The first ever photograph of light as both a particle and wave

March 2, 2015

(Phys.org)—Light behaves both as a particle and as a wave. Since the days of Einstein, scientists have been trying to directly observe both of these aspects of light at the same time. Now, scientists at EPFL have succeeded in capturing the first-ever snapshot of this dual behavior.

Quantum mechanics tells us that can behave simultaneously as a particle or a wave. However, there has never been an experiment able to capture both natures of light at the same time; the closest we have come is seeing either wave or particle, but always at different times. Taking a radically different experimental approach, EPFL scientists have now been able to take the first ever snapshot of light behaving both as a wave and as a particle. The breakthrough work is published in Nature Communications.

When UV light hits a metal surface, it causes an emission of . Albert Einstein explained this "photoelectric" effect by proposing that light – thought to only be a wave – is also a stream of particles. Even though a variety of experiments have successfully observed both the particle- and wave-like behaviors of light, they have never been able to observe both at the same time.

A research team led by Fabrizio Carbone at EPFL has now carried out an experiment with a clever twist: using electrons to image light. The researchers have captured, for the first time ever, a single snapshot of light behaving simultaneously as both a wave and a stream of particles.

The experiment is set up like this: A pulse of laser light is fired at a tiny metallic nanowire. The laser adds energy to the charged particles in the nanowire, causing them to vibrate. Light travels along this tiny wire in two possible directions, like cars on a highway. When waves traveling in opposite directions meet each other they form a new wave that looks like it is standing in place. Here, this standing wave becomes the source of light for the experiment, radiating around the nanowire.

This is where the experiment's trick comes in: The scientists shot a stream of electrons close to the nanowire, using them to image the standing wave of light. As the electrons interacted with the confined light on the nanowire, they either sped up or slowed down. Using the ultrafast microscope to image the position where this change in speed occurred, Carbone's team could now visualize the standing wave, which acts as a fingerprint of the wave-nature of light.

Credit: Fabrizio Carbone/EPFL

While this phenomenon shows the wave-like nature of light, it simultaneously demonstrated its particle aspect as well. As the electrons pass close to the of light, they "hit" the light's , the photons. As mentioned above, this affects their speed, making them move faster or slower. This change in speed appears as an exchange of energy "packets" (quanta) between electrons and photons. The very occurrence of these energy packets shows that the light on the nanowire behaves as a particle.

"This experiment demonstrates that, for the first ever, we can film – and its paradoxical nature – directly," says Fabrizio Carbone. In addition, the importance of this pioneering work can extend beyond fundamental science and to future technologies. As Carbone explains: "Being able to image and control quantum phenomena at the nanometer scale like this opens up a new route towards quantum computing."

Explore further: Optical 'watermills' control spinning light

More information: "Simultaneous observation of the quantization and the interference pattern of a plasmonic near-field." Nature Communications 02 March 2015. DOI: 10.1038/ncomms7407

Related Stories

Optical 'watermills' control spinning light

November 14, 2014

Scientists at King's have built on research they conducted last year to achieve previously unseen levels of control over the travelling direction of electromagnetic wave in waveguides and proved that the process works equally ...

Quantum physics just got less complicated

December 19, 2014

Here's a nice surprise: quantum physics is less complicated than we thought. An international team of researchers has proved that two peculiar features of the quantum world previously considered distinct are different manifestations ...

Quantum computer as detector shows space is not squeezed

January 28, 2015

Ever since Einstein proposed his special theory of relativity in 1905, physics and cosmology have been based on the assumption that space looks the same in all directions - that it's not squeezed in one direction relative ...

Could classical theory be just as weird as quantum theory?

February 23, 2015

Quantum mechanics is often described as "weird" and "strange" because it abandons many of the intuitive traits of classical physics. For example, the ideas that the world is objective, is deterministic, and exists independent ...

Recommended for you

Carefully crafted light pulses control neuron activity

November 17, 2017

Specially tailored, ultrafast pulses of light can trigger neurons to fire and could one day help patients with light-sensitive circadian or mood problems, according to a new study in mice at the University of Illinois.

Strain-free epitaxy of germanium film on mica

November 17, 2017

Germanium, an elemental semiconductor, was the material of choice in the early history of electronic devices, before it was largely replaced by silicon. But due to its high charge carrier mobility—higher than silicon by ...

New imaging technique peers inside living cells

November 16, 2017

To undergo high-resolution imaging, cells often must be sliced and diced, dehydrated, painted with toxic stains, or embedded in resin. For cells, the result is certain death.

110 comments

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

kow
5 / 5 (2) Mar 02, 2015
Is this image a representation of a single photon?
codectified
5 / 5 (2) Mar 02, 2015
I don't understand this image either.
douglaskostyk
3.7 / 5 (3) Mar 02, 2015
Is this image a representation of a single photon?


