'One real mystery of quantum mechanics': Physicists devise new experiment

Nov 01, 2012

What is light made of: waves or particles? This basic question has fascinated physicists since the early days of science. Quantum mechanics predicts that photons, particles of light, are both particles and waves simultaneously. Reporting in Science, physicists from the University of Bristol give a new demonstration of this wave-particle duality of photons, dubbed the 'one real mystery of quantum mechanics' by Nobel Prize laureate Richard Feynman.

The history of science is marked by an intense debate between the particle and wave theories of light. was the main advocate of the particle theory, while James Clerk Maxwell and his greatly successful theory of electromagnetism, gave credit to the . However, things changed dramatically in 1905, when Einstein showed that it was possible to explain the (which had remained a complete mystery until then) using the idea that light is made of particles: photons. This discovery had a huge impact on physics, as it greatly contributed to the development of quantum mechanics - the most accurate ever developed.

Despite its success, quantum mechanics presents a tremendous challenge to our everyday intuition. Indeed, the theory predicts with a remarkable accuracy the behaviour of small objects such as atoms and photons. However, when taking a closer look at these predictions, we are forced to admit that they are strikingly counter-intuitive. For instance, predicts that a particle (for instance a photon) can be in different places at the same time. In fact it can even be in infinitely many places at the same time, exactly as a wave. Hence the notion of wave-particle duality, which is fundamental to all .

Surprisingly, when a photon is observed, it behaves either as a particle or as a wave. But both aspects are never observed simultaneously. In fact, which behaviour it exhibits depends on the type of measurement it is presented with. These astonishing phenomena have been experimentally investigated in the last few years, using measurement devices that can be switched between wave-like and particle-like measurements.

In a paper published today in Science, from the University of Bristol give a new twist on these ideas. Dr Alberto Peruzzo, Peter Shadbolt and Professor Jeremy O'Brien from the Centre for Quantum Photonics teamed up with quantum theorists Dr Nicolas Brunner and Professor Sandu Popescu to devise a novel type of measurement apparatus that can measure both particle and wave-like behaviour simultaneously. This new device is powered by quantum nonlocality, another strikingly counter-intuitive quantum effect.

Dr Peruzzo, Research Fellow at the Centre for Quantum Photonics, said: "The measurement apparatus detected strong nonlocality, which certified that the photon behaved simultaneously as a wave and a particle in our experiment. This represents a strong refutation of models in which the photon is either a wave or a particle."

Professor O'Brien, Director of the Centre for Quantum Photonics, said: "To conduct this research, we used a quantum photonic chip, a novel technology pioneered in Bristol. The chip is reconfigurable so it can be programmed and controlled to implement different circuits. Today this technology is a leading approach in the quest to build a quantum computer and in the future will allow for new and more sophisticated studies of fundamental aspects of quantum phenomena."

A promising perspective for solving ' one real mystery. Stay tuned!

Explore further: Interview with Gerhard Rempe about the fascination of and prospects for quantum information technology

More information: A Quantum Delayed Choice Experiment, Peruzzo et al., Science, 2 November 2012. dx.doi.org/10.1126/science.1226719

Related Stories

Observing a Photon no Longer a Seek-and-Destroy Mission

Jun 02, 2004

A team of University of Queensland, Australia physicists has devised a sophisticated measurement system for single particles of light, or photons, enabling them to investigate fascinating behaviour in the quantum world. ...

A new 'lens' for looking at quantum behavior

Dec 14, 2011

(PhysOrg.com) -- In a paper published in Physical Review Letters, researchers Daniel Terno (Macquarie University, Australia) and Radu Ionicioiu (Institute of Quantum Computing, Canada) provide a new perspe ...

Opposites interfere

Jul 26, 2007

In a classic physics experiment, photons (light particles), electrons, or any other quantum particles are fired, one at a time, at a sheet with two slits cut in it that sits in front of a recording plate. For photons, a photographic ...

Quantum interference fine-tuned by Berry phase

Jul 05, 2012

(Phys.org) -- A team from the University of Bristol’s Centre for Quantum Photonics (CQP) has experimentally demonstrated how to use Berry’s phase to accurately control quantum interference between different photons.

Recommended for you

Progress in the fight against quantum dissipation

Apr 16, 2014

(Phys.org) —Scientists at Yale have confirmed a 50-year-old, previously untested theoretical prediction in physics and improved the energy storage time of a quantum switch by several orders of magnitude. ...

A quantum logic gate between light and matter

Apr 10, 2014

Scientists at Max Planck Institute of Quantum Optics, Garching, Germany, successfully process quantum information with a system comprising an optical photon and a trapped atom.

User comments : 292

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

Noumenon
4 / 5 (65) Nov 01, 2012
Another nail in the coffin of 'scientific realism', and more support of logical positivism and the epistemological origins of the failure of classical physics (Bohr & the Copenhagen pov).

It is neither a wave nor a particle. A "particle" or a "wave" are the conceptual framework in which we conform reality, in order to observe it. The act of acquiring knowledge of reality, necessitates a conceptualization of it. We can not get out of our own intellectual way.

Thus, the underlying reality,... 'unconceprualized reality' or 'reality as it is in itself',... should be understood as existing independent of the form in which we express it. This is why a-priori intellectual faculties* fail to rationalize reality at the qm scale, consistently.

* the mechanisms the mind has evolved with to facilitate ordering of experience for consciousness, as in space, time, causality (Kant's categories).
Sanescience
1 / 5 (5) Nov 01, 2012
Ok Noumenon, but I am there for I think ;-)

I wonder if there has been any further development in theories where photons (and other particles) are higher dimensional very large objects intersecting our space such that their interactions outside our dimensions of space looks like "spooky action at a distance."
EyeNStein
1.6 / 5 (7) Nov 01, 2012
This fundamental question will never be solved with reporting like this...
Making a 'Measurement' is the process which shows it as a particle.
'quantum non-locality' is not a power source.
With loose use of terminology like this article confusion reigns.
Ophelia
5 / 5 (6) Nov 01, 2012
Original version of the paper was published on the arxiv in May at http://arxiv.org/...05.4926.

In case anyone cares.
Mike_Massen
3 / 5 (10) Nov 01, 2012
The correct link is http://arxiv.org/abs/1205.4926

Since photons dont experience time (null geodesic) then we really have to deal more with our perception (at first) than the reality...
Torbjorn_Larsson_OM
4.3 / 5 (12) Nov 01, 2012
"Quantum mechanics predicts that photons, particles of light, are both particles and waves simultaneously."

Only in the same way that you can claim a city is both houses and roads instead of a sprawl. A quantum field is neither particle nor wave but its own thing, and this has been known for a century. Ptuh!
Electronhelix
1 / 5 (9) Nov 01, 2012
Please allow me to remind everyone that Dirac postulated an high energy photon could 'transmute' into two particles. An Electron (matter), and a Positron (antimatter). This was also experimentally verified.
Now, since a simple plane wave may be considered to be two, in- phase, contra- rotating, circularly polarised waves, it should not be surprising that particle like properties are observed.
(My chosen pseudonym is ELECTRONHELIX? Which, I suggest, may go someway to explaining Electrons in orbit, in particular Electron pairing.)
Torbjorn_Larsson_OM
3.6 / 5 (11) Nov 01, 2012
@ Noumenon:

This tests quantum field theory well once again, as it has been well tested for nearly a century. And of course all mechanics have reality and how to test it build in, that is how we make observations. Explicitly so in quantum mechanics with its observation-observables.

On these grounds your solipsism is not warranted.

And really: philosophy, which can never be tested and so can put out conflicting story telling from the same observations, has nothing whatsoever to do with science and factual knowledge. It amounts to the intellectual morass of religion. And in as much as it pretends to ride on science also the perverse morality of religion doing the same.

Who needs any of that in an enlightened society!?

[Note that a cleaned up and housebroken philosophy is useful for the company of ethics in jurisdiction et cetera. But not when making messes elsewhere.]
Torbjorn_Larsson_OM
3 / 5 (4) Nov 01, 2012
@ Electronhelix:

Each particle field has terms of interactions with all other fields, unless explicitly forbidden. You should look up physicist Matt Strassler's blog where he writes accessible articles for laymen.

And your pattern search? Forget it, that is how most of the religious or science cranks operates full time. It is totally meaningless.

[Outside of hypothesis generation within actual science natch, where it can _at times_ work - and usually then in the form of induction - I hasten to add. Kekulé's dream may be the rare exception.

But then it leads to fruitful results through tests et cetera. Not so with idle crank speculation, which are seldom inductive in the first place to boot.]
Noumenon
4.2 / 5 (56) Nov 01, 2012
@ Noumenon: This tests quantum field theory well once again, as it has been well tested for nearly a century. And of course all mechanics have reality and how to test it build in, that is how we make observations. Explicitly so in quantum mechanics with its observation-observables. On these grounds your solipsism is not warranted.


My "solipsism"? I don't think you understood me then. It should have been clear that I do not reject objective reality.

Most physicist partake in philosophy of physics, a well establish field by now, as is in any case clear in the historical development of qm, especially wrt interpretations.

My comment is actually a rejection of the metaphysical aspect of Scientific_realism, and as providing a reason for the non-intuitive nature of qm, i.e. its not a "physical problem" with the theory.
kochevnik
1 / 5 (8) Nov 01, 2012
Since photons dont experience time (null geodesic) then we really have to deal more with our perception (at first) than the reality...
Yes and a point particle is a wave in other inertial frames of reference. The duality can be simply a product of undefined time begetting an undefined IR frame.
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (10) Nov 01, 2012
A quantum field is neither particle nor wave but its own thing, and this has been known for a century. Ptuh!

It has been known - but it hasn't been demonstrated because all experiments up until now only ever showed wavelike OR particle like behavior - even delayed choice experiments (in which you can decide what type you want to measure after the photon is already in the apparatus).

The way I read their paper it has now.
They used a second photon to set/unset a beamsplitter in a Wheeler-type delayed choice experiment - and then put the photon in a superposition of states which makes the beamsplitter present and not present at the same time. In effect performing a wave-type and a particle-type experiment at the same time.
ValeriaT
1 / 5 (6) Nov 01, 2012
ValeriaT
1 / 5 (11) Nov 01, 2012
Surprisingly, when a photon is observed, it behaves either as a particle or as a wave. But both aspects are never observed simultaneously
It's not true: the pure wave is diffracted in double slit experiments in this way. But the result of this experiment with photons usually appears in this way - it means, the particle-wave character of photons manifests itself even during very classical experiments and everyone can observe it without investing tax payer's money into another observations..
Mike_Massen
1.5 / 5 (6) Nov 01, 2012
Particle physicist Professor Brian Cox in his Dec 2008 TV documentary "HORIZON: Do You Know What Time It Is" states:- "..we travel through time at the speed of light.."

Which suggest all sorts of odd issues not least of which is the manipulation of the unit dimensions to make sense of it.

So I would like to hear some feedback from those that have something to offer re origins and philosophy and any relevant comments in respect of linear or obverse interpretations of that statement:- "..we travel through time at the speed of light.." ?

Thanks and don't be shy, yah hear ?
Ben D
2 / 5 (4) Nov 01, 2012
My intuition tells me that if an electron acts as a particle and a wave, then in the particle mode, it is a spherical standing wave (SSW) of energy, and when or if that SSW loses coherency, the energy content is dispersed to exhibit normal wavelike conditions.

Iow, so called particles are actually made of wave energy in some coherent spherical standing wave form and can then further come together to form a matrix like patterns/arrangements with other particles to form atoms, molecules, compounds, etc..
droid001
1.8 / 5 (8) Nov 01, 2012
Light does not travel anywhere.
From perspective of light, light doesn't age, or all light has an age of 0.
If we want to experience the world from the light's own point of view, we will find that the more we accelerate to travel along with the light, the more the measured travel distance contracts.
The faster we go in between A and B, trying to keep up with the light, the shorter the distance becomes for us.
The conclusion is : for the light itself, the whole universe is only zero millimeters long. There is no distance between A and B.
There is no place for the light to be.

It should thus not surprise that we can never reach the velocity of light, that we cannot attain the light's own point of view.
There is no such point of view; light does not exist!
Ben D
2.3 / 5 (6) Nov 01, 2012
Particle physicist Professor Brian Cox in his Dec 2008 TV documentary "HORIZON: Do You Know What Time It Is" states:- "..we travel through time at the speed of light.."

Which suggest all sorts of odd issues not least of which is the manipulation of the unit dimensions to make sense of it.

So I would like to hear some feedback from those that have something to offer re origins and philosophy and any relevant comments in respect of linear or obverse interpretations of that statement:- "..we travel through time at the speed of light.." ?

Thanks and don't be shy, yah hear ?


Time doesn't really have any intrinsic reality, except as a concept to represent the measurement of relative movement of 'things' in the three dimensions of space. There is timelessness though from which the concept of 'time' is abstracted.

Absolute reality is non-dual, but the human mind has evolved to function on the basis of duality, subject and object, etc., which is essential for its survival.
Noumenon
4.2 / 5 (51) Nov 01, 2012
So I would like to hear some feedback from those that have something to offer re origins and philosophy and any relevant comments in respect of linear or obverse interpretations of that statement:- "..we travel through time at the speed of light.." ?


I didn't see that program, but I'm sure he was referring to the invariance of the interval, in special relativity. Say you use a lorentzian metric as {+, -, -, -} (t, x, y , z), then according to an observe within his own inertial reference frame he is moving 100% "in time", because from his perspective he is stationary.

Now, from the perspective of another observer, the above observer is actually moving in space, thus according to this 2nd observer, his spatial motion takes away from his "time motion", leaving the interval the same.

We are always moving in time, as we approach c, our spatial motion takes away from our time motion, and thus time slows for moving observers (according to an observer watching).
Noumenon
4.2 / 5 (52) Nov 01, 2012
,... as to philosophical implications of that, I would say it shows that time is not an absolute reality, a physical entity of itself, but instead is dependent on the observers reference frame. This is especially apparent wrt the failure of the concept of simultaneity in SR.

