$ – Aditya Garg May 11 at 14:05
  • $\begingroup$ Thanks @AdityaGarg. Based on your comment above it seems that my theory or in general I am wrong. Can you please tell me which part of my question is wrong? $\endgroup$ – roli roli May 11 at 14:12
  • $\begingroup$ A simple web search would yield you a lot of resources to begin with. Try googling it. $\endgroup$ – exp ikx May 11 at 14:26
  • $\begingroup$ Thanks I have already mentioned that I have search it a lot and I will do more searches of course. But is something wrong with what I am saying in my question? $\endgroup$ – roli roli May 11 at 14:28
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Please read this answer of mine to a similar question physics.stackexchange.com/q/469718 . Your basic misunderstanding is in thinking that the wave nature in quantum mechanics is the same as in classical mechanics. What is waving in quantum mechanics is the probability amplitude, not the mass/energy of the particle in three dimensional space as in classical mechanics. $\endgroup$ – anna v May 11 at 17:18
1
$\begingroup$

I will try to explain my perspective on the matter.

The "strangeness" in quantum mechanics is that sometimes light appears to behave like a particle, and sometimes like a wave.

In the photoelectric effect or Compton scattering, a photon behaves like a particle. Roughly speaking, we can treat it like a billiard ball that collides with other billiard balls, using the normal collision rules. We can predict what light will do in these cases if we treat it like a particle.

In the double-slit experiment, light behaves like a wave; it passes through both slits and makes an interference pattern. In this case, we can predict what light will do if we treat it like a wave.

But is light really a wave or a particle? Why should it behave like different things in different situations, and how do we tell in advance which one its going to behave like?

There is an additional experiment that further complicates matters. Suppose an experimenter forces light to behave like a particle. The experimenter sends only one particle at a time towards the slits, and waits for the particle to arrive on the other side before sending the next one.

And the interference pattern still occurs! So now it's not just that a group of particles can behave like a wave, but a single particle that behaves like a wave, even though the experimenter told it to behave like a particle. So if it is behaving like a particle, we should definitely be able to tell which slit it went through - it can only go through one if it's behaving like a particle.

So the experimenter puts a detector on the slits to see which one it went through. Now we know for sure that the particle is only going through one slit at a time - and the interference pattern disappears.

Now it looks like even in the same experiment, light might behave as a wave, or as a particle; it might make an interference pattern, or not. Even if you just say "particles are also waves", it doesn't let you predict in advance what the particle will do. So it's not just a matter of saying "light is a wave"; we have to find a single description that covers both the particle behavior, and the light behavior, and will tell us in advance what the particle will do.

I think that's what people find confusing about quantum mechanics.

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ Thanks @concertpi.I am proposing that the particle is behaving like a wave and it passed through both slits. And each particle has informations about the whole object in that case the light.When we put the "observer" to see, probably that observer has some effect or energy that makes the particle to pass only on one slit each time. so either the first or the second. $\endgroup$ – roli roli May 12 at 7:40
  • $\begingroup$ Let me see if I understand your ideas. You seem to be suggesting that each of my particles contains information about the rest of my particles - this, I disagree with you. For example, both carbon and oxygen are made of protons, neutrons, electrons. But the electrons in carbon don't know that they are in a carbon atom. Carbon and oxygen are different because there are different amounts of protons, electrons, neutrons in each. Similarly, two molecules can have the same number and type of atoms, but the molecules are different because they are arranged differently. $\endgroup$ – concertpi May 14 at 15:18
  • $\begingroup$ There are cases where the properties of one particle affect the properties of another particle - this is called entanglement. But entanglement does not take place in the double-slit experiment. See for example this question. $\endgroup$ – concertpi May 14 at 15:24
  • $\begingroup$ You are the only one who understood what I meant and this is the best answer (the comments). So if an object (carbon, oxygen etc) changes only for the fact that the number of protons electrons and neutron differs or because they are arranged differently then my theory is wrong. BUT if there is an object (molecule) that is exactly the same with another one but it differs (As I know that is not possible) then that would mean that the electron has some informations about the context. Thank you for proving me wrong $\endgroup$ – roli roli May 14 at 15:54
0
$\begingroup$

