E=mc2 vs Wave/Particle Duality

[kyle_baron]

E=mc2 means that energy and mass are equivalent. Where as Wave/Particle Duality is the fact that waves (energy) are the same as particles (matter or mass). Is this just another way of saying the same thing? I'm looking for additional information, opinions, or speculation. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font size="4"><strong></strong></font></p> </div>

 

[derekmcd]

Not so sure if I would consider energy and mass "equivalent". There is an equivalence between the 2 which is a completely different statement. E=mc2 simply states that energy can contribute to the mass of an object and vice versa. Wave/Particle duality is not really related. A photon (energy) will exhibit the properties of both a wave and a particle... An electron (matter) will do the same. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div> </div><br /><div><span style="color:#0000ff" class="Apple-style-span">"If something's hard to do, then it's not worth doing." - Homer Simpson</span></div> </div>

 

[vogon13]

Also, the particleness or waveness of an item is related to it's mass.<br /><br />The waveness of an electron is more pronounced than that of a proton.<br /><br />The particleness of a proton is more pronounced than that of an electron.<br /><br />Macroscopic items, (like germs and marmosets and asteroids) exhibit very little waveness at all.<br /><br /><br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#ff0000"><strong>TPTB went to Dallas and all I got was Plucked !!</strong></font></p><p><font color="#339966"><strong>So many people, so few recipes !!</strong></font></p><p><font color="#0000ff"><strong>Let's clean up this stinkhole !!</strong></font> </p> </div>

 

[vandivx]

"Wave/Particle Duality is the fact that waves (energy) are the same as particles (matter or mass)."<br /><br />the duality means that particles can sometimes (depending on experimental setup) act as waves but not as both at the same time, its either they act as particles or as waves in a given experimental setup<br /><br />your interpretation of what duality means is not correct<br /><br />duality in this sense means that in some experimetal setup a photon (for example) will exhibit particle propertis while in another setup it would exhibit wave properties (which traditonally would be more like what we would expect of it)<br /><br />also I like to think of E=mc2 as signifying that energy and mass are convertible into each other or interchangable into each other, not equivalvent since in many respects mass is mass and energy is energy, they are not the same or equivalent but they can be converted into each other<br /><br />vanDivX <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[alokmohan]

Light is a particle as well a wave.It is a dual nature.

 

[scomil39]

My understanding is that the "energy" an object posseses or stated another way "the objects ability to do work" or "the objects ability to cause change" is equal to the objects mass multiplied by the speed of light squared. <br /><br />I can understand that a bowling ball has a certain ability to move a bowling pin because of how much mass it has. But what I cant figure out is how the speed of light would effect this. How does the speed of light play into this ?<br /><br />Anybody?

 

[kyle_baron]

"E = MCsq. means that mass & energy are equivalent." <br /><i><br />No. It shows that there is a relationship between mass and energy. Being equivalent means that they are the same & have a near Identity and that is not the case.<br />Equivalent and similar are NOT the same. And that is the logical fallacy, breaking the meaning of the terms, which is going on here. It results from a serious misunderstanding of what the word, 'equivalent' means. <br />One need only check a dictionary </i><br /><br />No. Equivalent means: a. Equal as in value, force, or meaning. b. Having "similar" or identical effects. c. Capable of being put into a one to one relationship.<br />"The American Heritage Dictionary, Second College Edition."<br /><br />I believe it is you who has committed a serious linguistic faux paux. And before you go spouting out more semantic jibberish, you ought to check the dictionary!<br /> <br /><br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font size="4"><strong></strong></font></p> </div>

 

[kyle_baron]

<i><br />No. Equivalent means: a. Equal as in value, force, or meaning. b. Having "similar" or identical effects. c. Capable of being put into a one to one relationship. <br />"The American Heritage Dictionary, Second College Edition." </i><br /><br />Just for fun, I'm going to play with Einstein's famous equation, to show the similarity between his equation, and the wave/ particle duality:<br /><br />E(energy wave)=m(particle)c2<br /><br />Also, using the definition of equivalent as being equal in value(a), having similar effects(b), and capable of being put into a one to one relationship (c). Anything wrong with this? Feel free to criticize. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font size="4"><strong></strong></font></p> </div>

 

[kyle_baron]

Ok, this thread is a moot point. I'm right. The wave/particle duality uses special relativity as stated in The Elegant Universe p.121: Schrodinger sought and found a mathematical framework, encompassing the experimentally discovered wave/particle duality, but he didn't incorporate special relativity. But physicists realized that special relativity was central to a proper quantum mechanical framework. This is because the microscopic frenzy requires that we recognize that energy can manifest itself in a huge variety of ways, E=mc2. And I thought I had an original idea. Oh well, back to the drawing board! <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font size="4"><strong></strong></font></p> </div>

 

[alokmohan]

In the 18th century scientists were sure that light was particle in nature.But at the end of that century Huygens propounded wave theory.Einstein found that light is of dual nature.

