Ep. 83: Wave Particle Duality

Have you ever heard that photons behave like both a particle and a wave and wondered what that meant? It’s true. Sometimes light acts like a wave, and other times it behaves like a little particle. It’s both. This week we discuss the experiments that demonstrate this, explain how scientists figured it all out in the first place. What does wave/particle duality have to do with astronomy? Well, everything, since light is the only way astronomers can see out into the Universe.

  • Episode 83: Wave Particle Duality
  • Jump to Shownotes : Coming Soon!
  • Jump to Transcript or Download (coming soon!)
  • Shownotes

    Coming Soon!

    Transcript: Wave Particle Duality

    Fraser Cain: Hi Pamela.

    Dr. Pamela Gay: Hey Fraser, how’s it going?

    Fraser: Good. So you’re going to be off on another trip shortly another Astronomy conference?

    Pamela: Well, the reality of it is by the time people are listening to this, I will be in Munich, Germany. And on Friday, I will be in Cambridge, England.

               In fact, if any of you are interested in going to a Pub with me, I will be at a Pub in Cambridge and the exact Pub will be listed on the BAUT Forum and on StarStryder.com.

    Fraser: Okay. Once again, I wish I could make it but it’s kind of expensive to fly to Germany.

                [Laughter]

    Pamela: Yeah.

    Fraser: Okay, so this week, it’s going to be another rough one.

                [Laughter]

               I think we’ve been putting off this side of science, so let’s go. Have you ever heard that light behaves like both a particle and a wave? That is a crazy dual nature of light. What does that really mean? How did scientists figure it out?

               Today we’re going to get into it and try to explain one of the most complicated and non-intuitive concepts in science. Get ready for a little lesson in quantum physics. Can you explain how does light behave like a wave and how does it behave like a particle?

    Pamela: Well, if you hit something with a photon of light it will move just like if you hit it with a soccer ball or something like that. This whole idea that you can hit something and it bounces and it moves just like you’d hit it with a particle is the particle nature of light.

    Fraser: Right and that’s the action that is keeping stars ballooning out. The photons are bumping against each other and trying to get out of the star and that’s what keeps the star up.

               That’s how solar sails work. You take the sail and put it in space and just the pressure of the photons bouncing into it will move the sail through space. Are there any other examples where we use this?

    Pamela: Well you can use it for imaging in fact. You can’t see something except for the fact that photons are coming from some light in the room and bouncing off of whatever you’re looking at and then going into your eye.

               So just that little thing, the fact that eye glasses work can explain the way that light reflects or refracts or the way rainbows are formed.

               All of this is explained initially by Newton through the particle idea of light.

    Fraser: So then how is light like a wave?

    Pamela: Now here’s where things get screwy. If you take a golf ball and you hit it the exact same way a thousand times, in a no wind environment, it will always fly the exact same way.

               If you take a thousand photons and you fling them through a slit a thousand times, they’re going to go all over the place. The pattern that they end up forming on the other side of the slit is the pattern that you would get from waves going through a slit.

    Fraser: Right, I’ve seen this. You have a sea wall and your waves are bumping up against the sea wall and there is a hole in the sea wall.

               Where the wave hits the hole then you get another little wave that comes out the other side of the hole and continues to propagate through the water.

    Pamela: And what’s really cool is you can have a perfectly straight wave front hitting this wall and the wave that comes out on the other side of the slit is round. So you end up with these round wave fronts radiating away.

    Fraser: Even an individual photon will still make that shape?

    Pamela: Well, not only that but if you have two slits, just like with two slits in a wave wall, you end up with interfering waves. In some places the waves get especially big and in some places they get especially small.

               With light when you have two waves that are interfering you can end up with places where you see no light. Where the light seems to cancel itself out and you end up with other places where the light seems to be especially bright.

               You get this interference pattern with only one photon going through at a time. So, how does one photon at a time manage to interfere with itself?

    Fraser: Hold on a second. One photon interferes with itself? I don’t understand.

    Pamela: No one does.

    Fraser: Okay, then what do you see? What’s the experiment to make one photon interfere with itself?