This seems to be an image created by many electrons, which have experienced an interaction where there is a high probability of finding a photon along the nanowire. determined by the many photons' wave characteristics.
DarkLordKelvin
3.8 / 5 (10) Mar 02, 2015
"No photons were harmed in the production of this picture." What was actually imaged were surface plasmon polaritons, a kind of "quasiparticle" induced in particular types of condensed matter (e.g. nanowires) following photon absorption. Since a surface plasmon polariton is a collective oscillation of electrons, it will have a much stronger interaction with the imaging beam of electrons than an actual photon would ... that is why this experiment worked so well. So, the interesting question are: did they simultaneously observe particle-like and wave-like properties of surface plasmon polaritons? And if they did, is the interpretation equivalent to observing wave-particle duality with a single fundamental particle (e.g. photon or electron)? While I tend to think the first question is probably 'yes', while the answer to the second question is almost certainly 'no'; I will need to read the paper more thoroughly before deciding. In any case, it is certainly a beautiful experiment.
Double Slit the Quantum Phantom
5 / 5 (1) Mar 02, 2015
That's great! Now, let's move on to 'quantum entanglement'.
the-truth-seeker
5 / 5 (2) Mar 02, 2015
What happens to the 'magnetic' part of an EM wave when interacting with matter - in this case electrons? Is the electric and magnetic part of a wave decoupled and if so, how?
vladimirphizik
1.8 / 5 (5) Mar 02, 2015
In the ontological relation of electromagnetic radiation is not a particle and not a wave, and field education. For the simple reason that you may receive as a result of separation of the turbulent boundary layer from the field of the vortex at the local perturbation. From this starting point and should be considered photon/quantum/a massless particle/wave train/E. M. wave, because field education is not only a field structure and dynamics, but also interacts with other objects, as with the field formations. In physics should be the principle: similar interacts with similar meaning: field interacts with the field.
gravitus.ucoz.ru
buzzsaw107
2 / 5 (8) Mar 02, 2015
All matter is solidified light.
vic1248
4 / 5 (4) Mar 02, 2015
While it's nice to be able to observe more and more with technological advancements, this is still an indirect image of the effect of the principle of Wave-Particle Duality behavior of photons, electrons or particles in general, but it is not a direct observation of the phenomenon.
billpress11
1.8 / 5 (4) Mar 02, 2015
Kinda looks like a waves of particles in the waves of particles theory of light.

http://www.scribd...-Physics

payge887
1 / 5 (2) Mar 02, 2015
Yes, itsa pic of many electrons behavior showing the "fingerprint" of light itself. Astounding. Payge887.
jediknight190501
1 / 5 (3) Mar 02, 2015
Let there be . . .
kamcoautomotive
Mar 02, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
hemipwr54
1 / 5 (3) Mar 02, 2015
Are you sure the wave has not trapped particles as it moves and is carrying the particles with it as it progresses? Wave just carrying particles but not composed of those particles.
indio007
3 / 5 (4) Mar 02, 2015
Standing waves don't "radiate".
DarkLordKelvin
2.7 / 5 (7) Mar 02, 2015
Standing waves don't "radiate".


Are you sure? What if the standing waves are "made out of" electrons (like for example the surface plasmon polaritons actually probed in this study)?
DeliriousNeuron
3.7 / 5 (3) Mar 02, 2015
I'm pretty sure standing waves DO radiate. Ham radio 101.
DeliriousNeuron
5 / 5 (3) Mar 02, 2015
Standing waves will resonate with the system for any frequency (wavelength) correlating to the node/antinode points of the system. It will oscillate, but not propigate.

Dethe
1 / 5 (12) Mar 02, 2015
It's not so difficult to understand - the vacuum looks porous from our perspective like the foam or sponge. And when it undulates, it gets thicker at the same place. So that every vibrating place of vacuum also behaves like the less or more dense blob, i.e. the particle.

The same effect we would recognize, if we would live at the water surface like the waterstriders and if we would observe it with its own ripples. The more undulating places of surface are also more deformed, so that they represent a more dense obstacle for another waves. It's geometric effect, which has its origin in tiny density fluctuations of vacuum, i.e. the Higgs field. The more the space-time undulates, the more these tiny fluctuations are getting exposed, the more the vacuum look more dense at the same places. These density fluctuations are also indicia of additional dimensions of space-time in similar way, like the Brownian noise at the water surface is the evidence of additional dimension of the underwater.
Dethe
1 / 5 (11) Mar 02, 2015
The foamy character of vacuum also manifest itself in much more apparent way with well known geometry of light waves itself, which is described with Maxwell's theory. The foam analogy of vacuum just enables to visualize it with ease. If we squeeze the piece of foam between fingers, then the portion of foam will expand in perpendicular direction, being squashed in this way.