What is physically Real is the invariant quantities expressed in a particular coordinate system. However, the coordinate systems are not invariant, as they are observer dependent, so time is not a invariant physical reality, but a means of ordering experience.

What we say is "time" is the comparison of the number of cycles of one event (say a cesium atom) that is congruent with another. It's defined rather than discovered.

The Reality is the quantity that each observer will agree on.
grondilu
2.3 / 5 (3) Nov 01, 2012
As Dirac wrote in his 'principles of quantum mechanics'(chap. 1, §2), the wave-particle duality is just a particular case of a more profound principle: the superposition principle. I wish people stop talking about this wave-particle debate and focus more about state superposition such as Schrödinger's cat and similar concepts. And if you wanna tell me it's equivalent, I'd say it is not. As Dirac pointed out, the superposition principle is much more fundamental.
Bowler_4007
1.5 / 5 (8) Nov 01, 2012
tests shouldn't be performed just because we don't want to believe what the data from theories and experiments tell us, don't get me wrong i see purpose in this test, but i wholly disagree with the motive described in this article, reality is not obliged to conform to our expectations and we need to accept that
Tausch
1 / 5 (2) Nov 01, 2012
If there are an infinite number of geometries, then at least one of those geometries will not run counter to our intuition.

We have to adopt (find/chose) that geometry.
Euclidean geometry guided us well until now - intuitively.
In light of our next choice of geometry all that is now counter intuitive will become our future intuition.

DavidW
1.5 / 5 (8) Nov 01, 2012
It depends on the observer.

There appears to be a medium for photons, electrons, etc.

If we are inside our medium we measure waves, changes in the medium that are created by additional waves of disturbance from other particles or waves.

If we are outside our medium, we measure particles and have a spatial 3D environment.

It is relative and one at the same time per the observer.

"I think, therefore I am" – The acceptance of a profound self-evident truth.
Tausch
1.7 / 5 (6) Nov 02, 2012
There are no self-evident truths that science seeks.
Truths are inaccessible to scientific method.

To be "outside our medium" is to map the territory.
The map is not the territory.

Your comment - 'observer', 'medium', 'photons', 'electrons'. 'measure', 'waves', 'particles', spatial 3D environment', 'time', 'truth' are all concepts, constructed concepts - maps of the territory you wish to describe.
(Unless you are a mathematician and you assert that a least one point on your map corresponds to a point on the territory):

http://phys.org/n...ics.html

EWSwan
3.4 / 5 (5) Nov 02, 2012
Quanta of light, photons, are not particles, and they are not waves. They are quanta. They do what they do, perfectly. It is only our preconceived notions of how they should behave that causes us confusion. Surely a particle cannot act like a wave, and vice versa. Of course, they do not. Particles behave like particles. Waves behave like waves. Photons are neither. But they can be measured in such a way that they appear to be one or the other. Do not be deceived. Quanta are quanta, and they do what they do, just so. THAT is the reality we must learn to see.

And concerning the "basic nature of time"... Time is related to position and velocity (momentum) by v = d/t. Einstein has shown that time is not absolute, nor is simultaneity. These quantities interact in a very fluid fashion. That is the reality.

As an old friend taught me, "it is what it is."
Mike_Massen
2.1 / 5 (11) Nov 02, 2012
DavidW claimed
"I think, therefore I am" – The acceptance of a profound self-evident truth.
There are so many flaws in the above, all based on tenuous assumptions... Here is what really happened:-

Descartes was at a friend's anniversary party at 12:45am, dessert was laid out under a cloth along a buffet. Children were sneaking around putting their hands underneath to snatch some sweets.

Descartes castigated them for getting them early and said:-

"I think, they're for 1 am"
vlaaing peerd
4 / 5 (3) Nov 02, 2012
" Isaac Newton was the main advocate of the particle theory, while James Clerk Maxwell and his greatly successful theory of electromagnetism, gave credit to the wave theory."

Way before Newtons particles, there already was a very valid wave theory of light.

http://en.wikiped...rinciple

Chr. Huygens, "Traitė de la Lumiere"(1678)

Newton very un-Ockhamly adressed the diffraction as that lightparticles have "fits" and sometimes the particle decides to go one way and sometimes the other way, therefore light only appearing to have wavelike properties. Maybe world's greatest scientist ever abused his authority and kept us in the dark for another 200 years.
vacuum-mechanics
1.8 / 5 (5) Nov 02, 2012
'One real mystery of quantum mechanics'…
What is light made of: waves or particles? …

These are the concept in conventional theory, in which we do not know the mechanism of quantum mechanics. Nowadays, according to unconventional theory below, there is no mystery anymore! Light is just wave packet of vacuum medium, or electron wave – particle duality is just…
http://www.vacuum...17〈=en
Electronhelix
1 / 5 (5) Nov 02, 2012

Electronhelix
1 / 5 (4) Nov 02, 2012

@ Torbjorn Larson

"Each particle field has terms of interactions with all other fields, unless explicitly forbidden. You should look up physicist Matt Strassler's blog where he writes accessible articles for laymen.

And your pattern search? Forget it, that is how most of the religious or science cranks operates full time. It is totally meaningless.

[Outside of hypothesis generation within actual science natch, where it can _at times_ work - and usually then in the form of induction - I hasten to add. Kekulé's dream may be the rare exception.

But then it leads to fruitful results through tests et cetera. Not so with idle crank speculation, which are seldom inductive in the first place to boot.] "

I don't understand why you ascribe Religious Argument into my comment. Dirac and Schrodinger both lay enough information down to question the 'particulate' nature of matter. Physics is not a Democracy, as was illustrated by Einstein with his Theory of Relativity.
Electronhelix
2.3 / 5 (6) Nov 02, 2012
@ BEN D
My intuition tells me that if an electron acts as a particle and a wave, then in the particle mode, it is a spherical standing wave (SSW) of energy, and when or if that SSW loses coherency, the energy content is dispersed to exhibit normal wavelike conditions.

Iow, so called particles are actually made of wave energy in some coherent spherical standing wave form and can then further come together to form a matrix like patterns/arrangements with other particles to form atoms, molecules, compounds, etc..


This would appear to be a logical construction of how waves can behave like 'Particles', as against how 'particles' can behave like waves.
elektron
1.6 / 5 (7) Nov 02, 2012
existence. consciousness. they are synonyms.
Tausch
1 / 5 (4) Nov 02, 2012
existence. consciousness. they are synonyms. - electron


...for infinite forms labeled 'structures'.
Your welcome.
ValeriaT
1 / 5 (7) Nov 02, 2012
Light is a Particle! In particle model of the vacuum the space-time can be modeled with the water surface and the photons correspond the solitons spreading in it. The solitons are always waves, yet they have pronounced particle character. There's no need to invent some conceptually new stuffs about it.
AmritSorli
1 / 5 (6) Nov 02, 2012
Photon is the energy packet which diminishes energy density of quantum vacuum for: (mp x c2 - hv) / Vp (h is Planck constant and v is frequency of the photon.
When photon is moving in quantum vacuum it creates a wave of the vacuum. Result is that by double slit experiment we will get interference pattern also when we send photons only through one slit. Through the other slit waves are passing....
TheGhostofOtto1923
3 / 5 (16) Nov 02, 2012
It is neither a wave nor a particle. A "particle" or a "wave" are the conceptual framework in which we conform reality, in order to observe it. The act of acquiring knowledge of reality, necessitates a conceptualization of it. We can not get out of our own intellectual way.
Nou falls into the standard religionist trap of relying on words to describe things. And when those words invariably fall short, they feel free to denounce the scientists who use them and the vast amount of computation they approximate.

Nou, the people who use these words are intimately familiar with the computation. You are not. Kant obviously never was. Kant declared that the universe is unknowable. So do religionists, and for exactly the same reasons. They both use words which are completely worthless for the task. But it is the only way they have of maintaining their authority. Words are political not scientific you see.
Pressure2
1 / 5 (5) Nov 02, 2012
Both are correct, a photon is just Planck's constant (H) a single quanta times the number of waves (F) in a second. It is waves of particles that interact with matter as an single unit (photon) or as individual waves. Why can't the individual waves be composed of particles and a photon be a quanta (F) of these wave-like particles (H)?
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.8 / 5 (17) Nov 02, 2012
We are always moving in time, as we approach c, our spatial motion takes away from our time motion, and thus time slows for moving observers (according to an observer watching).
Pure gutter word calculating. '3 x A = pastry'. Pastry is not a scientifically useful product but it makes people feel good when they eat it, which is why it is typically served in the lobby at colloquiums.
Most physicist partake in philosophy of physics, a well establish field by now, as is in any case clear in the historical development of qm, especially wrt interpretations.
No and as many scientists have stated outright, most ignore it, many are annoyed by it, and hawking for one has declared it dead. Dan dennett even refuses to speak in philo jargon because he considers it worse than useless.

When scientists are doing what you so desperately want to call philosophy, as in conceptualizing and theorizing for instance, they are doing science and not philosophy.
ValeriaT
1 / 5 (7) Nov 02, 2012
In contemporary physics the philosophy is everything, which is not expressed with math. The contemporary physics doesn't bother with WHY questions, only with HOW questions. It merely collects a numerical regressions of reality. When contemporary physicists manage to interpolate the experimental data with parabola, whose parameters corresponds another experiment, then they're solely satisfied with such a level of "understanding" at all.
ValeriaT
1 / 5 (7) Nov 02, 2012
For example, here I'm discussing the subject of quantum gravity with professional physicist, who deals with this subject seriously in many articles. It turns out, this physicist has absolutely no idea, what the actual subject of "quantum gravity" is. It's not some esoteric science describing the phenomena at the whole boundary of human experience. The quantum gravity struggles with INTERPOLATION of quantum mechanics and general relativity - so its subject is just the description of everyday reality at the human observer scale instead. The contemporary physicists are as confused, as the people can ever be just because of their one hundred years standing ignorance of philosophy of their research... An we all are paying these ignorant trolls who are just flying from conference to conference from our taxes.
Noumenon
4.4 / 5 (51) Nov 02, 2012
We are always moving in time, as we approach c, our spatial motion takes away from our time motion, and thus time slows for moving observers (according to an observer watching).
Pure gutter word calculating. '3 x A = pastry'. Pastry is not a scientifically useful product but it makes people feel good when they eat it, which is why it is typically served in the lobby at colloquiums.


It's remarkable that you did not recognize what I wrote there as basic SR, apparently confusing it with philosophy, demonstrating you are ignorant if both. I was answering a question posed by Mike, and anyone who understands SR would recognize what I was describing.

As usual, you don't point out specidically where you disagree, .. you only give a vague qualitive impression or your opinion about an field of study, ...which anyone could do without understanding anything I wrote..
Noumenon
4.4 / 5 (50) Nov 02, 2012
When scientists are doing what you so desperately want to call philosophy, as in conceptualizing and theorizing for instance, they are doing science and not philosophy.


Otto, you simply don't know what you are talking about. My comments are relevent to the subject at hand. If you weren't so ignorant of physics and philosophy you would understand they are intimately related wrt ontological questions, realism vrs logical positivism, one guide the other. I have listed many physicist, like Penrose, etc,. and have quoted Einstein,... by you continue your meaningless crusade against philosophy, all while not having a grain of knowledge of it. Go find something shiny to play with.

Epistemology is a branch of philosophy and if you think that subject is meaningless to modern physics, you are plainly ignorant, period. Philosophy of Physics is a major field of study,,.. by physicists. The old school philosophers are gone.
Claudius
1 / 5 (6) Nov 02, 2012
While reading these comments, with "a photon is x" "a photon is y" "a photon is (fill in the blank)," I am reminded of the parable of the blind men and an elephant. https://en.wikipe...elephant
Claudius
1 / 5 (6) Nov 02, 2012
"Just so are these preachers and scholars holding various views blind and unseeing.... In their ignorance they are by nature quarrelsome, wrangling, and disputatious, each maintaining reality is thus and thus."
https://en.wikipe...elephant
TheGhostofOtto1923
3.1 / 5 (15) Nov 02, 2012
It's remarkable that you did not recognize what I wrote there as basic SR, apparently confusing it with philosophy, demonstrating you are ignorant if both.
No, pure SR contains no words. Your stuff contains nothing but words. See the difference? No you dont.
...which anyone could do without understanding anything I wrote..
Uh including yourself? As you know I usually quote respected scientists like dennett, Krauss, dawkins, and hawking who are far from ignorant. You quote dead philos who have been thoroughly debunked and exposed ages ago.
As usual, you don't point out specidically where you disagree, .. you only give a vague qualitive impression or your opinion about an field of study
Well neither do you guys. You try to discuss science with no knowledge of the underlying math, thinking you can get somewhere this way. Scientists use words which REPRESENT the math which they are intimately familiar with. You know like shadows on a cave wall -?
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.9 / 5 (16) Nov 02, 2012
If you weren't so ignorant of physics and philosophy you would understand they are intimately related wrt ontological questions, realism vrs logicalblahblah
Please stop getting my shoes dirty. A bus driver doesn't have to know the chemistry of combustion in order to drive a bus. I ALWAYS reference scientists who thoroughly and completely trash your bankrupt philo babble. And they know EXACTLY what you are talking about.

Otto stands on the shoulders of giants. Your giants are all dead and buried and so is the night soil they produced.
Noumenon
4.4 / 5 (51) Nov 02, 2012
It's remarkable that you did not recognize what I wrote there as basic SR, apparently confusing it with philosophy, demonstrating you are ignorant if both.
No, pure SR contains no words. Your stuff contains nothing but words. See the difference? No you dont.


I was qualitivily describing the invariance of the interval to answer a question. That is a valid thing to do. I'm am familiar with the math of sr, gr, and qm, but this is a comment section of a news site.

YOU however FAILED to recognize what I wrote for the physics being described, thus YOU are ignorant of basic SR, yet tried to insinuate that I was.
Noumenon
4.4 / 5 (50) Nov 02, 2012
Well neither do you guys. You try to discuss science with no knowledge of the underlying math, thinking you can get somewhere this way.


