Is this image a representation of a single photon?
Standing waves don't "radiate".
You are not looking at light 'particles' in this photos. It's just standing waves the same phenomenon that you can produce with water in your bathtube.
NOP, sorry charlie. All you are looking at is a standing wave that represents the merger of two opposing beams. It is called the fringe pattern, and it is the basis by which laser gyro or interfereometer work. The only thing these people did was shoot a scanning beam pulses of electrons thru the region of the merging photons, so they would be diffracted by the photon wave and make a representation of what they passed thru on the detector plate behind the wave. Very much like a MRI. They probably copied the idea of a MRI and used that same principle for electrons instead of magnetic pulses. They are so lost and so far from ever finding what is going on , it is like watching babies. The whole experiment was a waste of time because it is trying to find the answer , with the wrong gear, in the wrong way, and in the wrong place. infantile minds. .
If light is particle, how a particle hits mirror and reflect back?
If light is particle, how a particle hits mirror and reflect back?
Light is not a particle. It exhibits particle-LIKE properties under certain conditions.
Light is not a wave. It exhibits wave-LIKE properties under certain conditions.
There is a reason why it's called a particle-wave.
If light is particle, how a particle hits mirror and reflect back?
Light is not a particle. It exhibits particle-LIKE properties under certain conditions.
Light is not a wave. It exhibits wave-LIKE properties under certain conditions.
There is a reason why it's called a particle-wave.
Discuss at fuckedscience.com
Discuss at fuckedscience.com
People searching for crank theories will have no trouble finding yours.
@DarkLordKelvin hoping you might be able to help me out here. When I read the article it seemed to me that the standing wave was interpreted as a single non-moving entity. But that wouldn't be the case...would it? Whatever produces a standing wave is moving in its direction and not static so wouldn't that be the same for EM. That is to say that the effect seen in this experiement is not the the result single identified section of a light beam (a photon or a definite set of photons) but rather a moving beam at prducing a standing wave at a single location. (Hope I've expressed myself right). In other words we are not looking at the wave/particle on a single quantum but waves and particles of many quantum events. Like to hear you thoughts, thanks.You basically have it right [except the standing wave is an interference pattern, so it's stationary].. this is a very nice experiment that has been woefully misinterpreted. What has been imaged is a collective electronic excitation.
If this experiment is valid, doesn't it essentially destroy the Copenhagen Interpretation and the principle of Complementarity at once?
doesn't it essentially destroy the Copenhagen Interpretation and the principle of Complementarity at once?Yes - it would, if this experiment would really deal with photons in vacuum. Unfortunately this research was not about photons, it's about surface plasmons, i.e. waves of electrons at the surface of metals. The basic difference is, these waves are massive, because the electrons are massive and such a waves exhibit the mutual wave-particle behavior in much more pronounced way, than the photons.
The real questions are :
1/ Particle of what, just exactly?
2/ Wave in what, just exactly?
3/ Does anyone on the team have any idea what I refer to when I ask about Primer Fields?
You basically have it right [except the standing wave is an interference pattern, so it's stationary].. this is a very nice experiment that has been woefully misinterpreted. What has been imaged is a collective electronic excitation
Naturally, I hope to SHOWN that I am wrong., If I am wrong. But let's quit beating around the bush. The real questions are :
1/ Particle of what, just exactly?
2/ Wave in what, just exactly?
3/ Does anyone on the team have any idea what I refer to when I ask about Primer Fields?
Naturally, I hope to SHOWN that I am wrong., If I am wrong. But let's quit beating around the bush. The real questions are :
1/ Particle of what, just exactly?
2/ Wave in what, just exactly?
3/ Does anyone on the team have any idea what I refer to when I ask about Primer Fields?
1/ Energy
2/ Space
3/ Yes, they are absolute shite.
Time to abandon the either/or perspective on light being a particle or a wave; string theory hints at the possibility that it's both. A particle itself is a wave-form, created out of the matrix of space-time as a manifestation of energy.
I don't see it the way the Carbone team reads it. Here is my takeNo, photoelectric effect would involve ejections of electrons from the nanowire. What actually happens here is that the interference pattern between two laser pulses excites a collective electron oscillation "quasiparticle" known as a plasmon polariton in the nanowire.
Laser strikes nanowire, causes photoelectric effect
.. sets up standing wave of electrons. Electron beam passes, is disturbed by edge diffraction ..Sort of. The imaging electrons actually interact with the locally intense electrical field very close to the surface of the nanowire, producing the observed pattern.
