Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

" width="8" height="8"/> The Definition Of A Particle?, ... in quantum mechanics
Outline · Standard · [ Linear+ ]
Questess
post Mar 25 2003, 11:33 PM
Post #1


Frost Ninja O_o
******

Group: Members
Posts: 1,553
Joined: 30-January 03
From: Umeň, Sweden
Member No.: 248



Can anyone tell me what it is?
Top
User is offlinePMEmail Poster
Quote Post

2 Pages  1 2 > 
Reply to this topicStart new topicStart Poll

Replies(1 - 30)
Telum
post Mar 25 2003, 11:49 PM
Post #2


Admin
********

Group: Moderators
Posts: 7,429
Joined: 20-December 02
Member No.: 224



a probability
Top
User is offlinePM
Quote Post
Questess
post Mar 25 2003, 11:55 PM
Post #3


Frost Ninja O_o
******

Group: Members
Posts: 1,553
Joined: 30-January 03
From: Umeň, Sweden
Member No.: 248



What? I mean, it's said that a particle/wave duality exists and whatever it is, it has both particle and wave properties. Now I know the definition of a wave pretty well and I've seen numerous examples in where it's shown how it has wave properties, but it'd be nice to know what the exact definition of a particle is (ie, what differs it from a wave... that it has mass?) and perhaps an example in where it's shown how it has particle properties aswell as wave properties.
Top
User is offlinePMEmail Poster
Quote Post
Telum
post Mar 25 2003, 11:56 PM
Post #4


Admin
********

Group: Moderators
Posts: 7,429
Joined: 20-December 02
Member No.: 224



There is no such thing as a particle. All things have a wavelength. Go a google on deBroglie wavelengths
Top
User is offlinePM
Quote Post
Questess
post Mar 26 2003, 12:25 AM
Post #5


Frost Ninja O_o
******

Group: Members
Posts: 1,553
Joined: 30-January 03
From: Umeň, Sweden
Member No.: 248



But there has to be such a thing, or they wouldn't say that a particle/wave duality exists. If there were no evidence that particles existed and that things were not just a wave, they wouldn't claim that it is, right?
Top
User is offlinePMEmail Poster
Quote Post
Seb
post Mar 26 2003, 12:35 AM
Post #6


I am Mehul
****

Group: Members
Posts: 316
Joined: 16-June 02
From: Pimlico village, London, UK
Member No.: 17



There is no such thing as a wave. There is no such thing as a particle.

There are these things (call them wave-particles) and in some situations they exhibit wave like behavious, in others particle like behaviour. But waves and particles are just models for reality rather than reality itself.
Top
User is offlinePMEmail Poster
Quote Post
Questess
post Mar 26 2003, 12:36 AM
Post #7


Frost Ninja O_o
******

Group: Members
Posts: 1,553
Joined: 30-January 03
From: Umeň, Sweden
Member No.: 248



Seb,

QUOTE
in others particle like behaviour


Can you give an example of this? And define 'particle like behaviour'? ^_^

This post has been edited by Questess: Mar 26 2003, 12:37 AM
Top
User is offlinePMEmail Poster
Quote Post
Questess
post Mar 26 2003, 12:38 AM
Post #8


Frost Ninja O_o
******

Group: Members
Posts: 1,553
Joined: 30-January 03
From: Umeň, Sweden
Member No.: 248



Llywelyn,

Sounds likely.. but do you know if a defined definition exists? Such as "In quantum mechanics, a particle is defined as... "

EDIT: Llywelyn, where did your post go? :ph34r:

This post has been edited by Questess: Mar 26 2003, 12:39 AM
Top
User is offlinePMEmail Poster
Quote Post
Llywelyn
post Mar 26 2003, 12:49 AM
Post #9


Mezameru Kotonaikedo
********

Group: Members
Posts: 5,735
Joined: 26-June 02
From: New Orleans, LA
Member No.: 64



Questess: wanted to rewrite it and so I deleted it :-)

Not to my knowledge. There believe there is a definition for a quantum particle, but not for a "generalized particle".
Top
User is offlinePMEmail Poster
Quote Post
Questess
post Mar 26 2003, 12:57 AM
Post #10


Frost Ninja O_o
******

Group: Members
Posts: 1,553
Joined: 30-January 03
From: Umeň, Sweden
Member No.: 248



You don't happen to know the definition of a quantum particle then? I think that might be what I'm looking for anyways ^_^
Top
User is offlinePMEmail Poster
Quote Post
Raider
post Mar 26 2003, 01:07 AM
Post #11


Why?
********

Group: JFTD
Posts: 5,736
Joined: 19-August 02
Member No.: 130



Hmm...a group of greater than one quanta?