And you make this statement based on what? I've studied the math of SR, GR and QM. Perhaps if you ever actually had a substantive discussion with me rather than telling me you don't like philosophy because Hawking doesn't, you wouldn't come off so pointless.

I'm not having a debate with someone who never studied philo, as to whether that field is valid or not. If you have a specific counter point then make it, or stru.
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.9 / 5 (16) Nov 02, 2012
and have quoted Einstein,... by you continue your meaningless crusade against philosophy
No as I have demonstrated many times in the past you misquote Einstein. Einstein briefly explored philosophy but he found nothing useful, as he said, and so abandoned it. And a few gens later all these other scientists reach the same conclusions.
I'm am familiar with the math of sr, gr, and qm, but this is a comment section of a news site.
-Perhaps... but your buddy Kant was totally ignorant of these things. And yet you maintain that he was so GIFTED that he somehow anticipated the science that only intense calculating, theorizing, and experimentation has allowed scientists to do today. These are the same powers attributed to saints.

Many learned philos have similarly declared Kant full of crap when they could actually squeeze any meaning at all out of his stuff. But that is how the soup of tenure is made.
Noumenon
4.4 / 5 (50) Nov 02, 2012
Einstein briefly explored philosophy but he found nothing useful, as he said, and so abandoned it. And a few gens later all these other scientists reach the same conclusions.


Einstein pursued philosophy his entire life,.. in fact he was a big fan of Immanuel Kant. I'm not going to educate you in order to debate you, over pointlessness. If you have a specific counter argument of anything I've posted above before your innane anti-philo rant, then present it or go away.
Noumenon
4.3 / 5 (49) Nov 02, 2012
Perhaps... but your buddy Kant was totally ignorant of these things. And yet you maintain that he was so GIFTED that he somehow anticipated the science that only intense calculating, theorizing, and experimentation has allowed scientists to do today.


The reason it is a mystery to you of what a guy from 1790's could possible have to do with QM, is because you don't know what epistemology has to do with modern physics. Incredibly, you think they are unrelated. This article in fact describes experiments designed to answer ontological questions wrt particle or wave.

Further if you understood what I actually write, you would know my comments are directed to reject the metaphysical notion that we can know the underlying reality, that is, to reject the metaphysical component of "scientific realism". But you're only interested in attacking, not understanding.

Of course, i've told you before that Kant himself REJECTED metaphysics as a valid source of knowledge.
Moebius
1.6 / 5 (7) Nov 02, 2012
It isn't just the wave-particle conundrum, I think the results of the Michelson Morley experiment make absolutely no sense in context with what we think we know of physics with regard to light.
TheGhostofOtto1923
3 / 5 (16) Nov 02, 2012
Einstein pursued philosophy his entire life,..
Philos tend to have the egocentric view that everything is about THEM so I can see where this opinion comes from. He rejected philojunk early on in life because it wasnt helpful.
in fact he was a big fan of Immanuel Kant.
No only another philo will tell you this.
what epistemology has to do with modern physics. Incredibly, you think they are unrelated.
No I think words like epistemology mean entirely different things to different philos, and absolutely NOTHING to most all scientists, which is why people like dennett think they are worthless when discussing science, let alone actually DOING it.
Of course, i've told you before that Kant himself REJECTED metaphysics as a valid source of knowledge.
-But he, and you, both insist that the metaphysical exists. 'A priori'. This is jarringly unscientific.
ValeriaT
1 / 5 (5) Nov 02, 2012
I think the results of the Michelson Morley experiment make absolutely no sense in context with what we think we know of physics with regard to light.

How did you come into it? For example Feynman used to derive the constant speed of light from Maxwell's theory routinely in his lectures. The zero result of the results of the Michelson Morley experiment perfectly fits Maxwell's æther based theory.
ValeriaT
1 / 5 (6) Nov 02, 2012
I think the results of the Michelson Morley experiment make absolutely no sense in context with what we think we know of physics with regard to light.

How did you come into it? For example Feynman used to derive the constant speed of light from Maxwell's theory routinely in his lectures. The zero result of the results of the Michelson Morley experiment perfectly fits Maxwell's æther based theory.
Ben D
3.4 / 5 (5) Nov 02, 2012
TheGhostofOtto1923

Nou falls into the standard religionist trap of relying on words to describe things. And when those words invariably fall short, they feel free to denounce the scientists who use them and the vast amount of computation they approximate.


All words fall short, regardless whether they came from the mouth of a scientist or religionist. Always keep in mind that words/concepts are mere labels that are meant to represent a reality, but are not that reality itself. Words are only useful as an expedient to point the way to the actual reality for which they represent, but in them selves have no substance except as symbols.

The real is forever on the other side of the conceptual representation!
Mike_Massen
1 / 5 (5) Nov 03, 2012
elektron mumbled
existence. consciousness. they are synonyms.
NO.

Eg. Rocks exist & follow mechanical patterns of crystallisation, entropy & are at the whim of all other external forces with zero self direction, no one who understands this & more complex aspects would be sane to call rocks conscious & especially so by the metrics we apply to living beings.

Life-forms however have varying levels of self direction & the more complex they are the more diverse & powerful is the self direction & in association with others however, as to consciousness its unclear whether such exists, especially so outside any instrumentality such as a body, brain, nerve cells etc. ie. No one has ever returned !

There does appear to be accumulating evidence that consciousness is just another label for complex response patterns that are difficult to understand.

Increasing experimental evidence is beginning to show & with more sophistication that consciousness is merely a very complex type of illusion.
Tausch
1 / 5 (5) Nov 03, 2012
Dunno.
Mutual exchange (of anything - the broadest, all-encompassing label for me of the word 'anything' is the word 'information') implies direction.

The label 'self' is undefined.

I have seen your thoughts before. Those were my thoughts long ago.
You will supersede your own thoughts as well.
And regret that your hindsight/afterthought were not included with the first thought.
Tausch
1 / 5 (4) Nov 03, 2012
The above is long winded.
The short version:
Exchange implies direction.

(Where, when, what, how, and how much, aside.)
Mike_Massen
1.7 / 5 (6) Nov 03, 2012
Tausch admitted
The above is long winded...
Damn right and your other post also reads as if you should be on medication (correct colour pills?) or had too much whine, gin or vodka !

Self esteem seems so important to you, when you Tausch proclaim
..You will supersede your own thoughts as well..
Why do you feel compelled to have to suggest others haven't got through to your implied 'heightened' level of awareness. Reading the Tao and projecting as paraphrasing paradigms is another test, like many Sufi tests of similar ilk, please either be linguistically precise or switch to a different forum, this particular forum has to do with Science = "The discipline of acquisition of knowledge".

The tao and other esoteric texts which have similar patterns to your writings are highly subjective and often self-referential, beware this is the greatest cause of the bulk of several complex delusions...

Facts would be good and as objective as possible :-)

Tausch
1.7 / 5 (6) Nov 03, 2012
You interpret too much between my written lines.
All facts are eventually superseded.
You guess at what I feel - expressed as a compulsion to suggest and/or to imply. Stop guessing - and make of me from what is written and not from what is not written(between the lines).
julianpenrod
1 / 5 (6) Nov 03, 2012
A demonstration of how a ceaselessly promoted model, backed by forces many if not most defer to, can completely eliminate alternate explanations of a phenomenon. The photon particle model of light came from the photoelectric effect in which substances were found to respond photovoltaically only to certain wavelengths of light. Huge amounts of wrong frequencies didn't elicit a response, but even modest amounts of the right one produced current. The "interpretation" was that light didn't deliver energy over time, like a fluid filling up a particle, but instantaneously, in a particle. This was said to demonstrate the particle nature of light, all the energy in one packet. But there is an alternative, that matter can only accept energy at specific wavelengths. Light is a field, but matter accepts energy only at the right frequency! Since matter machines measure this, equating their behavior with your "interpretation", "experiments" can say what you want.
DavidW
1 / 5 (6) Nov 03, 2012
Tausch
There are no self-evident truths that science seeks.
Truths are inaccessible to scientific method.

"I think, therefore I am" is the testable method to prove we are alive.
Science exists to enrich life, as life is the most important thing in life. Truth and life are the cornerstones from which science exists. As science needs them both.
DavidW
1.6 / 5 (7) Nov 03, 2012
DavidW claimed
"I think, therefore I am" – The acceptance of a profound self-evident truth.
There are so many flaws in the above, all based on tenuous assumptions...


Sometimes words can be said one way and understood another. It appears to me that most people use this quote as evidence that we are alive, regardless of origin, which in turn establishes the existence of truth. If you misunderstood or wanted it spelled out, there it is.
TheWalrus
2.3 / 5 (6) Nov 03, 2012
These comments are hilarious. Here, let me try one:

Trectimals--i.e., nonspecific semiotic substructures within a recursive schema--compel the dichotomous realization that neither tropes nor archetypal phenomena are compatible with sublimated preconceptions of quiditude.

PROVE ME WRONG!
Kron
2.2 / 5 (10) Nov 04, 2012
Quantum Mechanics was established as an objective theory independent of subjective interpretation. QM is about taking and documenting measurements, from this a mathematical framework is derived. During the measurement process a problem of sorts emerged. Quanta (indivisible parts of the material world, ie elementary particles) exhibit different properties under different experimental setups, devise a setup which shows the wave-type nature of quanta and quanta shows its wave-type nature, devise a setup which shows the particle-type nature of quanta and quanta shows its particle-type nature.

This is bad news for a theory which attempts to get rid of subjectivity (philosophy) from our physical models of reality. It seems we cannot objectively quantify reality.

In an attempt to destroy the problem we allow both to be true. Quanta is both a wave and a particle.

Does this solve the problem? No. The data we collect about the objective reality is subject to the experiments we set.
Kron
1.9 / 5 (9) Nov 04, 2012
So quanta could act like particles and waves, this has been shown as true by experiment. By going with the flow we leave out subjective interpretation, it is both. But the act of measurement (checking to see if it is a wave, or checking to see if it is a particle) is a subjective assessment. Plus, it is incomplete. Just because quanta can act as wave and particle, does not exclude other possibilities not yet measured for. Quanta may have many more forms which we at the macro scale do not understand. We see waves in the ocean, we check for wave properties of quanta, we see rolling rock parts, we check for particle properties of quanta. And this is where we encounter a problem. Why should the world of the micro be limited to these two types of properties found in the macro world? We just don't know what else to measure for due to our own limitations. So in the end, the ultimate objective reality remains unknowable. We are limited by our imagination, philosophy.
Kron
2.2 / 5 (10) Nov 04, 2012
We can only get results for the things we test for. Philosophy proposes the question - the measurement answers.
ValeriaT
1 / 5 (5) Nov 04, 2012
PROVE ME WRONG!
You're apparently off-topic with trectimals here, that's enough for me. Try to repeat your test with concepts of quantum mechanics and we'll see..
ValeriaT
1 / 5 (7) Nov 04, 2012
Particle model of vacuum indeed explains the particle-wave duality with water surface analogy of space-time. Every wave which is spreading along such a surface makes this surface more large and therefore it's slowing another ripples which are spreading across this place, i.e. it behaves like less or more dense blob of environment, i.e. it behaves like the sparse particle. Therefore we can see, the particle-wave duality is solely classical effect of every particle environment - only abstract geometric waves don't slow during their mutual interactions. The difference of water surface from abstract geometry is, the water surface contains tiny density fluctuations of density (Brownian noise) which do serve as an analogy of Higgs field in vacuum. Every wave spreading trough such an environment exposes more density fluctuations, which are slowing another ripples moving trough such an undulating place. Therefore the particle-wave duality is the consequence of inhomogeneities of vacuum.
ValeriaT
1 / 5 (6) Nov 04, 2012
The mathematicians and formally thinking physicists handle space like the empty flat geometry, but in particle model of vacuum every space-time is formed with density gradient of particle environment, so you simply can never have the space-time fully homogeneous: the tiny density fluctuations of it are omnipresent here. Which introduces a non-linear response to all waves spreading trough it, which is the logical basis of particle-wave duality in my model. Every wave slows down another waves, so it behaves like particle. After all, in real life every wave has a nonlinear behavior, because its energy is always nonlinear function of amplitude. The harmonic waves do exist only in heads of mathematicians. At the quantum scale this nonlinearity is just concentrated, because it correspond the Brownian noise scale of the vacuum.
ValeriaT
1 / 5 (6) Nov 04, 2012
The nonlinearity leading to particle-wave duality naturally explains the effect of so-called quantization, if you try to think about it. Because every transverse wave which makes its environment more dense must remain in resonance with longitudinal wave, which is forming this density profile.

It can explain the formation of particles from waves too: At the moment, when the density of the environment induced with wave motion increases up to certain limit, then this wave will start to bounce from inner walls of the resulting blob of dense vacuum with total reflection mechanism: i.e. it changes itself into standing wave which is interfering with its own density wave inside of dense blob of vacuum, created with its own motion. Literally speaking: such a wave makes its environment so dense, it even cannot escape from it and it bounces in its own density blob at place like the physical particle, i.e. Dirac fermion. Only evanescent waves can penetrate from resulting wave packet into outside
TheGhostofOtto1923
3.3 / 5 (14) Nov 04, 2012
Why should the world of the micro be limited to these two types of properties found in the macro world? We just don't know what else to measure for due to our own limitations. So in the end, the ultimate objective reality remains unknowable. We are limited by our imagination, philosophy.
Because guys like you read the words 'wave' and 'particle' and 'quanta' and think that physicists use these to do their work. They don't. They use the very complex math that these words roughly approximate, to do their work. They only use words as shorthand for what they and their comrades are intimately familiar with.