The electromagnetic wave behaves in the same way, as it has two vector components, which are mutually dependent: if we induce the change of electrostatic field intensity, we also induce the change of magnetic field intensity in perpendicular direction. And whole the piece of that foam also becomes more dense like the soap foam shaken - so it does behave like the obstacle or sparse "particle" at the same moment for all waves passing the same place at the same moment. This effect is apparently cumulative - the higher is the energy density, the higher is the mass density.
Dethe
1 / 5 (11) Mar 02, 2015
The foam model therefore enables to visualize the inner working of famous E=mc^2 equation of Einstein. But it also enables to understand the hidden logics of quantum mechanics. The Schrodinger equations of quantum mechanics describes the undulations of elastic environment, the mass density of which at each piece of time and space gets proportional to its energy density and the proportionality constant is just the speed of light squared. It's a differential equation of the elastic vibrating foam, which gets thick reversibly by its own vibrations like the soap foam shaken inside of closed evacuated space (I mean like the foam with bubbles filled with empty space, not with air). The more intensively such a foam is being shaken, the more dense and thick it also gets. So that every isolated wave propagates through it like the less or more dense blob of that foam - i.e. like the "particle". The real particles of matter differ only with energy density of vacuum foam inside of them.
Dethe
1 / 5 (11) Mar 02, 2015
Before some time I found a nifty applet at the web page of prof. Perlin, a well known author of CGI "plasma effect" (between many others). This Java applet visualizes quite faithfully the particle-wave aspect of vacuum foam, if we scratch the surface of applet with using of mouse. The cells of foam are getting smaller and more compact with process, which resembles the concept of "dynamic causal triangulation" of the quantum gravity theories, which also consider the vacuum as a string net liquid or spin foam.
rufusgwarren
3.7 / 5 (3) Mar 02, 2015
Incomplete, what about the waves generated from the moving moving electrons? Are we using this information to imply that particles are waves or that waves are particles? Is not sufficient and necessary with the expected effects of the waves generated from the moving particles or any interactions with the surface. Admittedly, the inner tube should be shielded from the electrons but I don't see any relation at the surface for the surface potential, which would also affect the inner tube potential. expectations are that a charge upon the surface should dissipate in about 10^-18 seconds or so. So how would this affect the standing wave?
rufusgwarren
2.3 / 5 (3) Mar 02, 2015
Note the surface equalization time frame is a function of the charged particles, this was not included for this analysis. Hence, if this effect is properly defined and removed, then only an electromagnetic wave is left. No duality! So exactly what is this short piece supposed to define? Obviously particles produce waves, all the time, but it is left to be proved that waves are particles and not simply electromagnetic waves, else Maxwell left something from his set of equations or did he forget the non-nonsensical dark matter. h nu defines a wave, not mass, only energy produced from the existence of a moving particle. Why do we make such mathematical equality reality? maybe this is why we can't find the missing, non-existent mass!
vic1248
1 / 5 (2) Mar 02, 2015
The key to understanding this experiment is that two "peer-to-peer" events happening at the same time means evidence of light's Wave-Particle Duality behavior. Those two "pee-to-peer" events are "wave-to-wave" and "particle-to-particle" interactions happening at the same time.

The "wave-to-wave" event is represented in when two laser light waves running in opposite directions in the nanowire meet and form standing waves. The "particle-to-particle" event is represented in when electrons passing by the standing waves interact with photons (electron-to-photon is the particle-to-particle event in this case) and exchange energy packets (quanta.)

Please see my earlier comment too.
skip_gross
5 / 5 (2) Mar 02, 2015
The image is not a photo at all. The image is a simulation showing the contours underneath the bumpy surface. If you are going to claim that a photo was taken then please show the photo.
automaticsteam
3 / 5 (2) Mar 02, 2015
The flat image represents the particle diffusion on the nano wire. Not diffusion in terms of wave, but of spectrum, out to the violets and beyond; and the waves above are driven by the particle diffusion. This is quantum particle exchange (communication), in this case not to another particle, but to a wave. Hence I'd have to conclude the quantum nature of waves too exists. It is no coincidence of course that the wave mimics the particle activity - like a recorder chart. We then should be able to harness and predict light's actions, and convert wave activity back ... yow
baudrunner
1 / 5 (3) Mar 02, 2015
nyuk, I been sayin'!

