Wave-Particle Duality

[Ronnie67]

Today, physicists accept the dual nature of light. In this modern view, they define light as a collection of one or more photons propagating through space as electromagnetic waves. This definition, which combines light's wave and particle nature, makes it possible to rethink Thomas Young's double-slit experiment in this way: Light travels away from a source as an electromagnetic wave. When it encounters the slits, it passes through and divides into two wave fronts. These wave fronts overlap and approach the screen. At the moment of impact, however, the entire wave field disappears and a photon appears. Quantum physicists often describe this by saying the spread-out wave "collapses" into a small point.

I have trouble visualizing a particle transforming into a wave and vice-versa. The quote says that light travels away from a source as an electromagnetic wave. What does that even look like? How can I visualize "a wave"? Is that supposed to look like some thin wall of advancing light? And then, the quote says, at the moment of impact, the wave disappears and a photon appears. So, a ball of light appears? Something that resembles a sphere? How does a sphere become something like an ocean wave? What does that look like?

My (completely uneducated) guess is, by a particle becoming a wave, does that mean that this expansive wave is filled with tons of ghost copies of itself, like the one electron exists everywhere in this expansive area of the wave, and then when it hits the wall, that property suddenly disappears and you're left with just one particle. So, this "wave", is really tons of identical copies of the same photon in the shape and form and with the same properties of, a wave? My guess comes from reading about how shooting just one photon still passes through two slits in the double-slit experiment. So the photon actually duplicated itself?

[Kropster]

I think all we can say is the this wave-particle duality is the way photons behave....end of!

There is no real point in trying to interpret it in our human scale terms....they don't really explain it adequately and we just go round in confusing circles.

Photons are just weird.

[Davey-T]

Photons are just weird.

Is that why my images are rubbish ?

Dave

[Kropster]

In my photos I know it isn't just the photons that are weird...there is a problem behing the camera too!

[kalasinman]

Reminds me of a Hindu legend  http://www.constitution.org/col/blind_men.htm

Lately, been reading some of the works of the 3rd century Buddhist philosopher Nagarjuna. His "middle way" approach neither affirms or denies real material existence, but asserts that all that has characteristics arises dependently. I find it interesting that this view relates so well to the quantum world.

[Cath]

which is widely excepted and cannot be denied by the scientific fraternity

Careful nav.

In the grand scheme of things, our science (in any meaning of the word) is totally and utterly based on our (the human life form) own perception of the universe around us.

At the end of the day, we can never state that what we observe is what really is, we can only state how the universe appears to be according to our perception - human science.

[JB80]

I nearly took the bait, collapse it is merely just an interpretation. There are certainly other ways to describe what is going on without inventing a collapse postulate which are just as widespread these days.

[Cath]

Interpretation is another accurate word JB

If we could only keep in mind that everything we assume/experience/notice/etc/etc/etc in life as being a human interpretation or human perception, then maybe, we might just make it. Make to where though, is entirely a different matter altogether.

Assuming that is, that we are what we appear to be