Electrons are not waves except in string theoryWhy did you think that? You referenced electron diffraction earlier in the same post. Electrons can create diffraction patterns because they have wave-like properties. Also, have you heard of the de Broglie equation relating momentum and wavelength?
Electrons are not waves except in string theory
Discuss at fuckedscience.com
People searching for crank theories will have no trouble finding yours.
if you have the means to debunk, let's see it.
Discuss at fuckedscience.com
People searching for crank theories will have no trouble finding yours.
if you have the means to debunk, let's see it.
You stated "...light is gravitational pause produced by exited atoms."
For starters the electromagnetic force is ~10^39 times stronger than the gravitational force,... in fact mass is independent of charge wrt the ratio of these two forces, further exposing you statement as gibberish.
Discuss at fuckedscience.com
People searching for crank theories will have no trouble finding yours.
if you have the means to debunk, let's see it.
You stated "...light is gravitational pause produced by exited atoms."
For starters the electromagnetic force is ~10^39 times stronger than the gravitational force,... in fact mass is independent of charge wrt the ratio of these two forces, further exposing you statement as gibberish.
why is electron not stick to the proton under 10^39g attraction force? standard model of atomic structure is gibberish.
if sm is correct, why is electron and proton not stick together? why there is no discharge within an hydrogen atom? is the empty space between proton and electron is some kind super insulator?
If Coulombs's law stands universally, we should assume that every atom or charged particle are connected by their force field across the whole space.
An atoms force field does not end at atom radius, but extend to infinity. In whole, an atom or planet maybe electrically neutral, but Every charge within has its own force field beyond distance, those forces overlapped to produce chemical bonding, magnetism and gravity.
Ever wonder why is Fe=q1q2/r^2, Fg=m1m2/r^2, and mass proportional to proton numbers within it?
Because of uncertainty principle and 1800 times larger mass it requires only 2 MeV energy to confine the proton in the nucleus,... while an order of magnitude larger energy, ~3.8 GeV, to confine the electron in the nucleus,... and the strong force works on nucleons, not electrons.if sm is correct, why is electron and proton not stick together? why there is no discharge within an hydrogen atom? is the empty space between proton and electron is some kind super insulator?
"discharge" means flow of electrons. I answered this with uncertainty principle.
if sm is correct, why is electron and proton not stick together? why there is no discharge within an hydrogen atom? is the empty space between proton and electron is some kind super insulator?
if sm is correct, why is electron and proton not stick together? why there is no discharge within an hydrogen atom? is the empty space between proton and electron is some kind super insulator?
Have you studied quantum mechanics? This is a basic question that is covered in most first year courses. The answer takes a bit of time to set up properly, so it's best if you look it up elsewhere and ask for clarification here if you don't understand something specific. Good answers can be found lots of different places .. a couple examples are here:
http://physics.st...ith-them
why is electron and proton not stick together
proton is positive charged, electron is negative charged. the strongest force carrier in the universe.
what force keeps them apart? how wuantum nature of energy exchange? what's the mechanism?
what force keeps them apart? how wuantum nature of energy exchange? what's the mechanism?
proton is positive charged, electron is negative charged. the strongest force carrier in the universe.
the reason not a legit answer in this discussing proofs you 3 don't have any.
Is this image a representation of a single photon?
that e- does approach the nucleus. Look at the 'lobe' representation of the d & f orbitals and you'll notice the diagrams are almost a figure '8' which MIGHT suggest that e- goes into or closely around the nucleus
electrons actually have a finite probability density *inside* the nucleusYes, it could explain some "cold fusion" reactions. But why all threads at PhysOrg are discussing the electrons and protons interaction inside of atom by now, just because some troll believes, it does violate the official physics?
Yes, it could explain some "cold fusion" reactions. But why all threads at PhysOrg are discussing the electrons and protons interaction inside of atom by now, just because some troll believes, it does violate the official physics?It seems a lot of people don't know so called 'cold fusion' is far easier to achieve & far more common than imagined, there is a chip to produce neutrons on demand from an electrical signal, fusion is the mechanism !
there is a chip to produce neutrons on demand from an electrical signalThe existence of such a chip doesn't imply, that the energy required for generation of one neutron is lower, than the energy released with it. We know about so-called pyrofusion, which generates lotta neutrons, but the energy required is still rather high, similar to fuzor.. And true cold fusion is essentially aneutronic - the neutrons aren't released with it at all, which is a great advantage.
kow
Mar 2, 2015