    Pamela: The experiment is actually kind of simple to set up. You just need to have a very precise light source. You can do this with a set of razor blades in fact. You take four razor blades and you very carefully set them up so that you end up with two razor-edged slits that the light can go through. Then you set up a screen on the far side of the room.

               Or if you want to do this with one foot on time, which you can’t see with your eyeball, you put a detector there, a CCD or something that will detect light. Then you take a laser and you put so many filters in front of it that all that’s getting through from that laser to hit that set of razor blades is one photon at a time.

               When you do this, the one photon goes out, through the slits, hits the detector on the other side and ends up leaving a single point of light on the detector. No big deal. But, if you let a second photon through, a third proton, and a few thousand photons through, it will build up a pattern of interfering waves.

               It’s in fact the exact same pattern that you get if you allow a few thousand photons to go through those two slits all at the same time and you can see the light and dark patterns with your eyeballs.

    Fraser: If you only had the one photon, it would actually be creating an interference pattern. You just can’t see the whole pattern yet because you’ve only pushed one photon through. But the pattern is essentially there.

    Pamela: What’s happening is when we detect that photon, it decides where it’s going to be, its wave function collapses. Its probability collapses and it picks a place and that’s the place it lands.

               All photons have the same set of probabilities. It’s most likely it will end up here. It’s least likely it will end up here. And just like if you roll the dice enough times you end up getting all the different numbers on the die.

               If you send enough photons through you end up building up the full pattern. When you send them through one at a time they each land where they land and the full pattern of all of them going through over time builds up this interference pattern.

    Fraser: So, does that mean that each individual photon, because they are building up that interference pattern, each photon is going through both slits at the same time?

    Pamela: This is where it gets philosophically confusing. You could either say there is a statistical probability that the photon is going to go through in all these different ways and the photon goes through in one of them.

               Or, you could say that the wave is passing through both slits interfering and the wave function is collapsing in a specific location on the screen.

    Fraser: Right.

    Pamela: So you can look at either statistically as it’s just picking a place and going through there just like you’re rolling the die and you can’t get one through six all at the same time. It picks one.

               Or you could say that when the observation is made, the wave function collapses and you have detection.

    Fraser: Right, but aren’t there ways that you can split up or block the photon from going in through one of the slits and you can get a better sense of what’s actually an impossible thing seem to be happening?

    Pamela: No. That’s the weird thing. There are some really cool experiments that have been done with this. If you block one of the slits, you get a completely different pattern for where the photons land. That’s one cool thing. You have to have both slits there in order for the photons to build up this distribution.

    Fraser: Yes, you just don’t get the interference pattern until you have both slits there.

    Pamela: Right. I saw the coolest demo a few years ago. One of the neat things about this is if you have two slits and you shine a laser through them you can actually see on the wall a diffraction pattern of bright spots separated out scattered across the wall.

               Now, if you put a lens in front of the slits, instead of getting the diffraction pattern, you can actually focus the two slits and get an image of the slits on the wall. This is one way that we say the lens forces the light to behave like particles instead of like waves.

               This is where we get into the whole “it’s both” argument. The slits make the photons interact with each other or perhaps with themselves and build a diffraction pattern, an interference pattern on the wall. The lenses force them to work like particles and you end up getting images of the slit on the wall.

               If before you put the lens in you very carefully take a grid of wires and you arrange the grids so that the wires are in the dark points on the diffraction pattern. Then when you’re looking at your screen all you are seeing is the diffraction pattern.

               When you’re looking at your experiment, you’re seeing laser shining on two slits and then this grid of wires that appears to do absolutely nothing. It’s just hanging out there. Then you see the pretty diffraction pattern.

               If you put that lens back in you just see these focused two slits. The wires in the experiment seem to have absolutely no affect on anything. You don’t see them at all.

               If you cover one of the two slits and the wires aren’t there, then the lens causes you to just see one image of one of the slits. But, with the wires there, if you cover up one of the slits, and you get rid of the interference, all of a sudden you can see the wires in the lens.

