[Robert]

This next chat session will be held on Saturday, May 28th at 1:00pm Central Standard Time (CST) also known as (GMT-6). You can use the timezone converter to convert to your local time. Once there, just enter the day and time as specified above, then select US/Central in the "From Time Zone" column and your own location in the "To Time Zone" column, then click Convert. This will give you the time of the chat meeting in your own local time.

If you represent a country that has 5 or more citizens as members of ToeQuest, I have already converted to your local time below:

Texas, U.S. - Saturday, 1:00pm
California, U.S. - Saturday, 11:00am
India - Saturday, 11:30pm
London - Saturday, 7:00pm
Madrid, Spain - Saturday, 8:00pm
Melbourne, Australia - Saturday, 8:00pm
New Zealand - Sunday, 6:00am
Sweden - Saturday, 8:00pm
Canada, Eastern - Saturday, 2:00pm

This will be our fifth official ToeQuest chat meeting. Chat meetings are usually scheduled bi-weekly using alternating times: Fri-11pm, Sat-3pm, Sun-7am (Central Standard Time). Note that this next chat meeting will be held at 1pm, 2 hours earlier than usual. Since our community has 489 members from 65 countries, I use this schedule to reach the widest audience possible.

In our next chat session we go to the very heart of quantum mechanics and examine a phenomenon which is absolutely impossible to explain, in a classical sense, and is indeed a mystery. The topic for this next chat session is...

Wave/Particle Duality

The double-slit experiment was listed in Robert P. Crease's book titled, "The Prism and the Pendulum", subtitled, "The ten most beautiful experiments in science", and was the only experiment that remains a mystery.

If you would like to do some research before the meeting you might check out the following references.

1. Richard Feynmann's Explanation.
2. PhysicsWeb online article, The double-slit experiment.
3. The Prism and the Pendulum, Chapter 10.
4. ToeQuest's Latest TOE News article and discussion.
5. A movie showing single electron interference patterns.
6. You might also search the ToeQuest forums for "wave particle duality" or related strings.

Some questions to ponder when preparing for the chat session:

1. Are subatomic particles partilces, waves, or other?
2. Why are particles on the small-scale (quantum) unlike particles on the large-scale (classical)
3. How are the results from the double slit experiment possible.

I'll expand the "questions to ponder" later, but this is a good start to get you all pondering. I'll post a transcript of the chat session to this post for future reference.

Please add your pre-chat comments to this thread. If there are areas relating to the posted topic that you would like to discuss, you might mention them here for others to consider before the chat meeting. Any future chat room topic suggestions should go to the suggestions thread. Also, remember to review the Chat Room Guidelines thread before engaging in Chat.

Regards,
--Robert

[Rufus]

Robert

Thank you for this information. I will try to attend the scheduled chat.

Rufe

[Guille]

I will be here,

We already have been starting to get more and more on my thread on light and gravity as particles or/and waves, so I think many will be prepeard with their opinion.

I see now that Juan R. is in the forum there are 5 Spanish members-Good so I don¡'t have to look for my own hour and maybe understand it wrongly.

I will definatelly be there.

BTW, this theme is going to create (I hope-think) much expectation and discussion. And even more now that we will son achieve the 500 members.

[dleviwing]

Robert;
2.. ((Why are particles on the small-scale (quantum) unlike particles on the large-scale (classical)

Please clarify what you are referring to in question 2 as to small-scale and large-scale particles. Are you comparing quantum physics concepts to classical physics concepts? An example would be helpful.
Thanks;
Dave

PS: Great topic.

[Robert]

You're right. By small-scale and large-scale I am comparing quantum physics concepts to classical physics concepts. Imagine playing with a baseball. It's predictable, it's motions are understood, its understandable, etc. If you start shrinking this baseball to sub-atomic dimensions it looses its thingness and gets "smeared" in respect to position, momentum, predictability. However, a shrinking baseball is not really a good example since you cannot have a shrunken baseball at sub-atomic dimensions. What would it be composed of? Instead, the shrunken baseball would be represented as a subatomic particle which, by definition, isn't really a thing in the classical sense. I think people tend to think of electrons and other particles as things in the sense that a baseball is a thing. But an electron is fundamentally different in its thingness. Why the difference?

[dleviwing]

Robert;
Thanks for clarifying, I wasn't sure whether to assume your intent.
"Why the difference" may create a good chat debate.
Thanks;
Dave

[Guille]

This chat session has been a good one.

Although only a 1% of the members came (5 of 500 (then)), many things were discussed.

Waves as illusions caused by observation, as the rate of slips movement, the duality as a confusion, the equivalence of energy and mass to impply that the conditions for one should also be for the other are some of the subjects that were touched. Although I would have liked to dedicate more time to gravity as it would have helped me more for my process.

Hope the next one get's a bit more people: just a difference from 5, to 10, would change the whole idea: much more opinions will be given, theories could more widelly be discussed....

[Robert]

I have completed the editing of the chat session transcript and have uploaded it to the first post of this thread. I tried to clean it up a bit as far as spelling, formatting, double posts, etc., to make it more readable.

Also, I'd like to thank everyone who came to the chat. I really enjoyed it. Next chat is scheduled for Sunday, June12th, at 7am, except I'll be in Singapore. I should have access to the Internet but will need to check the local time and schedule and all that.

Also, post any problems you had with the chat room here. Ideas for future chats here. Ideas on how to get more members involved can go to this thread.

Regards,
--Robert

[treed]

Nice analogy, with the baseball thing. I missed the chat (at the lake), but I wish I hadn't. I'll be there for the next one.


Thank you.
Tina

[Robert]

I should point out that the total member count is misleading because it includes members that have not confirmed their registration (80) and banned members (2). See the real number of members is more like 504 - 80 - 2 or 422 and raises your percentage to 1.18%. You might also look at the number of active users (users who have posted) which is 166 bringing the percentage to 3.01%. Better yet is the number of visits by registered members in the last 30 days which is 150. That brings the percentage up to 3.33%. That 150 number is probably the best one to measure the growth of ToeQuest.

Regards,
--Robert