The words are useless for guys like you in understanding reality. I suggest you stop fiddling with them as they are just misleading you. The reality is that scientists are very competent in explaining reality amongst themselves. They can make very successful predictions on how reality operates based on what they know. And only they are getting better at this.
TheGhostofOtto1923
3.3 / 5 (14) Nov 04, 2012
We can only get results for the things we test for. Philosophy proposes the question - the measurement answers.
Uh no science is NOT philosophy irrespective of what philos want or say. Philos continue to babble on about the metaphysical, which is only an obvious substitute for heaven. 

For instance the philo says:

"In sum, philosophy is not science. For it employs the rational tools of logical analysis and conceptual clarification in lieu of empirical measurement. And this approach, when carefully carried out, can yield knowledge at times more reliable and enduring than science, strictly speaking."

Translation: 'I still reserve the right to try to explain things solely by thinking about them.'

Science continues to erode the traditional domains of the pseudoreligious. There is NOTHING that cannot be explained in wholly physical terms, and the ONLY way to do this is scientifically.
ValeriaT
1.6 / 5 (7) Nov 04, 2012
The words are useless for guys like you in understanding reality. I suggest you stop fiddling with them as they are just misleading you.
My opinion rather is, the nonformal understanding of physics will become more important than ever before. The era of formal deterministic models in physics is over, because the technological progress enabled us to cross the boundaries of dimensional scale, in which the Universe appears simple and deterministic. Our Universe appears composed of spheres at the certain distance from human observer scale (scale of atoms and massive stars). But with increasing distance the appearance of Universe becomes complex and hyperdimensional in the same way, like everyday reality. The low-dimensional formal models which the physicists are using for description of reality at the quantum and relativistic scales are becoming broken again and only locally applicable. Even nonformal understanding of reality develops, not just this formal one.
ValeriaT
1.4 / 5 (7) Nov 04, 2012
The limited capability of math manifests with failure of formal models like the quantum gravity and string theory: these theories are poorly conditioned and they lead to huge landscape of many possible solutions. I presume, in future the role of metamodels will increase in similar way, like in the computer programming: we don't use the strictly deterministic machine code and assembler for computer programming anymore: the usage of high-level computer languages enabled us to program computers more effectively without bothering about unnecessary details. The future of physics is in growing role of computer simulations - the derivation of equations, which are of only limited applicability scope by itself will become a mental exercise of few nerds and nobody will pay for it.
TheGhostofOtto1923
3.1 / 5 (15) Nov 04, 2012
Read the following very carefully:

"At Google's Zeitgeist Conference in 2011, Hawking said that "philosophy is dead." He believes philosophers "have not kept up with modern developments in science" and that scientists "have become the bearers of the torch of discovery in our quest for knowledge." He said that philosophical problems can be answered by science, particularly new scientific theories which "lead us to a new and very different picture of the universe and our place in it"."

-How often has science shown us counterintuitive things? How often has science debunked what philos have predicted?

Only science can or will explain the origins of creativity, morality, justice, and so-called spirituality. It continuously illuminates what religion and philosophy struggle to obscure. These disciplines seek to maintain that certain things can never be known, because it is the only way they can hope to survive. Scientists have increasing confidence that this is not true.
Kron
2.1 / 5 (11) Nov 04, 2012
Otto, it is pointless having a discussion with you as you fail to understand what is being said. Ps. I am a mathematician so quit your presumptuous nonsense you fool.

Go sit by the garbage.
TheGhostofOtto1923
3.3 / 5 (14) Nov 04, 2012
My opinion rather is, the nonformal understanding of physics will become more important than ever before.
But obviously, more impossible than ever before. Science will soon enter a realm where only artificial intelligence will be able to 'understand' it. The human intellect will be left behind in the same way that philosophy has been usurped by science.

The universe may be too complex for us to understand but our machines, and the machines which they create, should be up to the task.
Mike_Massen
2.5 / 5 (8) Nov 04, 2012
:eek: TheGhostofOtto1923 might be starting to go off his meds again with this claim
There is NOTHING that cannot be explained in wholly physical terms, and the ONLY way to do this is scientifically.
Well, really, you might need to get a grip with some advanced aspects of phenomenology and weave into that the main precept of K. Godel along with understanding of the limits of your own perception.

Anyone, such as TheGhostofOtto1923, who suggests static phrases like "..the ONLY way.." obviously hasn't lived long enough or with sufficient lucidity or cognition to appreciate the relationship between patterns of causality and perception might have no correlation with the current simplified processes inherent in Science.

Rather more complex views of these processes (of Science) might well be required to make sense of issues like advanced QM & therefore its entirely possible the distinct appreciation of objective and subjective (in terms of perception) may well appear irrelevant !

TheGhostofOtto1923
3.1 / 5 (15) Nov 04, 2012
Ps. I am a mathematician so quit your presumptuous nonsense you fool.
Well if that is true it is hard to understand how you can think that physicists base their theories on rocks and ocean waves?
We see waves in the ocean, we check for wave properties of quanta, we see rolling rock parts, we check for particle properties of quanta. And this is where we encounter a problem.
-rather than on the results of experiments which produce data which they find they can successfully describe mathematically?

In other words you do understand that they don't collect data and then try to match it up with things like rocks and ocean waves don't you? Because that's what you are SAYING that scientists do.
TheGhostofOtto1923
3.1 / 5 (15) Nov 04, 2012
Rather more complex views of these processes (of Science) might well be required to make sense of issues like advanced QM & therefore its entirely possible the distinct appreciation of objective and subjective (in terms of perception) may well appear irrelevant !
Translation: 'I STILL reserve the right to explain the world by thinking really hard about it in the comfort of my own armchair.'

Scientists get results as hawking, Feynman, Krauss, and many others are eager to point out. Philos do not. And science continues to reveal that philos never DID get results. They never explained anything, just like their religionist counterparts.
ValeriaT
2 / 5 (8) Nov 04, 2012
"At Google's Zeitgeist Conference in 2011, Hawking said that "philosophy is dead." He believes philosophers "have not kept up with modern developments in science" and that scientists "have become the bearers of the torch of discovery in our quest for knowledge."
Ironically enough, it's just the Hawking, who makes most of money with his pseudophillosophical books based on pseudoatheistic speculations - other physicists (with honest exception of Brian Greene) don't waste their time in void twaddling about it. He's similar to Feynman, who fought against philosophy all the time during his public interviews, although these lectures weren't nothing but a philosophy. So I do perceive Mr. Hawking's stance as a pretty hypocritical one. After all, he's a old chap from old deterministic era of physics - I don't think, nobody of modern physicists takes this guy and his lost bets seriously. He's a zoon politikon, who attracts only the people discussing politics like you.
ValeriaT
1 / 5 (6) Nov 04, 2012
Only science can or will explain the origins of creativity, morality, justice, and so-called spirituality. It continuously illuminates what religion and philosophy struggle to obscure.
The science doesn't bother with WHY questions systematically. It just answers HOW questions: this is whole its philosophy by now.

I'm afraid, you're living in some alternate reality in similar way, like the alphanumeric: you're describing, what the contemporary science SHOULD DO, not what it really does by its own definition.
ValeriaT
1 / 5 (6) Nov 04, 2012
Actually, at the moment when me or some other "crackpot" attempts for deeper answering of some WHY question, then all mainstream science proponents are getting upset and reluctant as a single man. Don't live in illusions here: the mainstream physics is not motivated in answering of WHY questions, because it would be forced to deny its whole existing philosophy based on formal Platonist reductionism (which worked quite well so far, until now).

For example, here you can see, how the people are getting upset immediately, when I attempt to explain rise or racism with thermodynamics.
Mike_Massen
1.7 / 5 (6) Nov 04, 2012
Sadly TheGhostofOtto1923, as he approaches the last gasp of entropy, just doesnt get it
.. They never explained anything, just like their religionist counterparts.
When it comes to physics and especially so to advanced material properties, history isn't a good example.

TheGhostofOtto1923 you are so naively reliant on history, the changes occuring in respect of the rather more advanced aspects are 'not as predictable as they used to be' ;-)

Instead of translating, try understanding directly, mature researches in their respective disciplines have no need of analogies created for mere neophytes, therefore your arbitrary undisciplined 'translations' are not helpful and tangential to any real understanding and in your case specifically 'humility' !

You dont know TheGhostofOtto1923 I'm most skilled in respect of experimental methods per se' but, have YOU actually thought about the looming problem of subject vs object perceptual issues in any sort of phenomenological sense ?
ValeriaT
1.4 / 5 (7) Nov 04, 2012
For example, recently prof. Couder demonstrated the double slit experiment, the atom orbitals, quantum tunelling or Zeeman effect with water surface model - but the mainstream physics proponents are watching it dully and repeating mantra about "mysteries of quantum mechanics", which we can "never understand" - only to describe with another and more complex equations. This is indeed just a desperate attempt for keeping the status quo in formal understanding of physics, nothing else.
Noumenon
4.4 / 5 (50) Nov 04, 2012
TheGhostofOtto1923 does not realize that S. Hawking has described himself as a Positivist, which is a Philosophy of Science, and Philosophizes as follows,..,

"Any sound scientific theory, whether of Time or of any other Concept, should in my opinion be based on the most workable PHILOSOPHY of science: the positivist approach [...],..If one takes the positivist position, as I do, one cannot say what Time actually is. All one can do is describe what has been found to be a very good mathematical model for time and say what predictions it makes. " - S. Hawking

Does this sound familiar to my above comments in this thread, Otto? It should, because the point of those comments were to also advocate that philosophy of physics, of Positivism.

It is not surprising though that a supposed "anti-philosophy" physicist would engage in philosophy of physics, in fact they all do if they're engaged in modern physics.
Tausch
1 / 5 (5) Nov 04, 2012
"I think, therefore I am" is the testable method to prove we are alive. - DavidW


Honestly. That statement makes no sense.
What is 'the testable method'? Thinking?
Proofs are reserved for mathematics.

Science exists to enrich life,... -DavidW

Science exists...?
How long has 'science' existed?
If we inhabit a lifeless planet with our science have we enriched life?
...as life is the most important thing in life. - DavidW

Circular logic. Self referenced subject. Without a way to measure - (the importance.) Do you know all life forms (we know of to date) go extinct?

Sometimes words can be said one way and understood another. -DavidW


"for exact understanding exact language is necessary."

(Gurdjieff to Ouspensky)

That is the goal of science. All words have more than one meaning.
Science reduces the meaning of any word for sake the of clarity, and understanding. You have done just the opposite.

Mike_Massen
1 / 5 (5) Nov 04, 2012
Tausch is getting sloppy, why, maybe too much ethanol with
(Gurdjieff to Ouspensky)
tut tut, just because you have read G. & O. and possibly Blatavsky & Maurice N. doesnt mean you understand the intimate problem of 'the imperative of the human automaton' and how justification from the status of the 'reading habits of the predisposed intellectual' can make you other than a slightly more complex automaton instead of a conscious man worthy of the 4th way in thought AND deed, self justification and slipping up on name dropping (G.& O.) makes you just another automaton albeit with a little more complexity but still seeking to play the act of an implied but still an unauthoritative teacher... (sigh)
Tausch
1 / 5 (5) Nov 04, 2012
Is English your only native language? What other languages do you consider as your native or mother tongue with respect to fluency?
Noumenon
4.3 / 5 (49) Nov 04, 2012
Of course, i've told you before that Kant himself REJECTED metaphysics as a valid source of knowledge. -
But he, and you, both insist that the metaphysical exists. 'A priori'. .


You like to make things up. My use of "a-priori" refers to the mechanisms the mind uses to order experience. The mind is not omniscient, it is bio-chemical machine that operates on sense experience, and has a means of synthesizing or ordering experience for consciousness, in terms of various forms of thought, i.e time, space, causality, substratum, etc. The mind is a physical thing that works in a particular way. No metaphysics here.

In stark contrast to Kant, i'm saying that these forms of thought should NOT be confused with objective reality in making scientific progress,... albeit given Kant's transcendental deduction, we can not have intuitive understanding except through these forms,.... hence, qm is non-intuitive because of epistemological rather than physical reasons.
TheGhostofOtto1923
3.3 / 5 (14) Nov 04, 2012
experimental methods per se' but, have YOU actually thought about the looming problem of subject vs object perceptual issues in any sort of phenomenological sense
Blah? Physicists lead the way while philo apologists follow, trying to salvage what they can of their superstitions. While your guys are thinking and sweating, scientists are actually investigating and plotting their own courses. They don't NEED philos. They IGNORE what philos have to say because it is in no way HELPFUL to them.
The mind is a physical thing that works in a particular way. No metaphysics here.
The MIND is a non-entity like consciousness and the soul. Scientists explore the BRAIN to understand how it works.
qm is non-intuitive because of epistemological rather than physical reasons.
No, it is counterintuitive because experiments were done, data was collected, and models were produced which informed scientists of the entirely PHYSICAL nature of it. There is nothing BUT the physical.
Tausch
1.7 / 5 (6) Nov 04, 2012
You both came close to an agreement.
Only the prefix NON- to Otto's PHYSICAL was missing.
Too bad.
TheGhostofOtto1923
3.3 / 5 (14) Nov 04, 2012

Otto? It should, because the point of those comments were to also advocate that philosophy of physics, of Positivism.
Yes I am familiar with this particular -ism.

"Positivism is a 'philosophy' [sarcasm mine] of science based on the view that in the social as well as natural sciences, data derived from sensory experience, and logical and mathematical treatments of such data, are together the exclusive source of all authoritative knowledge."

"Positivism is elsewhere defined as "the view that all true knowledge is scientific," and that all things are ultimately measurable."

-And so because philos attach an -ism to something this means that they own it? 'All true knowledge is scientific.' How much clearer can it be? 

Scientists have no need of -isms. They prefer -ities and -ications. Absolutely no room for meta-anything.
Only the prefix NON- to Otto's PHYSICAL was missing.
In which it would become philobabble.
TheGhostofOtto1923
3.3 / 5 (14) Nov 04, 2012
You know nou, after more reflection (2-3 mins), the only way I see of reconciling your hawking quote vs the more recent quote which I posted, is that hawking quite obviously does not consider this -ism as anything but science, and apparently thinks this should be self-evident. After all science is, according to the -ism

"the exclusive source of all authoritative knowledge."