The scientists got it right this time. Most don't get how light works.
kriminy
3.7 / 5 (3) Mar 02, 2015
same comment: the picture looks to be created by an ensemble of particles. So get getting an extended structure is not mysterious at all. This needs to be done with a single photon and/or single electron.
Jeremy Bransford
3.7 / 5 (3) Mar 02, 2015
So, I am a physics newbie. Literally, just finished PhSc C115. I have always been baffled by the double slit experiment, even after learning about the characteristics of Electromagnetic Radiation, or "Light", but this little bit of science helped me realize something. (Maybe not as intuitive to a seasoned academic, but big time for me!)
So, I like to remind myself of what light is by calling it electromagnetic radiation. In this way I recall that light has an electric component (particle) and a magnetic component (wave), on perpendicular planes, with a velocity that is perpendicular to the intersecting planes. Magnetic fields and electric particles interact during flight and may influence one another. We know the behavior of electricity and magnetic fields and photons have similar characteristics to electrons. In regards to the image, it seems like what we observe with a valence shell on an atom - a probability field, and since light particles move so fast, it has a similar effect
RantOnAtMath
3 / 5 (2) Mar 02, 2015
The wave appears along the direction of the lower left side. The four peaks and three nodes of a standing wave appear clearly.

The particles appear along the direction of the lower right side, with represents, I believe, the time direction. Notice that the wave amplitude grows or shrinks with time. (I can't tell which direction of time is the forward one). If photons weren't quantized, this growth/damping would be continuous as the wave exchanges energy with the electrons. But photons ARE quantized, and so energy exchanges in discrete bumps.
emaalouf
5 / 5 (1) Mar 02, 2015
'
This looks like the reflections/by-products of the electrons interacting with the photons at close range, it does not show nor explain how the photons or the electrons can exhibit particle wave states?!

RantOnAtMath
5 / 5 (1) Mar 02, 2015
After understanding which direction is wave-like and which is particle-like (see my previous post), notice something interesting: The direction along the lower right side shows "particle-like" behavior by being bumpy, not smooth.

But even in the "wave-like" direction perpendicular to that there appear to be slight oscillations. I'm wondering whether that's also some quantum effect, or an experimental artifact.
bbbbwindows
2.1 / 5 (7) Mar 02, 2015
This is a nice piece of research work. It is clearly the work of plasma physicists. These exact same representations were also seen in "The Primer Fields", a six part series that revealed ground breaking work with magnetism and plasma.
It is beginning to look like the entire universe from the smallest particles to the largest galaxies are shaped by the forces of electromagnetism. This could easily result in a true "grand unified theory of everything". It's pretty obvious that gravitational forces have failed in this regard, unless one considers a mathematical model as a sufficient goal.
liquidspacetime
1.6 / 5 (7) Mar 03, 2015
There is evidence of dark matter every time a double slit experiment is performed; it's what waves.

Dark matter has mass. Dark matter physically occupies three dimensional space. Dark matter is physically displaced by the particles of matter which exist in it and move through it.

The Milky Way's halo is not a clump of dark matter anchored to the Milky Way. The Milky Way is moving through and displacing the dark matter.

The Milky Way's halo is the state of displacement of the dark matter.

The Milky Way's halo is the deformation of spacetime.

What is referred to geometrically as the deformation of spacetime physically exists in nature as the state of displacement of the dark matter.

A moving particle has an associated dark matter displacement wave. In a double slit experiment the particle travels through a single slit and the associated wave in the dark matter passes through both.
Joe_Chang
Mar 03, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
SteveP
not rated yet Mar 03, 2015
If this experiment is valid, doesn't it essentially destroy the Copenhagen Interpretation and the principle of Complementarity at once?
qquax
5 / 5 (4) Mar 03, 2015
Since this has been reported with this awfully misleading headline across all sorts of science sites, I assume that the university's marketing dept is responsible for this latest pop-sci atrocity.

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.

The only thing 'particle' is the quantum interaction of the light field with the electrons.

This is a clever experiment completely spoiled by the unnecessarily sensationalist reporting that make the authors look like rubes.

Arnon Burns
1.7 / 5 (3) Mar 03, 2015
Hiesenburgs double slit study clearly shows that a light is a wave until it is observed/measured and then it becomes a particle,in this study they illuminate the wave with electrons and then view it ,at that point it becomes a particle and the electrons then interact and behave as if the are interacting with light particles ,so they think that light shares both properties simultaneously---but this is not the case-the wave changes into a particle when its viewed/measured,but the snapshot they got from the particle outline looks like a wave----so---it was a wave and then consciousness viewed it and (the source of being/god/greater consciousness system or whatever)rendered it into a particle ---------------------in short all things are waves until they meet consciousness and it gets rendered ---science will someday admit this and that will be the next step---------------------im just regurgitating what ive heard other people say
markradcliff
3 / 5 (1) Mar 03, 2015
Is it possible that the incident beta particles are subject to a field effect from the induced Em transitional photon wave? Sort of like the recoiless Bremstralung effect in hot target cathodes for x-ray production minus the Beta particle collision? The wave production mechanics are closely related. What if the incident Beta particle upon entering the field of quanta under goes a charge distribution symmetry orientation translation. That is, what if Beta particle quanta charge distribution is induced by the field effect of the quanta field to strip off it's own quanta attracted by the quanta field to change it's effective mass. This effective mass transition thereby reaches a lower level threshold of a critical nature that allows for the Beta particle to unravel it's mass to become a wave. These energy to mass transitions are a conservation of energy in the constant interaction exchange of the balance between mass and energy as a result of external forces.
antialias_physorg
4.8 / 5 (4) Mar 03, 2015
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.