               It’s the creepiest thing ever to watch. There are videos of this.

               There’s a man in New England, his last name is Afshar, who has been doing this experiment. No one is quite sure they understand his interpretation of the experiment.

               But what it is showing is a photon is simultaneously a wave and a particle. It’s just cool.

    Fraser: All right, now let’s go into the how we know what we know part. How on Earth did scientists figure this out? As I mentioned in the intro, this is completely [Laughter] non-intuitive to come up with the answer that light behaves as both a particle and a wave is about the last thing that you would rationally conclude.

               It’s not surprising that it took so long for scientists to get to the bottom of this or to the top of it. [Laughter] So, how did they even go down this road?

    Pamela: We’ve been arguing over it for about 400 years. This is one of those things that made people feel queasy to their stomachs starting as early as Christiaan Huygens.

               He was playing with light and noticed this cool if you shine light through a slit, you get an interference pattern. If you shine light through two slits you get a different interference pattern.

               It’s just cool. It can only be explained with waves.

    Fraser: Right, so I guess he said “that’s it, case closed, it’s waves.”

    Pamela: Right. Except Newton working not that differently in time said “no. It must be a particle. Look light reflects.” It reflects light particles. You hit a mirror at a 45 degree angle. The light goes off at a 45 degree angle.

    Fraser: Right, ocean waves don’t reflect in the same way particles do.

    Pamela: Right. Because of this difference in how waves reflect and how light reflects, Newton said no, particle. He was able to go on and build beautiful mathematical explanations for reflection for refraction, for light going through prisms and forming rainbows all based on a particle understanding of light.

               We have Huygens explaining interference and diffraction patterns using a wave nature to light and we have Newton explaining lenses and reflection and rainbows using a particle theory of light. We have these two competing theories. Things continued and continued.

               Then finally, in the 1800s, there were two more scientists who did a bunch of experiments using interfering light again; Thomas Young and Augustin-Jean Fresnel.

               Fresnel is the person who came up with the perfectly flat, weirdly textured pieces of plastic that allow you to essentially magnify what is behind your motor home or something. Those funky little magnifying flat things use interference of waves.

               Young and Fresnel said “interference patterns, it’s a wave.” Maxwell came along and with his theories of electro-mechanics and his equations of electro-mechanics he built into all of this mathematics which explained electricity, magnetism and all the cool stuff of the day, he built in the idea of waves. The dominant scientific way of thinking was waves in the 1800s.

               Then things changed again. In the early 1900s, from about 1901-1905, we had people doing more experiments. This is where we keep getting into problems. One set of experiments says particles while another set of experiments says waves.

               The people then working in the early 1900s were saying weird. This now acts like particles, sort of. So we had Max Planck who was trying to explain the distribution of the colors of light that come off of heated objects. This is black body radiation.

               If you’ve ever seen an old generation episode of ‘Star Trek’, when Captain Kirk heats up a rock with his phaser and it glows red that’s black body radiation. Any of you who have ever used a kiln when you heat things up and they glow in the kiln, that color is directly related to the temperature of the kiln.

               Hot coils on your stove are again black body radiation. He was trying to explain mathematically why you get the distribution of light that is observed.

               The only way he could explain it was to say that it looks like the energy allowed must have specific values. It must have what we call quantized values. He came up with a model of the oscillators and the atoms having quantized energies.

               Today we understand this as atoms have different allowed energy levels and they release photons with specific energies related to those allowed energy levels. This was a particle idea.

               We also had Einstein come along with his photoelectric effect which is what he got for his first Nobel Prize. What he found with the photoelectric effect is that if you have a sheet of metal and you shine a blue light on it, you can often get it to conduct electricity by hitting the atoms with light that causes the electrons to leave the atoms.

               If you use pretty feeble blue light, the metal just sat there and went, ‘yeah, I don’t care”. But if you hit it with brighter blue light current would flow.

               If you used red light, you could blast it with as much red light as you wanted and nothing would happen. This seemed to indicate that different colors of light carried different individual energies.