-Which leaves out all things non-physical and meta-physical. And we also know that science cannot be done except by doing it, that is, by doing experiments, collecting data, modeling it mathematically, and making predictions which can be confirmed experimentally. None of these things are done by thinkers and posturers in stuffy armchairs now are they?
he looming problem of subject vs object perceptual issues in any sort of phenomenological sense ?
Dude you can write all the poetry you want. Say have you tried limericks? The one about relativity and arriving the day before you left is pretty catchy.
Noumenon
4.4 / 5 (48) Nov 04, 2012
No, that is not what Hawking is saying. Nothing to do with "self-evident", nor anything anti-philosophy.

Positivism is the rejection of ontological pronouncements wrt the scope of scientific understanding,.. it is in effect a rejection of metaphysical aspects of 'scientific realism'. Did you get that,... a rejection of the validity of metaphysical speculation!

As an example, he clearly states his position wrt "Time". You see, some physicist think space and time are physical things, some Realists think this.

Please reread his quote then compare to my posts here. We are saying the SAME thing. We are both making statements about philosophy of physics in order to reject metaphysics in physics.

Whether you are mature enough to admit it or not, this proves that Hawking in fact engages in philosophy of physics, and is making the exact point that I have in this thread.
Noumenon
4.4 / 5 (49) Nov 04, 2012
,... you attack me for speaking of philosophy and epistemology, but agree with me without even knowing it!
Fleetfoot
5 / 5 (3) Nov 05, 2012
A demonstration of how a ceaselessly promoted model, backed by forces many if not most defer to, can completely eliminate alternate explanations of a phenomenon. The photon particle model of light came from the photoelectric effect in which substances were found to respond photovoltaically only to certain wavelengths of light. Huge amounts of wrong frequencies didn't elicit a response, but even modest amounts of the right one produced current. ...


That is incorrect, the result showed that (a) a photon below a threshold frequency could not eject an electron regardless of the source intensity and (b) if a photon above that threshold interacted with an electron, the electron was ejected with a kinetic energy proportional to the frequency of the photon minus a constant. The constant of proportionality is Planck's Constant of course.

Please learn some basic udergraduate physics before spreading disinformation.
Fleetfoot
not rated yet Nov 05, 2012
Particle physicist Professor Brian Cox in his Dec 2008 TV documentary "HORIZON: Do You Know What Time It Is" states:- "..we travel through time at the speed of light.."

Which suggest all sorts of odd issues not least of which is the manipulation of the unit dimensions to make sense of it.


He is referring to the fact that the magnitude of the four-velocity of an object has the value 'c' and is a tangent to its worldline hence aligned with the time axis of its rest frame. There's an article on it here:

http://en.wikiped...velocity
johanfprins
1 / 5 (6) Nov 05, 2012
The confusion in the posts on this thread is worse than at Babel.

Consider a laser cavity with perfect reflecting walls. Since no light is emitted when you pump the cavity, the light-energy is stored within the cavity as stationary light.

Open the shutter: Coherent wave-fronts with a cross-sectional area A will emerge. After a time t you close the shutter. You will now have a coherent light-entity of energy E occupying a volume A*(c*t), which moves forward as a single entity with speed c.

According to Einstein ALL energy is mass energy M*c^2. Thus, the coherent light entity has a distributed mass of M. When you have distributed mass, you have a centre-of-mass. BUT this does not make the light-entity a "particle": It still diffracts when encountering two slits!

But while it does not meet up with slits it moves like any entity with a centre-of-mass.

The smallest energy such coherent-wave can have is h*(nu). That is all that Planck discovered: NOT "particles" of light!
ValeriaT
1 / 5 (6) Nov 05, 2012
That is all that Planck discovered: NOT "particles" of light!
Look Johan, you're getting too old for recognition of new concepts in physics... This is how the photon looks like in spark chamber - do you see? No wave, just particle with well defined path. Please, let the physics for specialists, who do care about experiments.
johanfprins
1 / 5 (8) Nov 05, 2012
Look ValeriaT: You have proved time and again that you are so stupid that you would have failed physics anywhere in the world (probably already in primary school).

That trace in the spark chamber does NOT prove that a photon is a "particle". Any entity with a centre-of-mass is able to follow a well-defined path: And as I have just shown above, a coherent light-wave (of any energy), has a center-of-mass. So what is so surprising about the path in your spark chamber. It does NOT prove that a photon is a "particle".

All objects with centre-of-mass follow well-defined paths: This DOES NOT mean they are all "particles". Whatever the last word means!

Please, let the physics for specialists, who do care about experiments.
BTW, I am a physics specialist who did a lot of experimental and theoretical work; and I have a superb list of citations. What are you: A nobody who obviously do not have the brainpower to think logically.
zero_ego
1 / 5 (3) Nov 05, 2012
Matter and energy are interchangeable and therefore are just different forms of the same thing. A particle is "matter" a wave is "energy" so conceptually, why can't a photon be thought of as being both?
Fleetfoot
5 / 5 (1) Nov 05, 2012
The confusion in the posts on this thread is worse than at Babel.

...

According to Einstein ALL energy is mass energy M*c^2. Thus, the coherent light entity has a distributed mass of M.


Nope, you are adding to the confusion. That equation is for energy at rest, the full equation (with c=1) is:

m^2 = E^2 - |p|^2

For a photon E=|p| hence m=0

The smallest energy such coherent-wave can have is h*(nu). That is all that Planck discovered: NOT "particles" of light!


That is what Planck thought at the time, his quanta were bursts of waves, but in that case a wave of greater amplitude should impart more energy as in classical theory and that is why the photoelectric effect changed everything. Einstein showed that the threshold frequency is independent of the intensity, as is the peak kinetic energy of the ejected electron, and that is what implied that photons are particles.
johanfprins
1 / 5 (6) Nov 05, 2012
Matter and energy are interchangeable and therefore are just different forms of the same thing. A particle is "matter" a wave is "energy" so conceptually, why can't a photon be thought of as being both?
A "particle" in quantum mechanics is considered to have no volume at all. That is why they have to fudge the mathematics by means of renormalisation when doing quantum-field calculations.

A wave always occupies a volume, but its centre-of-mass moves like a particle with no volume: However, this does not make the photon to be "dual" to a "point-particle" with no volume as is claimed in the mainstream literature: And it does not require the postulate of "complementarity".

If you throw "wave-particle duality" and "complementarity" into the dusbin, quantum wave-mechanics unifies with Maxwell's equations and with Einstein's gravity. Is this not a good reason to move away from these Voodoo concepts?
ValeriaT
1 / 5 (5) Nov 05, 2012
a coherent light-wave (of any energy), has a center-of-mass
What the "coherent light-wave" is supposed to mean? A woodoo concept? Wave has no beginning nor end, it has no center of mass.
johanfprins
1 / 5 (6) Nov 05, 2012
Nope, you are adding to the confusion. That equation is for energy at rest, the full equation (with c=1) is:

m^2 = E^2 - |p|^2

You have the cat by the tail: The m in your equation is REST-mass: The M in Einstein's equation is the total mass so that the E (I prefer not to set c=1) is

E=M*c^2 which is larger than m*c^2.

For a photon E=|p| hence m=0

Rather write p^2=E/(c^2). To get the wave equation that models such a photon, you must replace E with i*(hbar)*(d/dt) (d partial) and P with -i*(hbar)*(del) to operate on the wave-amplitude (PHI). When you do that, you obtain that:

(hbar)^2*(del)^2(PHI)=(hbar)^2*(1/c^2)*(d^2/dt^2)(PHI)

Which is the wave equation that models a photon with energy (hbar)*(omega). BUT (hbar)^2 cancels, so that it is ALSO Maxwell's wave equation for a light-wave that can have another energy than that of a photon.

Thus a photon is modelled by Maxwell's equation for the electric-potential of light. Where does the "particle" aspect come in?
johanfprins
1 / 5 (6) Nov 05, 2012
.. h*(nu). That is all that Planck discovered: NOT "particles" of light!

That is what Planck thought at the time,
And he was correct!
but in that case a wave of greater amplitude should impart more energy
To what? Of course a coherent wave with the same fequency and a larger amplitude must have more energy! This is simple primary school physics!
and that is why the photoelectric effect changed everything. Einstein showed that the threshold frequency is independent of the intensity, as is the peak kinetic energy of the ejected electron, and that is what implied that photons are particles.
What Einstein showed is that the electron-states within the metal cannot absorb more light-energy at a time than that of a photon-wave, and that therefore an impinging larger-energy coherent wave (like for example a laser-wave) disentangles to release photons which can be absorbed. The higher the intensity of the wave, the more photons it can release.

johanfprins
1 / 5 (6) Nov 05, 2012
a coherent light-wave (of any energy), has a center-of-mass
What the "coherent light-wave" is supposed to mean? A woodoo concept? Wave has no beginning nor end, it has no center of mass.

You keep on making a fool of yourself. If a light-wave has to be inifitely long to be a coherent wave, we would not have been able to produce laser-light; which is coherent WITHOUT being infinitely long. Please ValeriaT, wake up and realise that you are waaaay out your league!

What are your qualifications?
Mike_Massen
1.7 / 5 (6) Nov 05, 2012
johanfprins is at it again !
What are your qualifications?
Dont muddy the waters, johanfprins you only ever claimed to have a 'background in theoretical physics', this means you share that distinction with primary school children who watch a compass move and understand the theory. Comparing the sizes of your resume's just makes you look immature, focus on the content and stop adding noise and wasting time.

Photons dont experience time. From the moment of creation to destruction is zero for them because its a "null geodesic", thats the arena you would be best advised to (theoretical) research instead of quizzing people on qualifications, ie Photons in THEIR reference frame not ours. People often produce new works with zero qualifications so to enquire is a complete waste of time and just makes you look insecure and wanting to pummel people with the staples in your paperwork !
johanfprins
1 / 5 (6) Nov 05, 2012
What happens when an electron-wave absorbs a photon-wave is that the electron wave increases its mass-energy. In a metal, an electron wave with rest-mass m(0) has an energy M*c^2 at the work-function W of the metal, given by:

M*c^2=m(0)*c^2 - W

Whe it absorbs a light wave with energy (hbar)*(omega) its mass-energy increases to become M(i)*c^2, where.

M(i)*c^2=M*c^2-plus-(hbar)*c^2=m(0)*c^2-W-plus-(hbar)*c^2

When M(i) is less than m(0), no electron is ejectedL When M(i) is equal to larger than m(0) an electron with kintic energy T is ejected, where:

T=M(i)*c^2-m(0)*c^2

his is the correct explanation of the photo-electric effect and it does not require that the photon wave must be a "particle" that collides with an electron-"particle".
johanfprins
1 / 5 (7) Nov 05, 2012
Mike massen again. Please go and see a shrink. I hope you do not have a wife and children. If you do I am sorry for them. They probably need police protection.
ValeriaT
1 / 5 (6) Nov 05, 2012
laser-light; which is coherent WITHOUT being infinitely long
Laser beam - even this coherent one - has no beginning or end, it has no center of mass. Laser pointer can shine for ever (until it doesn't run out of battery) - it's neverending harmonic wave, just collimated spatially. The photons don't behave so: they're constrained both in space both in time, being a particles at the same moment.
TheGhostofOtto1923
3.1 / 5 (15) Nov 05, 2012
No, that is not what Hawking is saying. Nothing to do with "self-evident", nor anything anti-philosophy.
So show me where in between these 2 pronouncements that hawking lost respect for your hobby where he chose to pronounce it dead?
Positivism is the rejection of ontological pronouncements wrt the scope of scientific understanding,.. it is in effect a rejection of metaphysical aspects of 'scientific realism'. Did you get that,... a rejection of the validity of metaphysical speculation!
Right. So why do you keep referring to the metaphysical as more than idle fantasy? Nothing comes from it = we will never find it = it has no effect on anything whatsoever = IT DOESN'T EXIST.

And since philosophy is nothing without it, the understanding that the MP doesn't exist means that philo = poetry = babble. Hows them word-calculatin'?
but agree with me without even knowing it!
No, philo is worthless for explaining the physical world. This has been proven scientifically.
johanfprins
1 / 5 (7) Nov 05, 2012
laser-light; which is coherent WITHOUT being infinitely long
Laser beam - even this coherent one - has no beginning or end,


Do you really want to be an idiot? When the front of the laser beam first emerges, the coherent light-wave starts off with a length ZERO, and after a time t the coherent light-wave has a length ct.
Laser pointer can shine for ever (until it doesn't run out of battery) -

What the hell has that to do with the length of the wave? So what you are saying is that the front of the laser-wave expands instantaneously to infinity. Are you completely insane?

And what about minus-infinity? Does a laser source ONLY operate by emitting light from its front and its back to instantaneously form an "infinitely" long coherent wave? Really you, just likwe Mike Massen, urgently requires the help of a shrink.
THE_ANTIPHILO
2.7 / 5 (14) Nov 05, 2012
Otto

Step aside little mensch let a pro handle this.

NOU. when philos try to own science by giving it a name with an -ism at the end of it, this is like when they write books like 'the philosophy of south park' or 'the philosophy of star wars' to try to remain relevant. Its pathetic.

Hawking is just like George Lucas in this respect. Lucas doesn't reach for a copy of Spinoza when he's writing the next sequel, and neither does hawking (in a manner of speaking).

They might mention some dead philo in a story line or a book for public consumption, but this does not mean they regard philo as in any way useful or helpful or RELEVANT at all, to the work that they do; only perhaps at most a social or political expedient.

Scientists regard philos as annoying because they endeavor to waste their time. Versteht?