The standing wave (responsible for the acceleration/decelration of the electrons in the test beam) is the wave part of the observation. The direction change of individual electrons in the test beam is the particle part (because its quantized by individual photon-electron interaction).
vlaaing peerd
5 / 5 (2) Mar 03, 2015
"Since the days of Einstein, scientists have been trying to directly observe both of these aspects of light at the same time. "

Give credit due were it's due, Christiaan Huygens had setups in the 1680's showing light behaves like waves that disagreed with Newton's particle theory of light. While Newton was able to show light had particle-like behaviour the general concensus stayed that Newton was right. Only til Fresnel in the 19th century tested Huygens wave theory of light, it was shown to be fundementally correct and the huygens-fresnel principle was born.

Interesting fact is that Huygens already had a completely correct lightwave theory in 3 dimensions, be it he falsely thought it needed aether to make the waves propagate, like sound waves needed a medium.

So scientists have been trying to witness both light and wave properties since the late 1600's.
Joe_Chang
not rated yet Mar 03, 2015
A particle, should be either at rest or at speed v without extra force apply on it.

If it is moving, it moves along straight line. If it hits something, it may pass through/halfway, reflect or deflect. It will lose momentum/speed anyways.

Does any light or EM wave ever slowdown? when light passing water into air, it speeds up.

If light is particle, how a particle hits mirror and reflect back? What bounces it back? The electron? The nucleus? The empty space within silver atoms?
Joe_Chang
not rated yet Mar 03, 2015
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. .

Totally agree! You know much better.
antialias_physorg
4.6 / 5 (9) Mar 03, 2015
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.
Joe_Chang
1 / 5 (5) Mar 03, 2015
Light is not particle nor wave.

Light is gravitational wave produced by exited atoms.

Photonists soon will be selling sneakoil for a living.
Joe_Chang
1 / 5 (1) Mar 03, 2015
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.

What bounces it back? The electron? The nucleus? The empty space within silver atoms?Whats the mechanism?
Mimath224
1.5 / 5 (2) Mar 03, 2015
@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.
swordsman
4.3 / 5 (3) Mar 03, 2015
The "standing waves" in the illustration appear quite similar to that of radio antenna radiation patterns!!!!

A particle????
tadchem
5 / 5 (1) Mar 03, 2015
What was imaged was just a digitized 'model' - about as real as Shrek.
The Maxwell Equations for electromagnetism show that a photon is extensive and dynamic in four dimensions. Photographs are two-dimensional.
Joe_Chang
1 / 5 (2) Mar 03, 2015
a matter/mass/charge has force/gravitational field, if the matter moves, the field follows. if the matter vibrates, the field follows.

if the sun has a big ejection/quake, we should be able to detect it 500 seconds later. we might even have a earthquake.

atoms, each has mass, when atoms exited, their fields exited, within that field, you feel light.

our eyes detect gravity wave all the time. the source/atom has to vibrate at high f to produce visible light. only atoms able to vibrate at high f. a little ball weights 1g will take a lot energy to vibrate at such high speed.

if you put a bell in vacuum, put gravity wave detector in the center, knock the bell and you should detect gravity wave.

the wave is electrostatic force in nature, so we call it em wave.
Noumenon
2.3 / 5 (3) Mar 03, 2015
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.


Yes that's the correct way of viewing it, ... that is what is going on imo. The observational conditions are what determine the conceptual form the underlying reality is forced to take on. Whatever the underlying reality "is" apart from observation, it has no conceptual form. QM entities simply have no conceptual value (specific spin, position, etc) just prior to measurement ,... this implies that the particular apparatus defines the conceptual form and so possible values,...i.e. the Hilbert-space basis.
Joe_Chang
1 / 5 (3) Mar 03, 2015
an atom has mass m, vibrates at f times per second, it will seed mfc^2/t energy/force out as gravity wave. the nature of the force wave is electrostatic force.

light is not wave nor particle, light is gravitational pause produced by exited atoms.