               So that when you look at a light beam, the brightness that you see is related to how many particles of light there are. The energy in each individual particle is related to the color.

               What was happening in the red light versus blue light case was: If you have a power pitcher imagine with like cricket or baseball, and they’re throwing a fast ball, that fast ball is going to hurt when it hits and if in this case we have this powerful blue photon and it hits a piece of metal’s atom just right, it will fling off an electron and it’s going to fly somewhere.

    Fraser: Like in your analogy, the ball is hitting so hard that a catcher lets it drop back out again. Or let’s something drop back out again.

    Pamela: Exactly. [Laughter] The brightness is how many balls you have flying at one time.

    Fraser: But if you have a little leaguer throwing that ball the catcher is not going to let go of it.

    Pamela: Yeah, so it’s just going to hold on. You can have as many little leaguers as you want throwing baseballs and they’re probably not going to hurt anyone.

               But, if you have only one power pitcher out there, and there are 40 catchers, he may not be able to get past those 40.

               If you get ten power pitchers out there, they probably have a chance at to get at least one of those catchers to drop a ball.

               What’s happening is with the blue light, it is able to knock electrons out and the brightness just says how many pitchers you have going. The color is how powerful the throw and the brightness is how many throwers.

    Fraser: So we’re back to particle.

    Pamela: We’re back to particle. There is this terrible moment of “oh no, oh dear”. Max Planck has these great equations that say wave, wave, wave, wave. But Einstein has this great explanation that’s particle, particle, particle. Wow, it’s both.

    Fraser: There must have been just some awful fights. [Laughter] Can you imagine the battles? Because they’re both right and so when you’re both right and the evidence supports you, the battles must have just been ferocious.

    Pamela: Yes. That’s an understatement.

    Fraser: Enemies must have been made. Funding must have been cut. [Laughter] Oh, it must have been awful.

    Pamela: And it gets even worse. With light, yeah fine, it doesn’t have mass let’s let it be both a wave and a particle. Okay, it’s just this weird thing.

    Then a guy by the name of de Broglie came around in 1924 and he says no, everything has a wavelength. You have a wavelength Fraser.

    Fraser: So not just photons, but larger things like electrons or atoms…..

    Pamela: Buckeyball.

    Fraser: So, I’m both a particle and a wave. That’s what you’re saying. All of our listeners are both particles and waves or a collection of particles and a collection of waves.

    Pamela: Yes. Isn’t that cool?

    Fraser: Well then, I mean don’t [Laughter] get to the buckeyball yet. So you’re saying that like a proton….let’s say an atom, a hydrogen atom. How is that both a particle and a wave?

    Pamela: It’s hard to explain. The way that we look at it is every object has this wavelength over which it exists. It is capable of interacting and things like that.

               This is in part defined by our uncertainty in being able to figure out where things are. The way I figure out where you are is I look at you which requires me to look at you with light. Light is coming from some source and hitting you and coming back to me.

               If I try looking at you in radio light which has huge wavelengths, I can only figure out where you are within the wavelength of that radio wave. But if I start looking at you with x-ray light, I’m probably going to give you cancer, but I can really figure out where you are because my uncertainty is the same size as that x-ray wavelength which is very tiny.

               Now if your wavelength is such that your specific uncertainty in you is something that is commensurate with the wavelength of how I’m trying to look at you. You can interfere with yourself.

               It gets to what are the spacings between the slits, what are the sizes of the slits, what is your wavelength.
    Your wavelength is defined by well, this is the de Broglie wavelength. It’s defined by this constant called the Plancks constant divided by your momentum.

    Fraser: Is it almost like an averaging out of all the particles in my body?

    Pamela: It’s that everything has this intrinsic uncertainty in where’s it’s located. This intrinsic little jiggle is what we refer to as the de Broglie wavelength. The catch is that for you, you large human being you, this uncertainty is so small that it’s actually smaller than if I turned you into a black hole what your short shield radius would be.

               There’s basically no uncertainty in where you are because I can’t measure anything that tiny.

    Fraser: But for single particles, for instance, haven’t scientists been able to make hydrogen atoms behave like a wave?

