Questions About Particle Wave Generation.

photo_guy

17th February 2012 - 04:03 AM

I'm curious about particle wave duality, but more about the wave portion. Trying to verify what I think I already know.

I'm curious about how particles form the wave that accompanies it. How is the frequency of it determined.., or rather what causes it to be formed. Is it a resonance.., depending on speed and energy of the particle..? The number of particles..? Where do the 'tuning' features come in..?

Specifically with particles, I understand they come together in groups, such as an audience's applause coming into sync, everyone clapping on the same beat.... Total white noise for a bit, then all of a sudden it finds itself...

How do particles come to arrange themselves in patterns such as this...?

... . . . . .. . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . ..

Where is this 'frequency' determined.?

Can it be varied..? What would do that.

Is there a max to the wave..? A limit to the compression..?

I see the entire wave rising in energy with additional particles...

Many thanks...

photo_guy

17th February 2012 - 07:29 PM

Ok... So no one bites..?

With audience applause I believe it is mostly the acoustics of the enclosure.

Of all the white noise.., eventually there will likely be a larger number of people clapping at the same time than than they all being equally spaced... That slight grouping will be reflected back to the audience in general... More and more people will pick up on it and tune their applause to it. Adding to the amount of feedback for the rest of them to get into... Of course there are probably other causes.., such as tuning into your neighbors clapping.

With particles, I'll illustrate what I *think* happens. With a steady source of particles. Any uniform variation of the source will of course produce the wave instantly... We do it with rf but it's unlikely in nature... So I'm looking for more than that. And not based on 'time' of course...

There are other perturbations I'm sure but I'm picking one I know.. And I'm trying to keep is simple more for myself than anything else... Cause maybe this is all already all known... And math, etc. confuses the pictures in my head too...

Because this is not spaced text I have to use spaces '-' between particles 'x'.

For particles with mass... Count the -'s...

x-----x-----x-----x-----x-----x-----x-----x-----x-----x| Leading edge.

Because there is no forward gravitational pull to the leading particle it is pulled back to the 2nd particle.

x-----x-----x-----x-----x-----x-----x-----x-----x----x|

With the increased pull of the 1st particle, the 2nd particle moves toward the 1st..
Thereby reducing its gravitational pull on to the 3rd particle.

x-----x-----x-----x-----x-----x-----x-----x------x--x|

This continues so that all particles eventually bunch into the waveform.., or 'packets' of energy.

x-----x-----x-----x-----x-----x-----x----x--------xx|
x-----x-----x-----x-----x----x------x--x--------xx|
x-----x-----x-----x------x--x--------xx--------xx| peaks close 5-4-2-0
x-----x-----x----x--------xx--------xx--------xx| valleys open 5-6-8
x-----x------x--x--------xx--------xx--------xx| for the sake of the example.
x----x--------xx--------xx--------xx--------xx|
-x--x--------xx--------xx--------xx--------xx|

It appears that forming the wave lowers the velocity of the particles, compared to that of a single particle.. Showing my ignorance, and I could look it up too.., but is this a known phenomenon..?

This above shows pretty much a square wave.., but in practice as all the particles shared their relative amounts of gravity.., I'm sure it would come out as a sine.

From there I'd like to know if there are more and more particles being emitted from a source, would it change the frequency or just the energy..? Would it be the mass of the individual particles...?

What brings on a particular wavelength...? Any opinions..?

And what about photons which are said to be weightless... Although they have energy. I'm still not sure how they can form waves at all... But I hear they do.

Thanks...

photo_guy

17th February 2012 - 08:21 PM

Ooops... Duped post. Deleted.

mathman

17th February 2012 - 10:25 PM

QUOTE (photo_guy+Feb 17 2012, 04:03 AM)

I'm curious about particle wave duality, but more about the wave portion. Trying to verify what I think I already know.

I'm curious about how particles form the wave that accompanies it. How is the frequency of it determined.., or rather what causes it to be formed. Is it a resonance.., depending on speed and energy of the particle..? The number of particles..? Where do the 'tuning' features come in..?