Science has never been absolute, what makes you think today's science is all correct? In fact, science is so fucked up. Present theories of atomic structure, gravity and light are all wrong. Discuss at fuckedscience.com
Noumenon
3 / 5 (6) Mar 03, 2015
Discuss at fuckedscience.com

People searching for crank theories will have no trouble finding yours.
dana_wanapskana
5 / 5 (1) Mar 03, 2015
It's just a future credit card when we finally get that light currency to work!
Joe_Chang
2 / 5 (4) Mar 03, 2015
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.
DarkLordKelvin
3.7 / 5 (6) Mar 03, 2015
@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.
DarkLordKelvin
3.7 / 5 (6) Mar 03, 2015
If this experiment is valid, doesn't it essentially destroy the Copenhagen Interpretation and the principle of Complementarity at once?


Actually, yes, if the title (of the phys.org article) were correct, it would do both of those things. However, as several posters have (correctly) noted, the title is a gross misinterpretation of the physics that are actually responsible for the image.
Dethe
1.5 / 5 (8) Mar 03, 2015
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.
russell_russell
1 / 5 (1) Mar 03, 2015
@Noumenon
Physical assertions is what QM asserts.
What does "forcing reality" mean?

Of course QM negates determinism.
You go one better - asserting "new physics" negates probability as well.
What is "forcing reality"?

The article is a "gross misinterpretation of the physics".
Reality is not mentioned.

Joe_Chang
not rated yet Mar 03, 2015
for your eyes only

thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=26362.275
Frosted Flake
3.7 / 5 (3) Mar 04, 2015
I don't see it the way the Carbone team reads it. Here is my take

Laser strikes nanowire, causes photoelectric effect, sets up standing wave of electrons. Electron beam passes, is disturbed by edge diffraction, captures texture of standing wave, is subsequently noted and 'photographed' by supermicroscope that 'sees' electrons. JPEG is not a CCD image of light, thus photo. Is a computer representation of electron beam displaying edge diffraction pattern. Electrons are not waves except in string theory, and this ain't that.

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?
Joe_Chang
2 / 5 (4) Mar 04, 2015
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?


if more readers are clear like you, those scientists will not able to cheat again. in our history, no one lied more than science. y2k, global cooling, god particle, graviton,,,
Mimath224
5 / 5 (1) Mar 04, 2015
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

Thanks DLK, I knew I'd wrote it wrongly, I couldn't think of that ' interference pattern' phrase...one of the most basic features of physics and I forgot it, Ha! Man, I'm getting old! You said for me...what I meant was that the 'interference pattern' is produced by a moving event. Thanks again
@Frosted Flake If you are referring to to the magnetic fields around 'paticles' and 'matter' then I assume you have a problem with accepting duality. This principle is all around us so I don't see why it can't be at QM level also.
casualjoe
1 / 5 (2) Mar 04, 2015

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.
Landrew
4 / 5 (2) Mar 04, 2015
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.
Joe_Chang
1 / 5 (1) Mar 04, 2015

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.

bs
Joe_Chang
1 / 5 (1) Mar 04, 2015
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.


light is not particle nor wave.

light/em wave is gravitational pause/wave produces by exited atoms.
antialias_physorg
3.8 / 5 (4) Mar 04, 2015
The image is trying to mash quite a number of things into one. It's best described if you go to the link for the article (which is paywalled, but you can still look at some of the diagrams). The relevant diagram this is based off is Figure 3, which does indeed seem to show the interference (wavelike) pattern in one direction and the quantized nature (particle like) in the other.
DarkLordKelvin
3 / 5 (6) Mar 04, 2015
I don't see it the way the Carbone team reads it. Here is my take

Laser strikes nanowire, causes photoelectric effect
No, 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.
.. 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 theory
Why 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?
antialias_physorg
3.8 / 5 (4) Mar 04, 2015
Electrons are not waves except in string theory

The electrons aren't the thing that's being tested here for wave/particle duality. They are the measuring apparatus.
The electron stream close to the wire gets affected by the wave aspect of the laser beam (the photons) that set up the standing plasmon wave as evinced by the speedup/slowdown of the electron in the stream. And they get affected by the particle aspect (by the interchange of discrete quanta) that change their direction in deiscrete steps.