    Pamela: We can make hydrogen atoms behave like waves, we can make actually the smallest bacteria if we wanted to we could make behave like a wave. We’ve actually, not me personally, but there was an experiment in 1999 in Vienna where a group of scientists took buckminsterfullerenes.

               These are molecules made up of 60 carbon atoms. They were able to make these buckminsterfullerenes behave in this wave-like interfering way and get this diffraction going on.

               This statistical uncertainty in position led to a distribution on how they were measuring where these things ended up on the other side of two slits. That’s just kind of cool.

               You have these 60 carbon atoms in this soccer ball like shape that are perfectly happy to interfere with each other. That’s a pretty big atom.

    Fraser: Yeah. That’s amazing. So your ability to detect that or the ability to interfere or the precision with where you are gets harder to measure the more mass that you have, the more particles that you have. Right. Okay.

               So, what is the current research into this? Where are scientists trying to push the limits of this right now? Apart from making fullerenes behave like waves.

                [Laughter]

    Pamela: It’s always fun to see what new and interesting things you can get to diffract. There’s also the question of how do we interpret this? One of the classic things that people say is: individual items are wave functions and they move through space in packets.
    Wave packets is one way that we look at things and we can either know how fast that thing is moving or we can know where it’s located but we can’t know both and that when we make an observation, we’re collapsing a wave function. So you can never observe something as both a wave and a particle.

               People are trying to figure out if that is true. Can you really not observe the wave function and the particle at the same time? This is where the arguing over the experiment I explained earlier with the wires and the diffraction and the lens comes in. We’ll put some links to some stories on that.

               There’s also well … really the wave function only collapses into a particle when an observation is made or is it really a just a particle all the time and there is this statistical wierdness. There are still philosophical arguments going on as well. Then there’s the old are we really limited to you can either know where something is located or how fast it is going and not both.

               Is there any magical way using enough technology to get around what is called the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle? That’s where you start to get into things like we can’t have Star Trek transporter beams until we figure out the uncertainty principle, because how do you put someone back together.

               Trying to figure out if these are actual limits or things that there is always somebody trying to do?

    Fraser: Right, and there are some other aspects of this like entanglement and like that concept of Schrödinger’s cat, the uncertainty, so I think we’ll come back to this in future shows and have another go at it.

               I think we wanted to get across today just how to understand that when you hear that wave particle duality, what are we talking about and how do we figure it out and what were the experiments that brought that into play. I think that was a really good explanation.

               I’m sure we’ll get a lot of questions but there’s going to be more shows on this. I know this is an astronomy pod cast, but there is so much physics involved that there are many times where we have to bring this stuff in as well. So bear with us.

    Pamela: Spectrographs wouldn’t work without light interfering. Stars wouldn’t support themselves without waves acting like particles. Everything that makes astronomy work goes back to the wave particle duality of light.

    Fraser: Well there you go then, there’s our explanation.

    Pamela: And it’s just really cool that the uncertainty in you and I is smaller than our short shield radius. I just think that’s cool.

    Fraser: Right. That’s the event horizon of a black hole. If you took my mass, turned me into a black hole, the size where nothing, not even light could escape, that’s my uncertainty – smaller than that.

    Pamela: And that’s just cool.

    Fraser: We’ll talk to you next week Pamela. Have a good trip.

    This transcript is not an exact match to the audio file. It has been edited for clarity. Transcription and editing by Cindy Leonard.

    30 Responses to Ep. 83: Wave Particle Duality

    1. mike macewich April 7, 2008 at 7:17 pm #

      I often hear people say that light is both a particle and a wave. That’s not how I interpret the experimental results. Light is a particle. But the probability of detecting photons at various locations varies cyclically which gives the results a wave-like quality.

    2. Christian R April 7, 2008 at 8:52 pm #

      Thanks for a great episode. I think this animated video explains the double slit experiment well:
      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DfPeprQ7oGc

    3. giggles April 8, 2008 at 6:41 am #

      i would like to that that experiment pamela was talking about (the one with the wires).
      does somebody know where to find it?