 

[vandivx]

"I can understand that a bowling ball has a certain ability to move a bowling pin because of how much mass it has. But what I cant figure out is how the speed of light would effect this. How does the speed of light play into this ?"<br />------------<br />if speed of light were much faster then the mass would be much smaller (that is the inertia would be diminished)<br /><br />it is simple consequence of the equation E=mc2<br /><br />to preserve the stated equivalency by that equation, if you increase c you have to lower m in order that E would stay equal to the product of m and c squared<br /><br />to make it more foolproof argument, lets say E is Energy of electron or Ee, then mass M will be Me, so if c increases then Me has to decrease in order that Ee could remain the same, ie. the product of mass and speed of light squared has to remain equivalent (in magnitude) to energy on the other side of equation<br /><br />of course, the square just means that small change in c will beget large change in mass (inertia) in order to preserve the equality of both sides of the equation<br /><br />to put it very plainly, if by some freaky happening the speed of light should be doubled tomorrow morning, then the mass of everything would be just a quarter of what it was before you went to bed LOL<br /><br />and of course, if the speed of light slowed down, the mass (inertia) of everything would increase proportionally<br /><br />in unphysical extreme limit, if the speed of light were infinite, then mass would go to zero, it would take no force at all to accelerate anything to any speed (I repeat again, that is all beyond limit of real world such consideration), on the other hand if the speed of light slowed down to a halt, you could never move anything any longer, the mass (inertia) of everything would be infinite, ie the world would freeze up in effect<br /><br />vanDivX<br /><br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[alokmohan]

Light speed is universal constant I remind you.

 

[tom_hobbes]

<font color="yellow">Macroscopic items, (like germs and marmosets and asteroids) exhibit very little waveness at all.<br /></font><br /><br />Then how the hell can surfers exist? I hope you understand this throws me into yet another existential crisis! <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font size="2" color="#339966"> I wish I could remember<br /> But my selective memory<br /> Won't let me</font><font size="2" color="#99cc00"> </font><font size="3" color="#339966"><font size="2">- </font></font><font size="1" color="#339966">Mark Oliver Everett</font></p><p> </p> </div>

 

[vandivx]

"Light speed is universal constant I remind you."<br />---<br /><br />yes, but my way is the best to explain what was asked, it is precisely this unthinking acceptance of constancy of c like if it was heresy to consider or even imagine otherwise that begets questions like that<br /><br />people have hard time grasping the role of c in equation like this one because c is unchanging (constant), not everybody fully understands equations to extract their meaning out of them<br /><br />that said, I can see how my post can be confusing, people (scientists or not) nowadays don't have a clue about inertia (mass) or why the speed of light is constant and how and why the mass of bodies directly depends on c being the magnitude it is... methinks its about time I came into the open with my theories, christmas is coming and with that couple months holiday for me, maybe I should start writing some of the stuff up and publish it<br /><br />vanDivX <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[vandivx]

"Just for fun, I'm going to play with Einstein's famous equation, to show the similarity between his equation, and the wave/ particle duality:<br /><br />E(energy wave)=m(particle)c2 "<br />--------<br /><br />ok, but I still fail to see what good is there in it, if anything it is more like pointing out that field produce (vegetables etc) is equivalent to soil+sunshine energy, I'd like to see your face getting long if I told you to feed off the soil while basking in sun, it is quivalent after all or isn't it LOL<br /><br />the duality is simply about something else and its importance lies completely elsewhere than in such quivalence you put forth here, I just fail to see the point of this excercise, its got nothing to do with what particle wave duality means, besides that equation as you put it here violates one important part of the duality principle - that particle is never both (wave and particle) at the same time, that these properties are mutually exclusive and here you are forcing them together in one equation and for what, like we didn't know what it says already, that energy in any form can be converted into equivalent amount of mass (multiplied by square of c) which may also exhibit wave properties under some special circumstances<br /><br />vanDivX <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[chembuff1982]

it's more like a property of light, such as kinetic enery and potential energy aren't the same, but things have the potential to have both depending on the conditions and other times they have both working at the same time as the kinetic energy for something slows down, potential energy is building up in most cases. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> You may be a genius, but google knows more than you! </div>

 

[kyle_baron]

"Just for fun, I'm going to play with Einstein's famous equation, to show the similarity between his equation, and the wave/ particle duality: <br /><br />E(energy wave)=m(particle)c2 " <br /><i><br />the duality is simply about something else and its importance lies completely elsewhere than in such quivalence you put forth here, I just fail to see the point of this excercise, its got nothing to do with what particle wave duality means, besides that equation as you put it here violates one important part of the duality principle - that particle is never both (wave and particle) at the same time, that these properties are mutually exclusive and here you are forcing them together in one equation <br /></i><br />Huh? NOT! The Elegant Universe p.103. "The microscopic world demands that we shed our intuition that something is either a wave or a particle and embrace the possibility that it is <i>both</i>. It is here that Feynman's pronouncement that nobody understands quantum mechanics comes to the fore." If something is both, it's equal (at least in value). If one experiment shows an electron as a wave, and another shows it as a particle, which is correct? Answer: BOTH! BOTH BOTH BOTH BOTH BOTH .......<br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font size="4"><strong></strong></font></p> </div>