For more enlightenment please see my profile page. Thankyou and good night.
ValeriaT
2 / 5 (8) Nov 05, 2012
Do you really want to be an idiot?
Don't be arrogant, I know what the wave concept is. It has no beginning neither end defined: it's sinus function. The spatially limited particle is a soliton: it's actually a mixture of temporary PULSES of many frequencies and it cannot be derived from wave concept with Fourier composition at all (you can get only stream of wave packets).
Your problem (which I do understand quite perfectly) is, you're confusing the wave and particle concepts, you're attributing the wave behavior to many transition phenomena (pulse, beginning or start of laser beam, etc.) which have nothing to do with wave concept and which cannot be derived from it. You're simply twisting the reality to suit your ideas, which are very schematic, if not senile. The arrogant silencing of opponents and dull schematic approach are the main problems of mainstream physics (which you're fighting with obstinately) - but you're doing the very same, whenever you get such an opportunity.
Fleetfoot
5 / 5 (1) Nov 05, 2012
laser-light; which is coherent WITHOUT being infinitely long
Laser beam - even this coherent one - has no beginning or end,


Do you really want to be an idiot? When the front of the laser beam first emerges, the coherent light-wave starts off with a length ZERO, and after a time t the coherent light-wave has a length ct.
Laser pointer can shine for ever (until it doesn't run out of battery) -

What the hell has that to do with the length of the wave? So what you are saying is that the front of the laser-wave expands instantaneously to infinity. Are you completely insane?


For goodness sake, will you two idiots please use some common sense and look up some basics before posting, what is the coherence length of a laser?

http://en.wikiped...h#Lasers
johanfprins
1 / 5 (6) Nov 05, 2012
Do you really want to be an idiot?
Don't be arrogant, I know what the wave concept is. It has no beginning neither end defined: it's sinus function.
To model physics, ANY differential equation requires to be solved subject to physical boundary conditions. It is also possible to ignore the physics-reality of boundary conditions to obtain solutions which are only mathematically valid; like infinitely long waves! Only a certifiable moron will argue that such a solution is physics.
- but you're doing the very same, whenever you get such an opportunity
It is exactly what YOU are doing. You are totally unwilling to even think outside the Voodoo dogma of "wave-particle duality". Probably because you have advocated this for so long, just like the rest of the mainstream crackpots, that you are not even willing to contemplate the possibility that it might be wrong.
Tausch
1 / 5 (4) Nov 05, 2012
Your consistency (wording) is inversely proportional to JP's math.
JP's math is consistence.
Fleetfoot
5 / 5 (1) Nov 05, 2012
Nope, you are adding to the confusion. That equation is for energy at rest, the full equation (with c=1) is:

m^2 = E^2 - |p|^2


You have the cat by the tail: The m in your equation is REST-mass: The M in Einstein's equation is the total mass so that the E (I prefer not to set c=1) is

E=M*c^2 which is larger than m*c^2.

For a photon E=|p| hence m=0


The mass in the equation I gave is the invariant mass. You can learn more here:

http://en.wikiped...relation

(Beware there is another page on that topic on Wikipedia which is poorly written and somewhat misleading.)
johanfprins
1 / 5 (6) Nov 05, 2012
For goodness sake, will you two idiots please use some common sense and look up some basics before posting, what is the coherence length of a laser?

http://en.wikiped...h#Lasers


So what are you trying to say by referring us to speculation within Wiki? If yo have an argument against what I have argued on your previously silly and wrong arguments, then post this. Try and act like a REAL scientist!
Fleetfoot
5 / 5 (1) Nov 05, 2012
For goodness sake, will you two idiots please use some common sense and look up some basics before posting, what is the coherence length of a laser?

http://en.wikiped...h#Lasers


So what are you trying to say by referring us to speculation within Wiki?


Coherence length is a well defined concept and an important parameter which measures the quality of a laser. Both of you are arguing as if you have no clue what the term even means. Wiki is just a starter, there are many other pages you can use.
ValeriaT
1 / 5 (5) Nov 05, 2012
JP's math is consistence.
In AWT every consistence comes at the price of bias. You cannot have the theory which is based on fully consistent postulates: if your postulates would be fully consistent, then you could replace all of them with single postulate and your theory would change into tautology, i.e. selfreferencing truth. On this paradox the Goedel's incompletenesses theorems are based: you cannot draw a line trough two coinciding points: these two points must be always different, or your implication vector will not be defined anymore.

As the result, the more mathematically consistent and compact theory you'll use (the lower number of postulates it will use), the more biased and misleading this theory will be outside of its validity scope. I do understand the bias in J.F.Prins approach quite well: he simply postulated "everything is wave" even for the beginning and end of pulse or curvature of space-time concepts, which cannot be derived from wave concept in any way.
ValeriaT
1 / 5 (5) Nov 05, 2012
Coherence length is a well defined concept and an important parameter which measures the quality of a laser
This comment is irrelevant (orthogonal) to my stance, only infinitely long harmonic undulation can be considered a "wave" in strict sense - everything else is just a manifestation of particle-wave duality in it. My point was, not only the quantum waves of quantum mechanics, but even all mechanical waves do contain a particle wave duality embedded, because they're never infinite: they're always limited both spatially, both temporaly and they're always nonlinear (they do contain higher harmonics in it). The pure harmonic D'Alambert's wave is an abstract geometrical construct - at the moment, why you apply it in real-life physics, then you introduce a bias into your theory, which will manifest itself with the failure of this theory in less or more distant perspective.

I of course know, that the laser wave is never infinitely long - this is just my point in this discussion.
johanfprins
1 / 5 (5) Nov 05, 2012
For goodness sake, will you two idiots please use some common sense and look up some basics before posting, what is the coherence length of a laser?

http://en.wikiped...h#Lasers



So what are you trying to say by referring us to speculation within Wiki?


Coherence length is a well defined concept and an important parameter which measures the quality of a laser. Both of you are arguing as if you have no clue what the term even means. Wiki is just a starter, there are many other pages you can use.
So what has this to do with the argument? Is a laser wave a coherent wave or is it not? And is the pure solution for such a wave given by Maxwell's equation for the potential of light energy for a light wave with a single frequency?. Yes it is! And is a photon also modelled by this same wave-equation? Yes it is! A photon is thus also a coherent wave. To bring technical issues like coherence-length into the argument is absurd!
Tausch
1 / 5 (3) Nov 05, 2012
you don't need to question bias arising from math. You need to question whether the description "everything is wave" is sufficiently describe by the math used.
It is. So far.
ValeriaT
1 / 5 (5) Nov 05, 2012
whether the description "everything is wave" is sufficiently describe by the math used
Nope, johanfprins is introducing the space-time curvature and time compression concepts in his theory and these concepts cannot be derived from wave concepts. Even his own math contains many assumptions (E=mc^2), which cannot be derived from wave math at all. In this moment he is introducing a particle-wave duality on background, despite he is realizing it or not (or despite he is willing to admit it or not).

In brief: if you want to convince me, "everything is a wave only", you should use only sinus function and D'Alambert harmonic wave equation for derivation of your theory - everything else is just a mathematical trick evading this condition for me.

That is to say: jfprins's math may be still be consistent by itself, but it's interpretation "everything is just a wave" isn't.
Tausch
1 / 5 (2) Nov 05, 2012
Then there are two johnasprins. The one where you speak for him.
And the one where his writings speak for themselves.
(Censored/oppressed or not.)
johanfprins
1 / 5 (5) Nov 05, 2012
I do understand the bias in J.F.Prins approach quite well: he simply postulated "everything is wave" even for the beginning and end of pulse or curvature of space-time concepts, which cannot be derived from wave concept in any way.


I am not postulating this but DERIVING it from Einstein's STR. I have on this forum showed more than three times that when the STR equation:

E^2=p^2*c^2 plus m(0)*c^2

is used to derive the wave equation for a photon, you get Maxwell's equation for a coherent light-wave (NOT Dirac's equation). Even though you have seen the derivation you close your eyes ans still blatantly lie by claiming that I "postulate" that all is waaves. The fact that a photon and a moving electron are both coherent light-waves ARE derived by using the same operator-substitutions that Dirac has used.

So why are you keeping on blatantly lying! Have you got no honesty whatsoever? You are a bigger closed-minded dogmatist than Galileo's peers were!
ValeriaT
1 / 5 (6) Nov 05, 2012
Is a laser wave a coherent wave or is it not?
We discussed it recently here bellow article about squeezed light. You actually cannot have a coherent wave physically due the uncertainty principle. Even the most harmonic laser wave is actually pretty dirty particle-like stuff and the photons are occurring randomly in it. For generation of fully harmonic wave you should squeeze the light and to achieve the full quantum entanglement of all photons inside of it - but in this moment you'll get into fundamental trouble: your laser cannot work in continuous model and its pulse cannot be infinite anymore! The uncertainty principle strictly limits the ratio of frequency noise squeezing and amplitude noise squeezing. The fully harmonic wave is therefore an utopia even at the macroscopic scale.
Mike_Massen
2.1 / 5 (7) Nov 05, 2012
johanfprins & multiple personality, Tausch may have a point when johanfprins said
Try and act like a REAL scientist!
GOOD !

Where is your detailed theoretical analysis of the Hafele–Keating experiment instead of your easy claim they 'subconsciously' altered the results, what by changing the original printouts how so ?

Have you worked out how the Sagnac effect occurs, instead of claiming no one understands it?

And have you gained that needed education re GPS and why they must run at different speeds due to special & general relativity than clocks on earth ?

Have you also described WHY special & general R. cannot, as you claim, be disentangled ?

Have you also worked out why there is no such thing as gravity free space, did you not appreciate my effort to educate that stupid notion away from your base physics guesses ?

You, claiming to be a real scientist, start with the above & we will see if you can learn anything despite your claim you know better than Einstein - LOL !
johanfprins
1 / 5 (6) Nov 05, 2012
Is a laser wave a coherent wave or is it not?
We discussed it recently here bellow article about squeezed light. You actually cannot have a coherent wave physically due the uncertainty principle.
So why do we have a laser-wave?

The rest of your post is such inane babbling nonsence: What does Heisenberg;s uncertainty of the position and momentum of a "particle" to do with the wave equation and its solution? According to you the wave-equation is supposedly separate from the "particle" which it guides! LOL!

I am retiring to laugh myself out!!! Goodbye till later>
ValeriaT
1 / 5 (5) Nov 05, 2012
You are a bigger closed-minded dogmatist than Galileo's peers were!
Nope, I'm accepting the particle-wave duality, which is essentially the consequence of the fact, in AWT you simply cannot have physically smooth and flat space-time: every space-time is a gradient of particle environment and it exhibits Higgs field/CMBR noise/Brownian noise/whatever. Therefore for me the concept of particle-wave duality represents absolutely no problem.

So if you say, everything is a WAVE ONLY, then it's just you, who is biased dogmatic here. I do support both views at the same moment without problems (which is why my theory is called an Æther Wave Theory, after all - look, I've even this duality hardcoded in the name of my model!).
Fleetfoot
3 / 5 (2) Nov 05, 2012
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coherence_length#Lasers

Wiki is just a starter, there are many other pages you can use.


So what has this to do with the argument? Is a laser wave a coherent wave or is it not?


No. If you read the reference, you will see the coherence lengths are finite because lasers are not perfectly monochromatic. The finite value measures timing jitter in the macroscopic cycles and create a finite linewidth and typically a gaussian frequency distribution and of course that means there is a similar uncertainty in the photon energies. No uncertainty in energy would give a perfectly coherent signal, but that requires an infinitely long wave because any change introduces a finite linewidth, think of the Fourier Transform.

In the quantum world, the uncertainty principle means no spread of energy requires infinite uncertainty in time which is logical because obviously an infinite sine wave has no centre.
ValeriaT
1 / 5 (5) Nov 05, 2012
In my theory (and by mainstream physics too, after all) the light wave is always inhomogeneous and it's composed of less or more entangled photons. Therefore you can never achieve the fully harmonic wave: even at the moment, when you entangle all photons inside of laser pulse carefully, then the whole pulse would behave like single giant photon (a BE condensate of photons, so to say) and it will get a shape of the single photon. Such an entangled pulse will rather appear like the huge vortex ring rolling through space like the particle, rather than wave. We can actually observe the shape of photons at the case, when their motion is slowed down significantly inside of the boson condensate composed of heavier atoms - after then the photons are spreading through it like the vortex rings.
Fleetfoot
5 / 5 (1) Nov 05, 2012
Nope, you are adding to the confusion. That equation is for energy at rest, the full equation (with c=1) is:

m^2 = E^2 - |p|^2


...

Thus a photon is modelled by Maxwell's equation for the electric-potential of light. Where does the "particle" aspect come in?


It comes in experimentally through the photoelectric effect. For a classical wave model, dim light of a frequency just below the threshold could not eject an electron but if it is made brighter, the energy should increase to a level where electrons would be released. That doesn't happen no matter how bright the source. That is what needs to be explained by a successful wave model.
ValeriaT
1 / 5 (5) Nov 05, 2012
In 1954 Albert Einstein wrote to his friend Besso: "All these fifty years of conscious brooding have brought me no nearer to the answer to the question, 'What are light quanta?' Nowadays every Tom, Dick and Harry thinks he knows it, but he is mistaken".

Actually, even the mainstream physicists today consider the photons as a somehow abstract shapeless "quanta of energy" and they don't ask how (not to say about why) they actually appear. IMO it's because this explanation would require to introduce the dense æther concept into physics again. For me the photons are quite real -albeit very fast moving - physical thingies and we can ask about their shape, size, etc. For me the photons are quite real-yet unstable-particles, which are of vortex ring shape, which do form spontaneously inside of light stream like the solitons at the water surface, which are moving with slightly subluminal speed and which are dissolving for to emerge again at different place with slightly superluminal speed.
Noumenon
4.3 / 5 (50) Nov 05, 2012
@Otto and his Mom, THE_ANTIPHILO,

Modern physics is replete with philosophical notions, despite your ignorance.

Operationally, Philo. is not physics, obviously. I did not make that claim. You two dingbats invented that straw-man.

For every Weinberg, Hawking, or Krauss, there is a Penrose, Mach, Poincare, Bohr, Heisenberg, Eddington, Pauli, Schrodinger, Bohm, Jeans, Einstein, etc, etc.. who find the subject relevant and/or have written of it.

