Particle wave duality has been photographed for the first time.

It’s not a great photo, but you wouldn’t expect the first such photo to be great.

https://charmingscience.com/stunning-image-shows-atoms-transforming-into-quantum-waves-just-as-schrodinger-predicted/

> Atoms behaving like particles appear as a red dot, but spread into a wide blob when they act like a wave.

> For the first time ever, physicists have captured a clear image of individual atoms behaving like a wave.

The technical article is on https://arxiv.org/abs/2404.05699

So it’s actually an arbitrary cutoff between paves and warticles and they call spatial smears waves and temporal smears particles.

mollwollfumble said:

Particle wave duality has been photographed for the first time.

It’s not a great photo, but you wouldn’t expect the first such photo to be great.

https://charmingscience.com/stunning-image-shows-atoms-transforming-into-quantum-waves-just-as-schrodinger-predicted/

> Atoms behaving like particles appear as a red dot, but spread into a wide blob when they act like a wave.

> For the first time ever, physicists have captured a clear image of individual atoms behaving like a wave.

The technical article is on https://arxiv.org/abs/2404.05699

From the first link:

“Schrödinger’s famous equation is typically interpreted by physicists as stating that atoms exist as packets of wave-like probability in space, which are then collapsed into discrete particles upon observation. While bafflingly counterintuitive, this bizarre property of the quantum world has been witnessed in numerous experiments.”

… but is not seen in this case, since the atoms are alleged to be behaving like waves after they have been observed.

The Rev Dodgson said:

mollwollfumble said:

Particle wave duality has been photographed for the first time.

It’s not a great photo, but you wouldn’t expect the first such photo to be great.

https://charmingscience.com/stunning-image-shows-atoms-transforming-into-quantum-waves-just-as-schrodinger-predicted/

> Atoms behaving like particles appear as a red dot, but spread into a wide blob when they act like a wave.

> For the first time ever, physicists have captured a clear image of individual atoms behaving like a wave.

The technical article is on https://arxiv.org/abs/2404.05699

From the first link:

“Schrödinger’s famous equation is typically interpreted by physicists as stating that atoms exist as packets of wave-like probability in space, which are then collapsed into discrete particles upon observation. While bafflingly counterintuitive, this bizarre property of the quantum world has been witnessed in numerous experiments.”

… but is not seen in this case, since the atoms are alleged to be behaving like waves after they have been observed.

I haven’t read the arxiv.org article yet, but several things immediately spring out at me:

• In his 1905 paper on the photoelectric effect, Einstein introduced the idea that light is both a wave and a particle, the first real paper on QM; about 20 years (1924) later, in his PhD thesis, Louis de Broglie argued that all particles are also waves. Einstein’s and de Broglie’s theories are where we get wave-particle duality from, not Schrödinger’s equation.
• Bohr’s Principle of Complementarity (which hasn’t been seen to be violated before) says that, while all particles are also waves, they can’t be measured as both simultaneously. This photograph appears to violate that principle.

Also (the third point I intended to raise), modern theory holds that particles don’t change from particles to waves and back, they exist as both until they’re measured.

What if the measurement devices are also warticle paves¿

btm said:

Also (the third point I intended to raise), modern theory holds that particles don’t change from particles to waves and back, they exist as both until they’re measured.

What is considered measuring

btm said:

Also (the third point I intended to raise), modern theory holds that particles don’t change from particles to waves and back, they exist as both until they’re measured.

What observational evidence do we have to support this hypothesis of what things do when they are not being observed?

The Rev Dodgson said:

btm said:

Also (the third point I intended to raise), modern theory holds that particles don’t change from particles to waves and back, they exist as both until they’re measured.

What observational evidence do we have to support this hypothesis of what things do when they are not being observed?

¿ What Is Observation Anyway ?

SCIENCE said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

btm said:

Also (the third point I intended to raise), modern theory holds that particles don’t change from particles to waves and back, they exist as both until they’re measured.

What observational evidence do we have to support this hypothesis of what things do when they are not being observed?

¿ What Is Observation Anyway ?

According to me, it is any interaction with any sentient entity, that results in some sentient response in the sentient entity.