 

[derekmcd]

I really think this is more of an issue of semantics. It can be said that there is a ratio between energy and mass that shows equivalence (balance) of the two. However, their functionality in nature are not equivalent (the same). There is a fundamental difference of the two. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div> </div><br /><div><span style="color:#0000ff" class="Apple-style-span">"If something's hard to do, then it's not worth doing." - Homer Simpson</span></div> </div>

 

[kyle_baron]

"Just for fun, I'm going to play with Einstein's famous equation, to show the similarity between his equation, and the wave/ particle duality: <br /><br />E(energy wave)=m(particle)c2 " <br />-------- <br /><i><br />ok, but I still fail to see what good is there in it</i><br /><br />Ok, I'm going to go farther out on a limb, and say that matter in a quantum state, fluctuates continously between the equal sign of Einsteins Equation E=mc2. It fluctuates (between particle and wave, because it's both) continously at the speed of light in space-time (3 space + 1 time). Just as we move thru space-time (Not just space!) at the speed of light. More criticism needed.<img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font size="4"><strong></strong></font></p> </div>

 

[vandivx]

"matter in a quantum state ... fluctuates (between particle and wave, because it's both) continously at the speed of light in space-time (3 space + 1 time)."<br />-------<br /><br />I'd rather think it stays as a wave unless the conditions (either natural or artificially set up in experiment) demand that it behaves as particle, the particle state is exception here while the wave state is the prevailing state<br /><br />reason for that thinking is that if you let free particles alone, they automatically spread in space (as per QM equations) and you have to setup certain experiments for the waves to collapse so you get particle behaviour, I don't believe they oscillate as you suggest (DeBroglies come about once in a millenium, the time for another one didn't come yet <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /> )<br /><br />vanDivX <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[kyle_baron]

<i><br />I'd rather think it stays as a wave unless the conditions (either natural or artificially set up in experiment) demand that it behaves as particle, the particle state is exception here while the wave state is the prevailing state</i><br /><br />Most books would say that it's the probability feature of the quantum state that determines if it's a wave or particle. The Fabric of the Cosmos p.11: Things become definite only when a suitable observation forces them to relinquish quantum possibilities and settle on a specific outcome. The outcome that's realized, though, cannot be predicted.... Even though I would disagree, I do appreciate and respect your viewpoint.<br /><i><br /> I don't believe they oscillate as you suggest (DeBroglies come about once in a millenium, the time for another one didn't come yet ) </i><br /><br />Yeah, I hear ya. I'm not looking for a Nobel Prize. Just a logical explanation for the wave/particle duality. <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /><br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font size="4"><strong></strong></font></p> </div>

 

[vandivx]

"Most books would say that it's the probability feature of the quantum state that determines if it's a wave or particle."<br />-----<br /><br />nope, the probability determines for example which place particle will appear (like on particle detection screen), there is no probability whether state is wave or particle, that depends completely on your experimental setup (or nature's setup) <br /><br />I will try my hand at class 101 in QM<br /><br />in experimental setup, say of that famous double slit experiment, if you don't set up detection at the slit location to determine which way the photon (electron etc) went, then it is certain the particle will take on wave properties going through the slits and there is no probability that it could be particle and when it arives at the screen, it gets absorbed as particle, again no probability about that, the probability enters regarding the location on screen where the particle hits<br /><br />and if you set up detection at the slits to determine path taken, then the particle will have particle properties and go through like ordinary gunshot bullet as far as the landing location on the screen behind the slots is concerned (the interference is lost)<br /><br />in short untill you observe, you have no way of telling where the particle will hit the screen, it is all a matter of statistical probability<br /><br />or once you leave free particle move about unmolested for some time, it is given thing that it is in the form of wave but there is no definite telling exactly where it will appear when it does apear, that depends on the probabilities in the particular situation, as you said what the books said - that the outcome of the experiment is uncertain<br /><br />what you said would hold when for example we would like to measure the spin of an emitted particle, there is no telling beforehand if it will turn up spin this or that way, so the spin is undetermined... but this indeterminacy doesn't apply to whether a particle is a particle or wave a <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[alokmohan]

Wave particle duality is fundumental thing of theory of relativity.

 

[derekmcd]

I agree 100 percent. Thank you for expanding on what I said in a more eloquent and understandable fashion. Maybe I worded my statement in a misleading way.<br /><br />It's the actual equation itself (e=mc2) that show a proportional equivalence between mass and energy; however, mass and energy are not equivalent. <br /><br />Does that read better? <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div> </div><br /><div><span style="color:#0000ff" class="Apple-style-span">"If something's hard to do, then it's not worth doing." - Homer Simpson</span></div> </div>

 

[kyle_baron]

<i><br />Wave particle duality is fundumental thing of theory of relativity.</i><br /><br />Thanks for reminding us Alokmohan. That's why I stated previously, that this thread was a moot point. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font size="4"><strong></strong></font></p> </div>