Specifically with particles, I understand they come together in groups, such as an audience's applause coming into sync, everyone clapping on the same beat.... Total white noise for a bit, then all of a sudden it finds itself...

How do particles come to arrange themselves in patterns such as this...?

... . . . . .. . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . ..

Where is this 'frequency' determined.?

Can it be varied..? What would do that.

Is there a max to the wave..? A limit to the compression..?

I see the entire wave rising in energy with additional particles...

Many thanks...

You appear to be very confused about this subject - most of your questions don't make sense, being based on incorrect assertions. I suggest you look at the following:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_mechanics

photo_guy

17th February 2012 - 11:52 PM

QUOTE (mathman+Feb 17 2012, 10:25 PM)

You appear to be very confused about this subject - most of your questions don't make sense, being based on incorrect assertions. I suggest you look at the following:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_mechanics

I wouldn't say confused... I am without some information that's all...

That's why I'm asking for the missing info. As for my questions not making sense, I'd like to know in what way..?

I hold a 1st class FCC Commercial License... I understand a lot abut RF frequency and waves... Standing waves, traveling waves, AM, FM, PM, SSB, etc... Also with solid state for many years and understand sequenced digital pulses being transformed into analog waves, square waves, harmonics that produce higher multiples.., and of course I hear syncing of applause at times too...

Waves can be analog, digital, compression, groupings, and a few more I'm sure.

I've already seen the link you supplied. Hopefully most people know to google first. But I'm not up to relearning the math or trying to hack myself through all that, which may or may not answer my question. I thought a few clear sentences from a Q&A forum would be nicer... Just trying to be more productive, you know..?

I may not use all the right terminology but I think my questions were fairly clear.

What properties of particular *particles* determine their frequency and wavelength. Particles are all said to have both I believe..?

A rope can resonate to a waveform determined by the frequency of the up and down at one end.., it's length.., and I'm sure the size of the rope. RF tuned circuits can be created and tuned to resonate at whatever frequency you want them to. You can send CW or lay some modulation on top... But I don't think any of these apply to a particle stream.

I tried to show an example of energy packets or whatever you call a sine wave of grouped bits.. But I don't know what determines their frequency or wavelength. If a stream of photons can be run from one place to another, what produces the waveform they're said to have. That which is measured as 'c' for instance..

Or any other particle, coming from its 'un-tuned' source. Or are they somehow 'tuned' by natural factors. I don't need to know how it happens... Just that it does. And maybe how it may vary... Just need a clue, you know..?

So thanks for responding. Hope you can give me some fill in on this....

synthsin75

18th February 2012 - 01:41 AM

Yeah, no one is eager to tutor you on the entire subject of QM. This is apparently what you are asking for with statements such as:

QUOTE (p_g+)

I'm curious about how particles form the wave that accompanies it.

A wave doesn't "accompany" a particle.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wave%E2%80%93particle_duality

QUOTE (^+)

...wave–particle duality is one aspect of the concept of complementarity, that a phenomenon can be viewed in one way or in another, but not both simultaneously.

photo_guy

18th February 2012 - 01:34 PM

QUOTE (synthsin75+Feb 18 2012, 01:41 AM)

Yeah, no one is eager to tutor you on the entire subject of QM. This is apparently what you are asking for with statements such as:

You do have an inferiority complex don't you. It's very clear to me and I'm sure others.

If you think my question on the wavelength properties of a particle is "the entire subject of QM" then you need to read a little more. You may need to ask a few questions yourself.

What you should really understand, is if you knew anything, and spend your time here for some reason, other than salving your complex.., you would find satisfaction in helping others understand a little of what you say you do. But instead you come off as just a typical human belonging to Nietzsche's 'herd'.

I've said from the beginning that I'm not a physicist and do not speak the language. Not even up on trig and calc... I admit what I don't know.

If you don't understand my part of the spectrum and can't comprehend why I put my questions in strange to you wording.., but that most should be able to extrapolate from.., then please don't use me to grow yourself a bubble. Btw, did you know that people can see through bubbles.?