"How does it happen that a properly endowed natural scientist comes to concern himself with epistemology? Is there no more valuable work in his specialty? I hear many of my colleagues saying, and I sense it from many more, that they feel this way. I cannot share this sentiment. ... Concepts that have proven useful in ordering things easily achieve such an authority over us that we forget their earthly origins and accept them as unalterable givens. Thus they come to be stamped as 'necessities of thought,' 'a priori givens,' etc." - A. Einstein
johanfprins
1 / 5 (6) Nov 05, 2012
In the quantum world, the uncertainty principle means no spread of energy requires infinite uncertainty in time which is logical because obviously an infinite sine wave has no centre.
It also does not have a finite energy which can have a certain value.

According to your reasoning, a light-wave can only have a definite frequency if it is of infinite length. A photon-wave does not have an infinite length but is has a definite light-frequency: Thus according to your own reasoning this is impossible. A photon-wave (whether you interpret it as a real EM-wave, or a Voodoo probability distribution), must then be a wave-packet with a superposition of frequencies. Is this what you are telling me?

And an electron-wave moving with a certain velocity v cannot have a definite wave-vector. So de Broglies' postulate is BS? Have you ever done electron microscopy? The diffraction patterns are not a superposition of frequencies.
johanfprins
1 / 5 (6) Nov 05, 2012
It comes in experimentally through the photoelectric effect. For a classical wave model, dim light of a frequency just below the threshold could not eject an electron but if it is made brighter, the energy should increase to a level where electrons would be released.
Why? if the electron-states can only absorb energies equal to h*(nu), as is demanded when you solve Schroedinger's equation, why will an electronic state swallow the whole holistic incoming light-wave?
That doesn't happen no matter how bright the source. That is what needs to be explained by a successful wave model.

And I have explained it: The wave is holistic but the electron states can only take bites from it that are equal to h*(nu) or else they cannot morph into higher energy electron waves. The incoming light need not consist of separate photons-"particles" for this to happen.

An incoming radio-wave need not be totally swallowed by a single radio-antenna!
ValeriaT
1 / 5 (6) Nov 05, 2012
According to your reasoning, a light-wave can only have a definite frequency if it is of infinite length
It's not about some reasoning, it's about uncertainty principle, Nyquist-Shannon theorem and many other dispersion relations..
A photon-wave does not have an infinite length but is has a definite light-frequency
A single photon has not frequency defined, only energy. It's a quanta of energy, not a quanta of frequency.
A photon-wave ... must then be a wave-packet with a superposition of frequencies...
Of course, this is what the quantum noise is called. Just at the case of laser light the frequency noise is squeezed into account of amplitude/polarization noise.
an electron-wave moving with a certain velocity v cannot have a definite wave-vector
The velocity is particle concept, not the wave concept. The velocity of wave is not defined: only its group and phase velocity. Which quantity do you have on mind in this particular case?
Fleetfoot
5 / 5 (1) Nov 05, 2012
It comes in experimentally through the photoelectric effect. For a classical wave model, dim light of a frequency just below the threshold could not eject an electron but if it is made brighter, the energy should increase to a level where electrons would be released.
Why? if the electron-states can only absorb energies equal to h*(nu), as is demanded when you solve Schroedinger's equation, why will an electronic state swallow the whole holistic incoming light-wave?


You misunderstand but perhaps I wasn't clear.

Suppose the threshold is nu=NU. I'm not suggesting it needs to accept all the energy if nu>NU, the problem is why can't an electron be ejected by accepting energy from two photons each of energy NU/2 (for example if the arrive within the coherence time)?

Classical wave theory suggests there should then be enough energy in total but it doesn't happen in reality.
ValeriaT
1 / 5 (5) Nov 05, 2012
Phenomenologically "all is the wave" concept has no chance to survive. Do you consider yourself as a wave? I'd say not: the world is full of artifacts, which do appear rather like the particles, than the waves. And I've no reason to consider the quantum world as an exception: the particle/wave character of reality is just blurred, but definitely not missing there. All waves do appear in form of "particle-like" wave packets in it. I do understand your model (after all, J.A.Wheeler had dealt with similar geon concept before fifty years already) - but this model is phenomenologically biased: it considers the deformed wave in curved space-time as a flat harmonic wave event at the moment, when the character of the whole artifact is heavily deformed and particle-like already. The similar conceptual bias is demonstrated with relativity theory, which considers the speed of light constant even at the moment, when all this light is already revolving tiny black hole "at place".
Fleetfoot
5 / 5 (1) Nov 05, 2012
According to your reasoning, a light-wave can only have a definite frequency if it is of infinite length.


Right, if you doubt it, take the Fourier Transform (FT) of a window function applied to a sine wave.

A photon-wave does not have an infinite length but is has a definite light-frequency: Thus according to your own reasoning this is impossible.


Right, if it isn't infinite, the FT has finite spectral width, the frequency is not a single well-defined value.

A photon-wave (whether you interpret it as a real EM-wave, or a Voodoo probability distribution), must then be a wave-packet with a superposition of frequencies. Is this what you are telling me?


Not quite, it says there must be an inherent uncertainty in the measurement of frequency, hence the uncertainty principle, dE.dT~h.

The diffraction patterns are not a superposition of frequencies.


No? Are the points forming the pattern perfect in practice or do they have some small but finite size?
ValeriaT
1 / 5 (5) Nov 05, 2012
@johanprins: It means, the relativists still have their truth from intrinsic perspective: the light is spreading even inside of highly deformed space with its speed unchanged - but from extrinsic perspective this light is already staying at place inside of particle. It means, you're confusing the intrinsic perspective of general relativity with the extrinsic perspective of quantum mechanics. You're using the special relativity equations (in which speed of EM wave is constant) for derivation of your theory - but you're interpreting the result in quantum mechanic way (i.e. like the slowed down and heavily deformed EM wave). But you're ignoring all this deform and saying, this artifact is still wave. Should I really believe you? Would this artifact interfere like the wave with another artifacts - or rather like the colliding particle?
ValeriaT
1 / 5 (6) Nov 05, 2012
What you're neglecting is, with the increasing curvature of space-time the undulating wave has an increasing tendency to bounce itself from internal walls of the resulting gradient of vacuum density with total reflection mechanism. At the moment, when the critical energy density is reached, then the EM wave materializes and it doesn't propagate linearly anymore: it remains trapped inside of the resulting dense blob of vacuum like the standing wave packet inside of bubble. From this moment such a wave is not able to interfere with another waves trapped inside of their wave packets anymore: it will bounce from them like the elastic ball, i.e. like the particle. And you should use the Boltzmann gas or fluid model for description of this system instead. When the density of this fluid increases, then the significance of elastic wave mechanism for energy spreading in it becomes more prominent and the whole principle of materialization of waves into particles repeats again. And again....
TheGhostofOtto1923
3.1 / 5 (15) Nov 06, 2012
Modern physics is replete with philosophical notions, despite your ignorance.
-Says the philo. 'Philosophy is the basis of all intellectual endeavor!' -says the philo. 'I think that reason must yield to faith!' -says the grand poobah of philos.

Philos are little more than parasites. Barnacles on the hull of Progress.
For every Weinberg, Hawking, or Krauss, there is a Penrose, Mach, Poincare, Bohr, Heisenberg, Eddington, Pauli, Schrodinger, Bohm, Jeans, Einstein, etc, etc.. who find the subject relevant and/or have written of it.
The gentlemen whom you mention were doing science when they were doing science, not philosophy. Only philos will claim that they were doing philosophy when they were doing science.

Einstein uses a few unfortunate philo words in discussing science for laymen, and you philos get all wet. Sorry, Einstein did not believe in things non- or un- or para- or meta-physical either.

That Antiphilo guy gives me the willies. Look at his FACE man. Zombie Jesus.
ValeriaT
1.1 / 5 (7) Nov 06, 2012
Philos are little more than parasites. Barnacles on the hull of Progress
At least they don't consume material resources for their research. Whereas the physicists do need a computers for their holograms, multiverse and string landscape hypothesis and their factual results aren't so different from the pure philosophy anyway.
johanfprins
1 / 5 (6) Nov 06, 2012
You misunderstand but perhaps I wasn't clear.

Suppose the threshold is nu=NU. I'm not suggesting it needs to accept all the energy if nu>NU,


Schrodiger's equation proves that there are only certain allowed energies with their corresponding allowed frequencies for the electron-states: Thus for an electron to absorb light and form a state with a higher frequency and energy, it can only absorb light that supplies this difference in FREQUENCY and ENERGY. If the frequency is the same but the energy is more than the difference in allowed electron-energy-states it just cannot absorb this larger amount of energy in one go. Thus if the impinging light is a holistic coherent laser-wave, the electron has to disentangle just the right amount of energy from the laser-wave. This is what determines the energy of a photon. To absorb more energy than this, the frequency of the light-wave must be higher to fit the energy- and frequency-difference between the electron-states.

johanfprins
1 / 5 (6) Nov 06, 2012
the problem is why can't an electron be ejected by accepting energy from two photons each of energy NU/2 (for example if the arrive within the coherence time)?{/q]

There is obviously a probability that it might happen, but an electron absorbing light below the threshold, do not leave the metal, and de-excites very quickly indeed. Thus, the number of electrons which are ejected in this manner will be minute, in fact, most probably ZERO.

To teach you a bit of simple Solid State Physics: The process of absorbing the impinging light, and then de-exciting is VERY fast in a material since there are two possible ways to de-excite: By re-emission or by generating lattice-vibrations. The latter vibrations probably dominate in all cases. Thus to absorb two photons with the same energy consecutively is highly improbable. Have you ever heard of Mossbauer effect?

BTW: In which branch of physics are you working?

johanfprins
1 / 5 (6) Nov 06, 2012
@ ValeriaT{ Let us just cut through your usual BS: Answer the following:

Do you agree that my derivation from Einstein's Spcial Relativity, using the SAME equation that Dirac has used and the SAME differential operators, gives a wave equation for a photon that is Maxwell's equation for light with a single frequency? YES or NO?

We can later argue whether the solution to this equation must be an infinitely long wave, or not. Obviously it cannot be infinitely long, since our Universe is not infinitely large. Whether this requires that the frequency for a photon is exactly defined or not has no relevance to the debate.

The debate is whether Maxwell's equations for light give solutions for "particles", "wave-particles" or just light-waves. The latter is the case: This proves that a photon cannot be a "particle" EVER! It is a wave with energy h*(nu) where h is determined by the amount of light-energy that a bound electron (around the nucleus or within a material) can absorb or emit.
Fleetfoot
1 / 5 (1) Nov 06, 2012
You misunderstand but perhaps I wasn't clear.

Suppose the threshold is nu=NU. I'm not suggesting it needs to accept all the energy if nu>NU,


Which continued:

... the problem is why can't an electron be ejected by accepting energy from two photons each of energy NU/2

.. for an electron to absorb light and form a state with a higher frequency and energy, ....


Please read what I write rather than ignoring the inconvenient bits. The question is why it cannot absorb energy from TWO photons of LOWER energy, not one photon of HIGHER energy.
johanfprins
1.5 / 5 (8) Nov 06, 2012
The question is why it cannot absorb energy from TWO photons of LOWER energy, not one photon of HIGHER energy.


If you are too slow to understand elementary physics, you must not blame me for ignoring "inconvenient" bits.

The incoming light has a frequency nu which must resonate with the available electron-states in order to be absorbed.

Thus only light with this frequency can be absorbed. The amount of energy h*nu, is the difference in energy between two electron-states which have this difference in frequency.

The possibility that after absorption the same electron with the higher energy can absorb another photon with frequency nu, is neglibly small: And I explained very patiently above why this is so.

Are you a Quantum Field Theorist: One of the crackpots who took over physics at the 1927 Solvay Conference? Those that did not believe these crackpots used the SCHR. equation to develop Chemistry and Solid State Physics; They decided to "shut up and calculate!".
johanfprins
1.6 / 5 (7) Nov 06, 2012
gives a wave equation for a photon that is Maxwell's equation for light with a single frequency
This is physically impossible, as the Maxwell's equations cannot describe the photon particle. They're describing http://i49.tinypi...u90.gif.

If posting BS were spots you would have been a leopard. The shape of the wave is determined by the source that emits it. Calculating this for different antennas has been one of the major tasks of electrical engineers. Obviously if you are a QFT crackpot, you will not know this.

So to repeat: THE SHAPE OF THE WAVE IS DETERMINED BY THE EMITTING SOURCE.

Therefore a laser beam IS NOT a spherical wave even though it can be accurately modelled by ONLY using Maxwell's equations. Read Carver Mead's famous interview with the American Spectator. I think he knows more physics than you will ever be able to understand!
johanfprins
2 / 5 (8) Nov 06, 2012
THE SHAPE OF THE WAVE IS DETERMINED BY THE EMITTING SOURCE
Not really, in accordance to Maxwell's equations the spherical wave solution results during propagation of light from every source at the sufficient distance. This solution converges to spherical wave as a long distance limit.
Nope: We know experimentally that it does not do this in the case of laser-light. You are picking a specific solution and claiming that it is generally true. Only a person with no practical and engineering background will be so stupid.

But your problem is even worse: the solution of Maxwell's equation for monochromatic light can never lead to stream of photon particles,
That is exactly what I have been saying all along: There is no "stream of photon particles" within a light wave with energy larger than h*nu. A stream of photons can only be generated by a collection of sources where each source only emits a photon-wave.
johanfprins
1.6 / 5 (7) Nov 06, 2012
The diffraction patterns are not a superposition of frequencies.


No? Are the points forming the pattern perfect in practice or do they have some small but finite size?


I nearly forgot to respond to this.

This size is caused by the size of the diffracting apertures and not by frequency superposition. The diffracted intensities can therefore even be spikes and not spots.

Since you have the ability to control the speed of the electrons, each electron must, according to de Broglie's postulate, have the exact same momentum, and thus wave-vector. This also means that each electron wave must have the exact same frequency. Does this mean that each electron-wave must be infinitely long?