    4. Jerry April 8, 2008 at 7:31 am #

      I wonder if one could have two independent observations of a single photon, such that each got either the velocity or the position of the photon at a given time. Then in sharing the results the Heisenberg Principle would effectively have been bypassed for that photon, as we could then know both its velocity and position at that instant in time.

    5. Sophie April 8, 2008 at 11:01 am #

      This is a fascinating episode. However, I’ve often wondered if the confusion could be diminished a little by saying that light is neither a particle nor a wave, but can behave like both simultaneously, under certain physical circumstances. Thank you Christian for posting the link to the experiment; I was looking for that.

    6. Bill April 8, 2008 at 2:55 pm #

      Amazing episode!

      Thanks to Christian R (and Dr. Quantum) for the link to the animated video. It really helped.

      When will entanglement be discussed???

    7. Mark April 9, 2008 at 4:53 am #

      Uh… Christian (and anyone else who watches that video),

      The video has a subtle but important misrepresentation at the end about ‘observation’. The act of observation is not passive but in and of itself is an agent of change. Kind of like dipping your finger in a pie to figure out how hot it is; the figure itself interferes with the thermal state of the pie in question. That video although mostly accurate is somewhat misleading about what it means to observe (please actually read as interfere) an event and it was an intentional (or idiotic) misrepresentation of otherwise well established science.

      But the illustrated concepts of everything else that does not refer to an observer (as a silly passive eye ball) in that particular video is mostly accurate.

      FYI: the video is from a movie called “What the *bleep* do we know?” and it is jam packed with pseudo-scientific nonsense punctuated by carefully edited and written shots to misrepresent otherwise good science. Seriously, avoid this movie or at least do not take anything it suggests at face value… they’re abusing good science in favor of a back door soft-sell for Hinduism. Everyone should be VERY skeptical about “Dr. Quantum’s” subtle but significant errors in explaining (or lack of explaining) what ‘observation’ factually means in these types of experiments.

      Thanks,
      Mark

    8. Gerard April 9, 2008 at 7:12 am #

      i dont think ” wave / particle duality” is correct. It is neither ??

      They have a probabalistic nature and require a new name???

    9. Gerard April 9, 2008 at 7:16 am #

      I think ????

    10. Dan April 9, 2008 at 9:38 am #

      First off I am not a physicist, just an engineer, so I have to think of things in ways that are different (purely theoretical concepts normally make my brain hurt) than most people.

      It doesn’t make sense that a photon can be both and somehow ‘knows’ how we are measuring it. I think that we just don’t understand what a photon really is and are over simplifying the concept, which results in the appearance of duality.

      But in the interest of contradicting myself I recall being told an analogy that is interesting, whether its accurate or not I don’t know.

      It goes something like this: If you think of the ocean. The molecules of the water are particles, but in bulk they move in waves. If you extend this to photons then there needs to be a medium for this to happen in (I think), like the ether theory.

      Just my 0.5 cent.

      Dan

    11. Icepick April 9, 2008 at 12:31 pm #

      @Dan

      That was along the lines of what I was thinking. Like there is some kind of carrier wave that we can’t detect?

      Anyway you slice it, funky and cool.

    12. John April 9, 2008 at 1:11 pm #

      We can’t know what a photon is, but we do know that under certain circumstances, it behaves as a particle. And in other circumstances it behaves like a wave.

      Don’t think you know what’s really going on. No body does. But we have a good mathematical description of what’s going on, even if we can’t relate that to anything in the macroscopic world.

      My way of thinking about it, is that a photon is a mathematical probability field, not a particle or a wave. In other words, a region of space which satisfies certain probabilistic equations about position, energy, momentum etc… I just follow the maths that way.

    13. Mitch April 9, 2008 at 11:13 pm #

      One of the things that blows my mind about the duality is its application to astromony. Imagine a star light years away emitting photons. If these photons are particles, then after a few thousands of miles or so, the particles ought to be spread out so thinly that one could stand at some place but not detect the star (i.e., not be hit by the photon). No matter how dense the initial spread of photons is, eventually they must spread out and eventually there should be blank spaces between them. Alternatively, the stars would blink between the time one photon hit our detectors (eyes) and another.