(As a side note: electrons also exhibit particle/wave duality. The wave-like behavior can be easily demonstrated by single electron interference and tunnel effect and also the fact that electrons don't fall into atomic nuclei)
Osiris1
1.7 / 5 (3) Mar 04, 2015
All these competing theories with their own political constituency. How about resurrecting old Professor Van Vogt.s ether vortices as the foundation of matter.
jim_zhao_cc
3 / 5 (2) Mar 05, 2015
everything, including light, no matter how large or small, has particle/wave duality. Even our earth or the sun, or any small particles yet to be discovered. They may not be noticeable due to extreme low frequency or high frequency.
Noumenon
2.3 / 5 (3) Mar 05, 2015
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 I used "~" because mass is independent of charge wrt the ratio of these two forces so the ratio depends of the mass of the specific charge, ....further exposing your statement as gibberish.
Joe_Chang
1 / 5 (1) Mar 05, 2015
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.

get in the TNC forum debunk if you got it.
Joe_Chang
1 / 5 (1) Mar 05, 2015
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?
Noumenon
3.4 / 5 (5) Mar 05, 2015
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.


Because of uncertainty principle for closest electrons and exclusion principle for others. Since the SM is accurate, your complaint is with Reality,... indeed it can seem like gibberish.
Joe_Chang
1 / 5 (1) Mar 05, 2015
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?

Noumenon
3.4 / 5 (5) Mar 05, 2015
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.
Joe_Chang
1 / 5 (1) Mar 05, 2015
why can't we rate -5?
Joe_Chang
1 / 5 (1) Mar 05, 2015
Is this image a representation of a single photon?


a bunch bs?
Noumenon
3.4 / 5 (5) Mar 05, 2015
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.


The potential energy term (from the nucleus if considering the electron) of the Schrodinger equation determines the stationary states within "an atom".

Ever wonder why is Fe=q1q2/r^2, Fg=m1m2/r^2, and mass proportional to proton numbers within it?

It is just a consequence of the isotropy of the respective forces, wrt the equation form. The respective magnitudes are no where close at post BB energies.

PS: I will have to counter your invalid 1-rating. Cranks and trolls should not use the rating system.
Joe_Chang
not rated yet Mar 05, 2015
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.

quite a certain answer. principle insulator? is your science making you calling name?
Joe_Chang
1 / 5 (1) Mar 05, 2015
remember the line in scar face?
Joe_Chang
1 / 5 (1) Mar 05, 2015
hardly any rats
DarkLordKelvin
3.5 / 5 (8) Mar 05, 2015
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

http://www.fnal.g...bob.html

cemery50
5 / 5 (2) Mar 05, 2015
I believe the particle is an illusion caused by interacting propagations of waves and perception forming a standing wave formation within the perceptive wave perception limitations.
Joe_Chang
1 / 5 (1) Mar 05, 2015
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


wm, graviton, photon, god particle are all bs. what makes you think they are not?
Joe_Chang
Mar 05, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Joe_Chang
not rated yet Mar 06, 2015
theory of everything www.thenakedscien...=54194.0
antialias_physorg
3.4 / 5 (5) Mar 06, 2015
why is electron and proton not stick together

Because by confining the electron to a smaller space (the nucleus) you are decreasing the location uncertainty. According to the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle if you decrease the location uncertainty you are increasing the momentum uncertainty (and hence the average momentum). Increasing the average momentum means you are increasing the energy of the electron.
This means that such a state would be a higher energy state for the electron than staying in its orbital. (quite apart from the quantum nature of energy exchange so that you have to have integer multiples of h)

Read: It takes a lot of energy to push an electron into a nucleus...something that can happen in something that can supply that energy (e.g. when gravity pushes the electrons of a collapsing star above a certain mass into their nuclei to from a neutron star)
Joe_Chang
1 / 5 (3) Mar 06, 2015
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?
Noumenon
3.4 / 5 (5) Mar 06, 2015
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?


You have been told by myself, DarkLord, and AntiAlias, but you continue to ask?

Are you expecting a mechanical epicycle explanation?
Joe_Chang
1 / 5 (5) Mar 06, 2015
there is a mechanism for everything. otherwise, nothing will work.

the reason not a legit answer in this discussing proofs you 3 don't have any.

DarkLordKelvin
3.5 / 5 (8) Mar 06, 2015
what force keeps them apart? how wuantum nature of energy exchange? what's the mechanism?


What force keeps the Earth from crashing into the Sun? There isn't one .. there also isn't a "force" that keeps an electron from crashing into the nucleus of an atom. The *mechanism* that keeps the orbits (although 'orbit' is not really correct for the electron, it will do for this analogy because the answer is the same) stable in both cases is the simultaneous conservation of energy and angular momentum.
antialias_physorg
4.3 / 5 (7) Mar 06, 2015
proton is positive charged, electron is negative charged. the strongest force carrier in the universe.

Nope.
Notice that the nucleus has a lot of protons in a very small space? If charge were the strongest force that nucleus would fly apart instantly. However the strong nuclear force is stronger and keeps them confined. (The reason why the strong nuclear force doesn't dominate everywhere is because it doesn't have much of a range)

the reason not a legit answer in this discussing proofs you 3 don't have any.