The Rev Dodgson said:

SCIENCE said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

What observational evidence do we have to support this hypothesis of what things do when they are not being observed?

¿ What Is Observation Anyway ?

According to me, it is any interaction with any sentient entity, that results in some sentient response in the sentient entity.

interaction with a detector.

JudgeMental said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

SCIENCE said:

¿ What Is Observation Anyway ?

According to me, it is any interaction with any sentient entity, that results in some sentient response in the sentient entity.

interaction with a detector.

But anything involved in any sort of interaction could be called a detector, couldn’t it?

The Rev Dodgson said:

JudgeMental said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

According to me, it is any interaction with any sentient entity, that results in some sentient response in the sentient entity.

interaction with a detector.

But anything involved in any sort of interaction could be called a detector, couldn’t it?

Observation in the natural sciences is an act or instance of noticing or perceiving and the acquisition of information from a primary source. In living beings, observation employs the senses. In science, observation can also involve the perception and recording of data via the use of scientific instruments. The term may also refer to any data collected during the scientific activity. Observations can be qualitative, that is, the absence or presence of a property is noted and the observed phenomenon described, or quantitative if a numerical value is attached to the observed phenomenon by counting or measuring.

wiki.

an eyeball is just one method of detection and usually is not really applicable in the case of quantum apart from looking at the detected data and trying to make some sense of it.

JudgeMental said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

JudgeMental said:

interaction with a detector.

But anything involved in any sort of interaction could be called a detector, couldn’t it?

Observation in the natural sciences is an act or instance of noticing or perceiving and the acquisition of information from a primary source. In living beings, observation employs the senses. In science, observation can also involve the perception and recording of data via the use of scientific instruments. The term may also refer to any data collected during the scientific activity. Observations can be qualitative, that is, the absence or presence of a property is noted and the observed phenomenon described, or quantitative if a numerical value is attached to the observed phenomenon by counting or measuring.

wiki.

an eyeball is just one method of detection and usually is not really applicable in the case of quantum apart from looking at the detected data and trying to make some sense of it.

Is the quantum event aware its being observed

Cymek said:

JudgeMental said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

But anything involved in any sort of interaction could be called a detector, couldn’t it?

Observation in the natural sciences is an act or instance of noticing or perceiving and the acquisition of information from a primary source. In living beings, observation employs the senses. In science, observation can also involve the perception and recording of data via the use of scientific instruments. The term may also refer to any data collected during the scientific activity. Observations can be qualitative, that is, the absence or presence of a property is noted and the observed phenomenon described, or quantitative if a numerical value is attached to the observed phenomenon by counting or measuring.

wiki.

an eyeball is just one method of detection and usually is not really applicable in the case of quantum apart from looking at the detected data and trying to make some sense of it.

Is the quantum event aware its being observed

if it is then it is a weirdo judging by its behaviour.

I think observation implies the transmission or discovery of information by any means really.

Witty Rejoinder said:

I think observation implies the transmission or discovery of information by any means really.

yes, via a detector.

JudgeMental said:

Witty Rejoinder said:

I think observation implies the transmission or discovery of information by any means really.

yes, via a detector.

It doesn’t matter if its an active or passive detector I assume

Cymek said:

JudgeMental said:

Witty Rejoinder said:

I think observation implies the transmission or discovery of information by any means really.

yes, via a detector.

It doesn’t matter if its an active or passive detector I assume

no, it doesn’t matter. Which you use depends on what you want to detect.

JudgeMental said:

Cymek said:

JudgeMental said:

yes, via a detector.

It doesn’t matter if its an active or passive detector I assume

no, it doesn’t matter. Which you use depends on what you want to detect.

So basically any interaction is an observation is a measurement and the whole distinction is bullshit and baloney and blasphemous.

SCIENCE said:

JudgeMental said:

Cymek said:

It doesn’t matter if its an active or passive detector I assume

no, it doesn’t matter. Which you use depends on what you want to detect.

So basically any interaction is an observation is a measurement and the whole distinction is bullshit and baloney and blasphemous.

Ha, ha, you’re bloody well right
You know, you’re right to say
Yeah, yeah, you’re bloody well right
You know, you’re right to say
And me, I don’t care anyway

What are waves?

What are particles.