      But that does not appear to be the actual case. Only the wave framework can explain our actual observation of the stars. Still, when we aim particle detectors at the stars — CCDs for example — the photons act like particles.

      I suspect that the answer lies in the nature of matter itself.

    14. Gerard April 10, 2008 at 3:50 am #

      The new name is ” Probe”.

      Please update all your text books>

    15. Gerard April 10, 2008 at 3:53 am #

      A Probe can release all its energy at once under certain conditions, and can cancel and spread itself out under other conditions.?

    16. Gerard April 10, 2008 at 3:56 am #

      All the math has been worked out to describe Probes.

      Move on …..

    17. aurora_waters April 11, 2008 at 5:01 am #

      This duality doesn’t only apply to photon/light it also applies to electrons, proton and all other matter. And we know for a fact that electrons are matter, we know the mass of electrons, however under certain circumstances they also exhibit wavelike behaviour, such as diffraction and interference patterns. Yet they are still definitely particles. From what I have learned so far at university is that quantum behaviour is at another level of existence to what we can ever experience, and the way the particles behave like waves is to do with the mathematical construct with complex numbers that we use to describe these effects. My physics lecturer has specifically told us not to think of these particles as waves, the waves exist only in the complex/imaginary construct of the mathematics involved.

    18. bill hicks April 11, 2008 at 4:36 pm #

      i think we should ask Uri Geller

    19. Mitch April 15, 2008 at 11:43 pm #

      Aurora: I am also a outsider to this area. What I have read suggests that we not think of these particles as waves, but that their behaviour can be explained by the same mathematical principles that explain waves. I seem to recall that this is also the basis for Feymann’s theories, and that even the Heisenberg uncertainty principle can be explained as a result of wave mathematics.

      Still, “another level of existence” is too abstract for me. There must eventually be a way to explain how electrons can be everywhere and somewhere at the same time, depending only on whether an observer has collapsed the “wave function.”

    20. Thomas April 16, 2008 at 7:42 pm #

      Thanks for the great episode!

      All I can say is that from my studies, I am leaning towards the conclusion that ‘Light’ is simply energy moving thru a quantum sea of (so called) particles. It seems to resolve a lot of the inconsistencies for the Wave-Particle duality in my mind, but it’s very difficult to explain (and I don’t have the equipment to verify this experimentally). So, for now I accept the inconsistencies and standard duality of our current physics.

      Thanks to both Fraser and Dr. Gay for making the universe accessible to all!

    21. Rahne April 19, 2008 at 1:47 pm #

      Anybody got the story on how scientists managed to get bacteria to interfere with itself? I mean, that’s plain weird, but cool.

    22. Bill April 21, 2008 at 1:51 pm #

      Rahne: do you have a reference?

    23. pie hole June 5, 2008 at 5:38 pm #

      @ Dan

      Are you Dan Pearson, UK prof and engineer? Reading your new book, man, loving it. I would recognize your cogent logic anywhere. Drop in again.

    24. Peter September 13, 2008 at 11:04 pm #

      Would you be willing to trade links with my website http://www.thevertigomanuscripts.com. I have postuled yet another theory on the wave particle duality.