That would make earth a particle, but I reckon it could be called that. Particles are just bunched up packets of energy, as is the earth.
Top
User is offlinePMEmail Poster
Quote Post
Llywelyn
post Mar 26 2003, 01:08 AM
Post #12


Mezameru Kotonaikedo
********

Group: Members
Posts: 5,735
Joined: 26-June 02
From: New Orleans, LA
Member No.: 64



Top
User is offlinePMEmail Poster
Quote Post
Questess
post Mar 26 2003, 01:08 AM
Post #13


Frost Ninja O_o
******

Group: Members
Posts: 1,553
Joined: 30-January 03
From: Umeň, Sweden
Member No.: 248



Raider,

But what differs it from a wave? I believe one quantum can be called a particle...?
Top
User is offlinePMEmail Poster
Quote Post
Questess
post Mar 26 2003, 01:14 AM
Post #14


Frost Ninja O_o
******

Group: Members
Posts: 1,553
Joined: 30-January 03
From: Umeň, Sweden
Member No.: 248



Llywelyn,

Thanks, it seems like it requires a mass and a momentum to be a particle. It does not need a location? And does it have a volume?

What's a momentum though? Is it impuls (mv) or is it energy from movement (as opposed to potential energy)? Or something else?
Top
User is offlinePMEmail Poster
Quote Post
MindsWideOpen
post Mar 26 2003, 01:16 AM
Post #15


Ceci n'est pas vie.


Group: Forum Donor
Posts: 8,799
Joined: 18-August 02
From: Slightly Pink
Member No.: 120



momentum is "r÷relsemńngd", or (mv) plainly put. And I believe that impulse is (<delta>mv)?
Top
User is offlinePMEmail Poster
Quote Post
Llywelyn
post Mar 26 2003, 01:17 AM
Post #16


Mezameru Kotonaikedo
********

Group: Members
Posts: 5,735
Joined: 26-June 02
From: New Orleans, LA
Member No.: 64



Yep.

Sigma Force = dp/dt
Top
User is offlinePMEmail Poster
Quote Post
Raider
post Mar 26 2003, 01:21 AM
Post #17


Why?
********

Group: JFTD
Posts: 5,736
Joined: 19-August 02
Member No.: 130



QUOTE
A particle in an "indivisible" unit of matter.


It would seem to me that a particle has just been defined as nonexistant. Maybe not.

questess,

Particles act like waves. They thing is, they do it in such a fashion that you have a hard time noticing it.
Top
User is offlinePMEmail Poster
Quote Post
Raider
post Mar 26 2003, 01:22 AM
Post #18


Why?
********

Group: JFTD
Posts: 5,736
Joined: 19-August 02
Member No.: 130



QUOTE
I believe one quantum can be called a particle...?


No..that is raw energy.
Top
User is offlinePMEmail Poster
Quote Post
Questess
post Mar 26 2003, 01:23 AM
Post #19


Frost Ninja O_o
******

Group: Members
Posts: 1,553
Joined: 30-January 03
From: Umeň, Sweden
Member No.: 248



MindsWideOpen,

So it's 'r÷relseenergi'?

Raider,

I have no doubt about the waves, I was looking for examples of waves acting like particles ^_~ I think the particle/wave duality is closer to waves than particles, if I can use that expression...
Top
User is offlinePMEmail Poster
Quote Post
Questess
post Mar 26 2003, 01:24 AM
Post #20


Frost Ninja O_o
******

Group: Members
Posts: 1,553
Joined: 30-January 03
From: Umeň, Sweden
Member No.: 248



QUOTE
No..that is raw energy.


So is it possible to define how many quanta a... say, photon consists of?
Top
User is offlinePMEmail Poster
Quote Post
Llywelyn
post Mar 26 2003, 01:24 AM
Post #21


Mezameru Kotonaikedo
********

Group: Members
Posts: 5,735
Joined: 26-June 02
From: New Orleans, LA
Member No.: 64



Note the quotations. Two protons can be separated, one can be defined as a particle.