Stop Googling to find something you think fits to send people to.., that will give everyone the impression you understand it too.

Everyone who knows little of what they speak will always say. 'You should read a book on (whatever the subject.). As though they did. lol

So once again... With the equipment I have used, it is very possible to measure frequency, wavelength, strength and other aspects of a wave in my part of the spectrum. They occur in nature in many ways but all seem to have the same basic elements... A carrier and the information. Whether they're measured together or separately is irrelevant.

I have read light has a frequency. What they changed the measuring system to fit.., right? So I'm asking a fairly simple question. If they are particles.., I would expect to see them going by as a series of bits.. If they are seen as a wave.., I'd expect to see groupings of bits going by. Cause to me, a single bit can't itself create a wave...

But I guess I have to ask anyway. Is a single photon seen to produce a wave..?

If somehow so in your world then I'll know how to adjust my thinking... Perhaps every bit is it's own transmitter..? That's cool too.

You know.., I read detailed answers to the photon bouncing between mirrors question, ad nauseam. Is that where you need to stay..? Try something new on for a change...

synthsin75

18th February 2012 - 02:59 PM

QUOTE (photo_guy+Feb 18 2012, 07:34 AM)

If you think my question on the wavelength properties of a particle is "the entire subject of QM" then you need to read a little more. You may need to ask a few questions yourself.
...
I have read light has a frequency. What they changed the measuring system to fit.., right? So I'm asking a fairly simple question. If they are particles.., I would expect to see them going by as a series of bits.. If they are seen as a wave.., I'd expect to see groupings of bits going by. Cause to me, a single bit can't itself create a wave...

But I guess I have to ask anyway. Is a single photon seen to produce a wave..?

This is why I usually ignore you altogether. You don't seem capable of understanding. Did you even read the link I gave you? It answered your question very directly. But it seems you haven't, as you are still saying things that illustrate your ignorance of the subject.

You never get particle and wave behavior at the same time, so wave properties do not come from particle manifestations. We expect the behavior that our tests are designed to detect.

If wave and particle manifestations are mutually exclusive you can't expect one to "produce" the other. It is this sort of repeated naivety that leads me to think you need to be tutored on the entire subject. You should be able to clear these misunderstanding up yourself with a simple search. So either you want to be spoon fed the entire subject, or your not likely to comprehend it. Either way, no one who does know the subject is likely to have the time you'd require, especially considering the high likelihood of no return in comprehension.

As far as inferiority, I'm not the one who has to hold up his FCC license as if that means anything in the field of physics, nor try to put people down solely because they understand the science. Perhaps you should spend much less time making several long posts here every day and do some reading instead. Hell, even just read the link provided to you.

photo_guy

19th February 2012 - 01:16 AM

QUOTE (synthsin75+Feb 18 2012, 02:59 PM)

This is why I usually ignore you altogether. You don't seem capable of understanding. Did you even read the link I gave you? It answered your question very directly. But it seems you haven't, as you are still saying things that illustrate your ignorance of the subject.

You never get particle and wave behavior at the same time, so wave properties do not come from particle manifestations. We expect the behavior that our tests are designed to detect.

If wave and particle manifestations are mutually exclusive you can't expect one to "produce" the other. It is this sort of repeated naivety that leads me to think you need to be tutored on the entire subject. You should be able to clear these misunderstanding up yourself with a simple search. So either you want to be spoon fed the entire subject, or your not likely to comprehend it. Either way, no one who does know the subject is likely to have the time you'd require, especially considering the high likelihood of no return in comprehension.

As far as inferiority, I'm not the one who has to hold up his FCC license as if that means anything in the field of physics, nor try to put people down solely because they understand the science. Perhaps you should spend much less time making several long posts here every day and do some reading instead. Hell, even just read the link provided to you.

Please do ignore me altogether.., because I'll be ignoring you altogether in the future.

You didn't read MY post.., as I said I had already seen that page before you found it to show me how little you know. That you couldn't answer my question directly.