The reason is you're just not listening. (or, and I'm coming to suspect this very strongly, don't have the brains to understand what you're reading)
Joe_Chang
1 / 5 (6) Mar 07, 2015
Is this image a representation of a single photon?


a bow of whonton soup, made by few top scientists.
Mimath224
3 / 5 (2) Mar 07, 2015
@Joe_Chang, I'm not going to repeat what AP and DLK have posted for you because I feel sure they have more knowledge than me so I'll approach it from a different angle.
1. '...this discussing proofs...' what kind of 'proof' do you want? One can't just go to lab, look though some microscope and see what's going on at the QM level. It's only in very recent years that technology has provided us with a view of atoms. What you need to do is go and study a bit of history to see how difficult a climb it has been to get to this current stage. Appreciate what Thomson, Rurherford, Bohr (just to name 3) did and THEN ask yourself about 'proof'.
2. I remember going to my elementary physical chem class where atoms were expressed with e- given in basic circular orbits (valence purposes). Wow, I thought, this is great. The more advanced course, a different tutor said (one Dr. Gould) 'remember early chem orbits...well, forget all that...' and out came s,p,d &f orbitals...oh my giddy aunt. (cont.)
Mimath224
3 / 5 (2) Mar 07, 2015
(cont.) Unless you have been through some similar kind of process (as most have) then you wouldn't have learned about how easy it is to get the wrong idea.
3. Don't forget the e- orbitals are worked with probability so it is possible 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.
I'm just an interested layman but I do try to learn by either reading or asking. I don't find it easy but it's worth that extra effort.
DarkLordKelvin
3.4 / 5 (5) Mar 08, 2015
@Mimath nice post .. I would just add in response to this:

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


That the electrons actually have a finite probability density *inside* the nucleus! This is particularly important for larger atoms with unstable nuclei, because they can undergo what is called "electron capture decay", where a proton and electron combine inside the nucleus to form a neutron. That "combining" process is energetically "uphill", so it is only possible for isotopes that can then lose energy to relax to a form that is more stable than the initial isotope. An example is Rb-83, which decays by e- capture to form Kr-83. Anyway, the point is that these mechanisms are enabled because the electron orbitals overlap with the nucleus.
Joe_Chang
Mar 08, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Dethe
1 / 5 (2) Mar 08, 2015
electrons actually have a finite probability density *inside* the nucleus
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?
Mike_Massen
1 / 5 (2) Mar 08, 2015
Dethe offered
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 !

https://share.san...4vY7A1sY

The issue we face re any fusion process is more bang out for less buck in...
Dethe
1 / 5 (2) Mar 08, 2015
there is a chip to produce neutrons on demand from an electrical signal
The 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.
Joe_Chang
Mar 08, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
EnsignFlandry
not rated yet Mar 09, 2015
Its not clear what I'm looking at. But quantum theory since the days of Dirac at least says you can observe light as a particle or as a wave depending on the experimental setup. Same thing applies to an electron, proton, etc.
On the other hand, our linguistic limitations make us adopt this binary situation. A more logical view is that light is neither a particle or a wave, but something new. Some have called this a "wavicle". Is this picture a wavicle?
Joe_Chang
Mar 09, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Accounts
not rated yet Mar 09, 2015
I'm not sure I "believe" the experiment shows what is claimed,
but it sur is a darned purtty picture.
baudrunner
not rated yet Mar 10, 2015
Amazing how people still don't get it, it's so simple.

Photonic waves happen when a source of excitation produces them. Energy is transferred from this source through light-permeable mediums which are comprised of the absorbing and emitting atoms which through this continuous and combined action - provided the source of the excitations is continued - produce detectable waves, just like water molecules produce water waves. A single photon cannot be used to study wave/particle duality. The word 'photon' is used to describe the amount, or quanta, of energy which is transmitted/absorbed in this process during a single interaction between two components of the medium. The amount of this energy is a function of the intensity of the source of excitation. Enough energy, such as electron beams striking a tungsten target, will strip the electrons from their nuclei, and this process is the same, but at the nuclear level, and we get Xrays.
oginimeg
not rated yet Mar 12, 2015
This is a fascinating confirmation of the duality of light "wavicles."

The next step is to assemble an apparatus that images entangled polarized photons as they change polarity. It would seem relatively simple, beginning with "A pulse of (entangled) polarized laser light is (split and) fired at (two) tiny metallic nanowire(s)," then using the ultrafast microscope to image the position where change in speed occurred, the polarity of one photon stream is changed, and the polarity change of the entangled photons is imaged through a polarized lens.

If the images could be rendered rapidly as on-off bits, the apparatus could be the basis for hack-proof encryption.

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.