      Sincerely,

      Peter Radford

    25. Joseph Stayton November 6, 2008 at 12:15 pm #

      Well hello Astronomy Cast,
      My name is Joseph Stayton (stay-ton) and I am from and live in Tacoma Washington. In the Astronomy Cast episode titled “wave-particle duality,” I couldn’t help but notice that the description of the double slit experiment is described in two distinct manors, which are inconsistent. In one, the experiment is described in the same context that I have always understood. Pamela describes the effect observed when a very precise light source is projected through a slit (through one slit only) producing an interference pattern from which a different interference pattern is observed when the same light is projected through two slits. She also agrees with Frasier when he states that two slits are needed for an interference pattern to be observed i.e. with only one slit there is no interference pattern observed. Pamela also describes a “diffraction pattern” being observed with only one slit, which I interpreted as another word for interference suggesting an interference pattern. Prior to listening to this pod cast, every description of the results observed from the double slit experiment that I have encountered describes interference patterns as being observed only when there are two or more slits. Pamela describes how anyone can set up this experiment at home by very precisely setting up four razorblades to construct two slits. If you have set them up properly, when a laser is projected through the latter slits an interference pattern will be observed. Now if one of the two slits is blocked the interference pattern, according to my understanding prior to this episode of astronomy cast, should disappear.
      Because Pamela describes in one instance that an interference pattern will be observed when a laser is projected through one slit, which is in opposition to what I have come to understand of the double slit experiment , me and a friend went out and got a couple of lasers, some razor blades and set up the experiment. I was expecting to observe an interference pattern when we projected a laser through two slits but not when projected through only one. Nevertheless, no matter what adjustment we made to try and make sure that we only allowed light through one slit we always observed an interference pattern, and in fact when we examined the laser beam itself, we observed an interference pattern by simply pointing the laser at the wall without going through any slits at all, though it was noticeably different than either of the other interference patters we observed, it was still there. We tried all three instances with several different lasers set up in different apparatus’s and in all instances we observed interference patterns, however different they may have been. The only way we were able to observe the lasers on the wall without producing interference patterns is when we placed both the laser and the slits very close to the wall in comparison with the distances required for us to observe these interference patterns. Would it possible that the lasers we used are somehow causing these interference patterns, possibly because they were cheap and therefore not as precise of a light source needed to conduct this experiment? Also, are there other instances when this experiment has been conducted in which the experimenters observed similar results, if not, was it just an honest mistake when Pamela describes an interference pattern being observed when light is projected through only one slit? Pamela describing interference patterns being observed when light is projected through one slit caused some confusion, and that’s what motivated me and my friend to conduct this experiment ourselves, the results of which has further confused us. Is there any way you guys could possibly clarify this confusion?

      Appreciatively,
      Joseph A. Stayton

    26. Chip Krug January 27, 2009 at 11:53 pm #

      I have not been able to find video described in this episode of a double slit experiment with the addition of a wire grid in front of the screen. The name Afshar is mentioned. Can you suggest a way to find it? Do you have a link?

      Thanks,
      Chip

      PS. I watched the Feynman Lectures and recommend them for a more in depth lesson on this. They are intended for non-physicists and are charming as well as informative. He insists photons are particles, corpuscles, and only appear to act as waves. http://vega.org.uk/video/subseries/8

    27. Osip April 5, 2009 at 5:25 am #

      Haven’t been able to find the video, either, but there’s a comprehensive Wikipedia entry on the subject:

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

    28. Ah I get it May 26, 2009 at 1:03 am #

      Ah I get it ..there is no such thing as duality. And all these experiments could be explained just with the theory of particle plus uncertainity principle.
      So light particle always shows on the screen following uncertainity principle. i.e. when you put a slit in the path of the particle it passes thru slit but just because you are trying to ascertain its position in the mid air, its velocity will change uncertainly in the direction of propagation by bending a small but angle. Hence the distribution pattern on screen. This explains the difraction at edges too.
      Do ask me the source of uncertainity principle..becos am not too certain abt that.

    29. John Mahony June 9, 2009 at 6:15 am #

      Great episode, really gets the ol’ neurons firing for non-specialists!
      Just as a connection to the sci-fi Vs real science episodes (DragonCon etc) concerning star trek transporters……there was an episode in The Next Generation where they were fooling around with the transporters and something called a “Heisenberg Compensator” was acting up…..I thought it was great that they even bothered to take it into account!

    30. Robert Reppy, from Tampa, FL July 17, 2009 at 7:58 pm #

      Is this a valid way to conceptualize what a photon is?: Using the familiar analogy of space-time as a vast rubber sheet that stellar and planetary massed create huge dimples in, isn’t a photon packet of energy like a vibration in that space-time sheet propogating itself like a ripple?

    Leave a Reply

    Powered by WordPress. Designed by WooThemes