People who are here just to refer people to Google just should not be here.

If questions are asked, and thought worth answering, answer them... With maybe a Google backup... If not.., they should just stay out of it.

As for the license I'm trying to show I might have a mind set that I need help getting over. As you certainly do too.., but don't know it...

Today I've gotten more of an answer elsewhere than you can ever give me. So buzz off, eh? I'm done with you...

synthsin75

19th February 2012 - 02:23 AM

QUOTE (photo_guy+Feb 18 2012, 07:16 PM)

.., as I said I had already seen that page before you found it to show me how little you know.

If that were so you wouldn't have been asking the questions you were. But imagine whatever you like.

Guest

28th February 2012 - 09:03 PM

QUOTE (photo_guy+Feb 17 2012, 07:29 PM)

Ok... So no one bites..?

With audience applause I believe it is mostly the acoustics of the enclosure.

Of all the white noise.., eventually there will likely be a larger number of people clapping at the same time than than they all being equally spaced... That slight grouping will be reflected back to the audience in general... More and more people will pick up on it and tune their applause to it. Adding to the amount of feedback for the rest of them to get into... Of course there are probably other causes.., such as tuning into your neighbors clapping.

With particles, I'll illustrate what I *think* happens. With a steady source of particles. Any uniform variation of the source will of course produce the wave instantly... We do it with rf but it's unlikely in nature... So I'm looking for more than that. And not based on 'time' of course...

There are other perturbations I'm sure but I'm picking one I know.. And I'm trying to keep is simple more for myself than anything else... Cause maybe this is all already all known... And math, etc. confuses the pictures in my head too...

Because this is not spaced text I have to use spaces '-' between particles 'x'.

For particles with mass... Count the -'s...

x-----x-----x-----x-----x-----x-----x-----x-----x-----x| Leading edge.

Because there is no forward gravitational pull to the leading particle it is pulled back to the 2nd particle.

x-----x-----x-----x-----x-----x-----x-----x-----x----x|

With the increased pull of the 1st particle, the 2nd particle moves toward the 1st..
Thereby reducing its gravitational pull on to the 3rd particle.

x-----x-----x-----x-----x-----x-----x-----x------x--x|

This continues so that all particles eventually bunch into the waveform.., or 'packets' of energy.

x-----x-----x-----x-----x-----x-----x----x--------xx|
x-----x-----x-----x-----x----x------x--x--------xx|
x-----x-----x-----x------x--x--------xx--------xx| peaks close 5-4-2-0
x-----x-----x----x--------xx--------xx--------xx| valleys open 5-6-8
x-----x------x--x--------xx--------xx--------xx| for the sake of the example.
x----x--------xx--------xx--------xx--------xx|
-x--x--------xx--------xx--------xx--------xx|

It appears that forming the wave lowers the velocity of the particles, compared to that of a single particle.. Showing my ignorance, and I could look it up too.., but is this a known phenomenon..?

This above shows pretty much a square wave.., but in practice as all the particles shared their relative amounts of gravity.., I'm sure it would come out as a sine.

From there I'd like to know if there are more and more particles being emitted from a source, would it change the frequency or just the energy..? Would it be the mass of the individual particles...?

What brings on a particular wavelength...? Any opinions..?

And what about photons which are said to be weightless... Although they have energy. I'm still not sure how they can form waves at all... But I hear they do.

Thanks...

interesting thread. its spin velocity, and counter spin. It acts as a singularity. it can collapse a magnetic field all at once.. Spherical waves.

PhysOrg scientific forums are totally dedicated to science, physics, and technology. Besides topical forums such as nanotechnology, quantum physics, silicon and III-V technology, applied physics, materials, space and others, you can also join our news and publications discussions. We also provide an off-topic forum category. If you need specific help on a scientific problem or have a question related to physics or technology, visit the PhysOrg Forums. Here you’ll find experts from various fields online every day.

To quit out of "lo-fi" mode and return to the regular forums, please click here.