The stripped pattern are just because of the super position of waves . So we place the slits closer we expect to experience the superposition at some reachable distance thus seeing fringes abd patterns and if double slits are placed far then the pattern are found to be more far ..thus particle happens to also be a wave

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ Maybe my question wan't clear enough so I updated it to show what my question is. $\endgroup$ – roli roli May 11 at 15:22
0
$\begingroup$

Welcome to SE! I'm not totally clear on your proposal for a "general theory," so I won't address that, but as for your first question:

It seems like you are basically asking why we shouldn't just think of quantum particles as waves, since they exhibit interference. The answer is that they can exhibit particle-like properties even when they are simultaneously displaying interference. For example, one can perform interference experiments (basically like two-slit experiments as you have drawn) with electrons, but slow down the feed-in of electrons so much that only one electron is in the experimental apparatus. In this situation, if you have an array of detectors to detect the interference pattern, each time a single electron goes through the apparatus it will hit just one of the detectors, as you would expect from a particle. The interference pattern only appears after many electrons have passed through the apparatus, so that you can see where they are more or less likely to hit.

What is going on here? Well, the electrons are exhibiting wave-like properties that allow them to "pass through both slits" and interfere with themselves: since only one electron is in the apparatus at a time, if this weren't happening then we wouldn't see any interference pattern at all! But then each electron hits the array of detectors at a particular location, as we would expect from a particle. This experiment is considered a very clear and intuitive demonstration of wave-particle duality (although it is far from the only instance thereof!) The wavefunction, which can interfere with itself, controls the probability distribution for likelihood of detecting the electron at each location on the detector array.

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ But isnt the EM field generated by the electron also a wave able to produce interference and move the electron? $\endgroup$ – Exocytosis May 11 at 16:27
  • $\begingroup$ Hi thanks for the answer. Basically "general theory" means a short theory of what I think of quantum physics. So in that theory I am accepting the fact that the particle can have both a particle-like and wave-like functionality. Beyond that I am saying that why we can't accept the theory I am proposing? Why would be wrong? $\endgroup$ – roli roli May 11 at 16:39
  • $\begingroup$ @roliroli to be honest, I don't understand your theory, so I can't say one way or another what I think of it. For example, it is not immediately clear what "Each particle contains informations of the whole object" means. Perhaps you could update your question to make the similarities and differences between your theory and standard quantum mechanics more explicitly clear. $\endgroup$ – Will May 11 at 16:55
  • $\begingroup$ I am not a physicist of course but I am just saying that the particles of an object have some informations. so when all are bound together they form the object. I gave a simple example of why you are you and me is me. So both we are made of particles but we are not the same. In that way the light is predefined to form a stripped pattern so each particle knows its place and when we hit all particles of a light it will form the pattern. $\endgroup$ – roli roli May 11 at 17:00
  • $\begingroup$ @Exocytosis typically the EM field generated by a particle does not directly affect that particle. (There are exceptions, e.g., en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abraham%E2%80%93Lorentz_force) In this case I think no such effects are relevant, but perhaps I am wrong: what kind of effect are you imagining? $\endgroup$ – Will May 11 at 17:08
0
$\begingroup$

Light is both particle as well as wave no matter which experiment we demonstrate according to de broglie .We take the reference from Heisenberg uncertainty principle where he says dx*dp>=h/4pi .Here if the width of slit is large then dx is large hence momentum of photons is small hence it seems to be particle as light travels straight without scattering much but it exhibits wave properties too.But if the slit is really reduced now dx is very small as a result momentum of photons is large thus by conservation of momentum the light has to bend hence it seems to be a wave though it contains particle nature too.

$\endgroup$

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.