Remember, this models reality and all models are wrong.
Top
User is offlinePMEmail Poster
Quote Post
Llywelyn
post Mar 26 2003, 01:25 AM
Post #22


Mezameru Kotonaikedo
********

Group: Members
Posts: 5,735
Joined: 26-June 02
From: New Orleans, LA
Member No.: 64



QUOTE (Questess @ Mar 25 2003, 06:24 PM)

So is it possible to define how many quanta a... say, photon consists of?

By definition, one.
Top
User is offlinePMEmail Poster
Quote Post
Llywelyn
post Mar 26 2003, 01:27 AM
Post #23


Mezameru Kotonaikedo
********

Group: Members
Posts: 5,735
Joined: 26-June 02
From: New Orleans, LA
Member No.: 64



Two protons could also be defined as a "helium particle"
Top
User is offlinePMEmail Poster
Quote Post
Raider
post Mar 26 2003, 01:27 AM
Post #24


Why?
********

Group: JFTD
Posts: 5,736
Joined: 19-August 02
Member No.: 130



QUOTE
So is it possible to define how many quanta a... say, photon consists of?


Yes...

QUOTE
I have no doubt about the waves, I was looking for examples of waves acting like particles


Uhh...? You are a collection of waves acting like a collection of particles.

QUOTE
Note the quotations.


Booo. That takes away the meaning of it, if you get to play with the meaning of an essential part of the definition.
Top
User is offlinePMEmail Poster
Quote Post
Raider
post Mar 26 2003, 01:28 AM
Post #25


Why?
********

Group: JFTD
Posts: 5,736
Joined: 19-August 02
Member No.: 130



Really, the waves arn't acting likes particles (as there is no such thing as particles), but I think you can imagine what I mean.
Top
User is offlinePMEmail Poster
Quote Post
Llywelyn
post Mar 26 2003, 01:29 AM
Post #26


Mezameru Kotonaikedo
********

Group: Members
Posts: 5,735
Joined: 26-June 02
From: New Orleans, LA
Member No.: 64



Raider:

It is a model, apply it where and how you will. You simply define what you are working with to be indivisible and work from there.
Top
User is offlinePMEmail Poster
Quote Post
Questess
post Mar 26 2003, 02:02 AM
Post #27


Frost Ninja O_o
******

Group: Members
Posts: 1,553
Joined: 30-January 03
From: Umeň, Sweden
Member No.: 248



Raider quote:

QUOTE
Me: I believe one quantum can be called a particle...?


No..that is raw energy.


Llywelyn quotes:

QUOTE
Two protons can be separated, one can be defined as a particle.


QUOTE
Me: So is it possible to define how many quanta a... say, photon consists of?

By definition, one.


---

They don't agree...?

---

QUOTE
You are a collection of waves acting like a collection of particles.

QUOTE
Really, the waves arn't acting likes particles (as there is no such thing as particles)


So why mix in particles at all? Why not say they're just waves?
Top
User is offlinePMEmail Poster
Quote Post
Seb
post Mar 26 2003, 02:10 AM
Post #28


I am Mehul
****

Group: Members
Posts: 316
Joined: 16-June 02
From: Pimlico village, London, UK
Member No.: 17



Questess:

An electron can exhibit particle like behaviour in the case of colliding electron beams into targets, or wave like behaviour when you pass it through a slit.

JJ Thompson won a Nobel prise for prooving the electron was a particle. His son won one for prooving it was a wave.
Top
User is offlinePMEmail Poster
Quote Post
Questess
post Mar 26 2003, 02:18 AM
Post #29


Frost Ninja O_o
******

Group: Members
Posts: 1,553
Joined: 30-January 03
From: Umeň, Sweden
Member No.: 248



Seb, thank you ^_^ Any more info on the experiment of colliding electron beams into targets would be very appreciated ^_^
Top
User is offlinePMEmail Poster
Quote Post
Raider
post Mar 26 2003, 02:19 AM
Post #30


Why?
********

Group: JFTD
Posts: 5,736
Joined: 19-August 02
Member No.: 130



Questess, it is just a matter of perspective. The universe is nothing more than energy reacting.

Waves and particles are just symbols to explain patterns we perceive, not actual things.
Top
User is offlinePMEmail Poster
Quote Post

2 Pages  1 2 >
Reply to this topicTopic OptionsStart new topic

 


Lo-Fi Version
Time is now: 15th June 2006 - 04:29 AM