Noumenon
4.3 / 5 (49) Nov 06, 2012
Schröd's equation proves that there are only certain allowed energies with their [..] allowed frequencies for the electron-states: Thus for an electron to absorb light and form a state with a higher frequency & energy, it can only absorb light that supplies this difference in FREQUENCY & ENERGY.


That is the case for an electron that remains bound to an atom. However, that is not representative of the photoelectric experiment, [nor for Compton scattering].

A metal is used in the photoelectric effect. In a metal the electrons are free to flow because the attractive forces of the atoms cancel. One is able to determine a Specific Minimum Energy (depending on the metal) at the surface that is required to liberate an electron, (because at the surface the atomic attraction does not cancel.)

Therefore, the dependence of EM absorption on electron energy levels (states), is removed,.. i.e. the Ejected electron can have any energy, depending on the chosen frequency of the photons.
johanfprins
1.6 / 5 (7) Nov 06, 2012
A metal is used in the photoelectric effect. In a metal the electrons are free to flow because the attractive forces of the atoms cancel.

Wrong again. Ignoring temperature, the valence electrons form delocalised standing waves where the size and shape of these waves are determined by the boundary conditions. Thus, if you do not change these boundary conditions, there are NO "free-electrons". The Schrodinger eq.does not give you free-electron waves within a block of metal.
Therefore, the dependence of EM absorption on electron energy levels (states), is removed,.. i.e. the Ejected electron can have any energy, depending on the chosen frequency of the photons.

No they cannot: What you measure as "free-electrons" when you change the boundary conditions by applyingt an electric-field, are NOT free-electrons but wave-packets that form owing to the presence of the electric-field! The delocalised waves then superpose to form pseudo-electrons at the position of the Fermi-lev
Noumenon
4.3 / 5 (48) Nov 06, 2012
If the frequency is the same but the energy is more than the difference in allowed electron-energy-states it just cannot absorb this larger amount of energy in one go. Thus if the impinging light is a holistic coherent laser-wave, the electron has to disentangle just the right amount of energy from the laser-wave.


The energy of the ejected electron, is not dependant upon the intensity ( = αA ²) of the light wave,... it is entirely dependent upon the frequency. Energy of a photon is proportional to the frequency, E = υ*h, and imparts momentum upon a free electron. This is shown experimentally in Compton scattering, because the scattered photon decreases in frequency, while the electron increases in momentum.
Noumenon
4.3 / 5 (49) Nov 06, 2012
.. the valence electrons form delocalized standing waves where the size and shape of these waves are determined by the boundary conditions. Thus, if you do not change these boundary conditions, there are NO "free-electrons".


This still does not refute my point. The point of the photoelectric effect,.. that the energy of ejected electrons is not dependent upon intensity, but upon υh,... is not dependent upon the ΔE between electron states. Otherwise the effect would depend upon the particular 'boundary states' of the metal, but instead functions for all υ's.
johanfprins
1 / 5 (6) Nov 06, 2012
The energy of the ejected electron, is not dependant upon the intensity ( = αA ²) of the light wave,... it is entirely dependent upon the frequency.
Obviously it must be since the electron states can only absorb light energy which satisfies the energy AND the frquency differencesw between the levels. What is so funny about that?
Energy of a photon is proportional to the frequency, E = υ*h, and imparts momentum upon a free electron. This is shown experimentally in Compton scattering,
So? What is so funny about that? Obviously you must take the momentum into account when you absorb a photon and emit light anoth!
because the scattered photon decreases in frequency, while the electron increases in momentum.
Obviously when the electron absorbs light-energy and this energy increases its mass above its rest-mass, the electron will gain kinetic energy AND thus momentum, the re-emitted light-energy must be less. I just cannot see your problem.
Tausch
1 / 5 (4) Nov 06, 2012
Interested eavesdropper.
The valence electrons form delocalised standing waves where the size and shape of these waves are determined by the boundary conditions. - jp


What sources the BCs (boundary conditions?)

johanfprins
1.2 / 5 (6) Nov 06, 2012
This still does not refute my point. The point of the photoelectric effect,.. that the energy of ejected electrons is not dependent upon intensity, but upon υh,... is not dependent upon the ΔE between electron states.
This is where you are wrong since you think in terms of free-electrons in free space. The impinging light creates the wave-packets which are not there before you switch on the light. Thus the interaction is not just a simple classical collision.
Otherwise the effect would depend upon the particular 'boundary states' of the metal, but instead functions for all υ's.
] The electron-states can only absorb light in terms of quanta and this is what they do during the photo-electric effect and during Compton scattering. All we can measure is momentum and energy in and out: To say that the light enters as bullets and classically collide leads to Voodoo. By using absorption-emission the Voodoo disappears. I am a realist who believes that all physics dovetails.

johanfprins
1 / 5 (6) Nov 06, 2012
Interested eavesdropper.
The valence electrons form delocalised standing waves where the size and shape of these waves are determined by the boundary conditions. - jp

What sources the BCs (boundary conditions?)


The surfaces of the metal, at which the trapped light-energy (which is the rest mass of the electron-wave) ends. There are of course also tails that decay to infinity, but these are obviously not part of the electron wave's stationary mass-energy. These tails neatly unify with Einstein's gravity around mass.

If you use Schroedinger's equation to calculate the energy of such a stationary wave within a cavity, you get the same energy when you assume that there are no tails (infinitely high barriers at the surfaces) than you get when taking these tails into account.
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (7) Nov 06, 2012
Hi all. Short of time, so briefly...Material surfaces are covered with a plasmon 'layer' such that no 'individual' surface electron is clearly 'free/located' as such. The 'surface effect' of plasmon layers shows up in the 'barrier' material of any double-slit experimental setup. Also in 'granular' superconductor materials where the granules do not touch but are 'connected' by their respective plasmon sea layers which effectively 'touch' and bridge the small gap between. Electrical conduction along an ordinary wire also shows this plasmon layer 'surface effect'. The explanation of double slit experiments and the photo-electric effect is that any impinging energy (be it photons/electrons) excite this plasmon layer. surfaces and slits re-radiates additional excited states/features in relevant quanta. Eg, slit openings 'edges' effectively concentrate/re-radiate excess energy quanta. In two-slit exp., both slits act as two separate re-radiators, hence observed 'interference/patterns'. Bye!
Benni
1 / 5 (7) Nov 07, 2012
We can later argue whether the solution to this equation must be an infinitely long wave, or not. Obviously it cannot be infinitely long, since our Universe is not infinitely large. Whether this requires that the frequency for a photon is exactly defined or not has no relevance to the debate.


With the AWT, Electric Universe, & Flat Universe crowd, you will get nothing but pseudoscience because they are all wannabes who think they've come up with some magic formula whereby something infinite is size can be shoehorned into a finite sized universe.

Nat, Fleet, Val, & a few others posting above, think they have discovered clever arguments against Einstein's General Theory of Relativity for the spherical & finite universe he put forth in GR. None of them understand Conservation of Energy, Laws of Thermodymics, etc, which if they did they would understand the foolishness of most of what they post & would refrain from it.



johanfprins
1 / 5 (6) Nov 07, 2012
Hi all. Short of time, so briefly...Material surfaces are covered with a plasmon 'layer' such that no 'individual' surface electron is clearly 'free/located' as such.

As a matter of interest: Can you prove the presence of these plasmons experimentally without using an experimental setup that creates them? In other words are there plasmons when you are not measuring?

There are many cases in physics where what you measure is not there when you do not do the measurement. A case in mind is the inability to determine experimentally whether there is electric-field energy around a solitary charge.
johanfprins
1 / 5 (7) Nov 07, 2012
Nat, Fleet, Val, & a few others posting above, think they have discovered clever arguments against Einstein's General Theory of Relativity for the spherical & finite universe he put forth in GR. None of them understand Conservation of Energy, Laws of Thermodymics, etc, which if they did they would understand the foolishness of most of what they post & would refrain from it.


I concur!



johanfprins
1 / 5 (7) Nov 07, 2012
AWT is not magic formula based and it considers, universe is random and infinite. We as a limited part of it can see only limited island from it, similar to the landscape under haze. It's quite easy to imagine it: we are formed/surrounded with nested density fluctuations larger and smaller then us, but when these fluctuations are too small or too large, they become too fuzzy and unobservable. Most complex are the objects of the same size, the small or large objects (atom nuclei and stars) are most regular and spherical.

Am I supposed to laugh or cry? This is babbling unadulterated BS.
johanfprins
1 / 5 (7) Nov 07, 2012
The important is, which matter of fact arguments you have. Try to explain for example, why we maintain just two main physical theories: general relativity and quantum mechanics. Why not one or three?


We do have more: For example quantum field theory, which has no predictive value, BCS-theory which has no predictive value, the standard model for particle physics which has no predictive value, YOUR AWT theory which has no predictive value and, in addition, consists solely of confused, demented babbling!
Fleetfoot
4 / 5 (4) Nov 07, 2012
Nat, Fleet, Val, & a few others posting above, think they have discovered clever arguments against Einstein's General Theory of Relativity for the spherical & finite universe he put forth in GR.


That is simply a lie.

The closed universe is just one solution of the field equations of GR, there are others. Einstein made statements based on the information he had available at the time and on personal beliefs but modern telescopes have provided a wealth of data that has significantly changed the understanding of cosmology since he died.

At present, we know that the universe is spatially flat to within 0.5% of the critical density. In Einstein's time, only the matter component was well defined and that was about 4% of critical, and a closed universe requires a density greater than critical.

If you want to rely on some his comments rather than study the theory itself, that's your choice, but don't claim I dispute GR when in fact the reverse is true.
Benni
1 / 5 (7) Nov 07, 2012
At present, we know that the universe is spatially flat to within 0.5% of the critical density. In Einstein's time, only the matter component was well defined and that was about 4% of critical, and a closed universe requires a density greater than critical.


We don't know any such thing....your problem has been that you have always believed the universe is infinite in size & you are pseudo-science delighted to wrap meaningless numbers around yourself in a shallow attempt at trying to convince us you are some sort of scientific expert. Stick to memorizing star charts because Conservation of Energy is incomprehensible to you.

If you want to rely on some his comments rather than study the theory itself, that's your choice, but don't claim I dispute GR when in fact the reverse is true.


You do dispute Einstein's GR, because your own words about a "flat infinite universe" is all the witness we need. You still don't understand why Einstein debunked the whole concept.

Fleetfoot
5 / 5 (4) Nov 07, 2012
At present, we know that the universe is spatially flat to within 0.5% of the critical density.


We don't know any such thing..


Take it up with the WMAP team then:

http://map.gsfc.n...ape.html

If you want to rely on some his comments rather than study the theory itself, that's your choice, but don't claim I dispute GR when in fact the reverse is true.


You do dispute Einstein's GR, because your own words about a "flat infinite universe" is all the witness we need. You still don't understand why Einstein debunked the whole concept.


Nope, you are a liar, I have disputed nothing.

Stick to memorizing star charts because Conservation of Energy is incomprehensible to you.


Here are the Friedmann equations showing how they are derived from GR:

http://en.wikiped...quations

Note that energy is conserved and for k=0 the universe is flat.
Tausch
1 / 5 (3) Nov 08, 2012
Jp?
I ask that you take a look at Crothers' latest published works.
All the authors at that site raise insurmountable objections.

Tausch
1 / 5 (4) Nov 08, 2012
- http://gsjournal....iew/4325 -

(Second attempt to post the link to the above comment - simply drop the surrounding hyphens)
johanfprins
1 / 5 (7) Nov 08, 2012
@Tausch,

Yes I have seen this; but I can assure you that the mainstream physics-mafia has already discredited these forums.

We have to expose the fact that it is really mainstream physics that is under the control of crackpots. I will keep on attempting to publish in the journals that these crackpots are claiming are the only journals that one should take seriously. Only in this way can I get the evidence that the mainstream physicists, especially those doing QFT are the real crackpots who are destroying physics.

The following lie by Carl Sagan must be exposed: "In science it often happens that scientists say, 'You know that's a really good argument; my position is mistaken,' and then they actually change their minds and you never hear that old view from them again. They really do it. It doesn't happen as often as it should, because scientists are human and change is sometimes painful. But it happens every day."

This supposed behaviour has not been around for the last 85 years.
Benni
1 / 5 (9) Nov 08, 2012
At present, we know that the universe is spatially flat


Sure we know only that for the short distance we can see, what we don't know is what the total distance is, therefore an accurate rise/run cannot be calculated.

to within 0.5% of the critical density.


Baloney, because we don't know what the total distance is...you are erroneously assuming you know the size of the universe based on an assumed age of 13.66 Gyrs.

In Einstein's time, only the matter component was well defined and that was about 4% of critical, and a closed universe requires a density greater than critical.


And he never changed his mind between about the sherically closed universe btween 1916 and by 1954 a year before his death...

If you want to rely on some his comments rather than study the theory itself, that's your choice, but don't claim I dispute GR when in fact the reverse is true.


Sure you do, you continue to claim a "flat infinite universe", Einstein didn't.
Benni
1 / 5 (6) Nov 08, 2012
Albert Einstein:Relativity-Section 30
Written: 1916 (this revised edition 1924)
Part III: Considerations on the Universe as a Whole

The Structure of Space According to the General Theory of Relativity

If we are to have in the universe an average density of matter which differs from zero, however small may be that difference, then the universe cannot be quasi-Euclidean. On the contrary, the results of calculation indicate that if matter be distributed uniformly, the universe would necessarily be spherical (or elliptical) . Since in reality the detailed distribution of matter is not uniform, the real universe will deviate in individual parts from the spherical, that is the universe will be quasi-spherical. But it will be necessarily finite. In fact the theory supplies us with a simple connection between the space-expanse of the universe and the average density of matter in it.

(See also Mach's Principle which was the basis for Einstein's concept of a "closed universe")

Footnote:
Benni
1 / 5 (7) Nov 08, 2012
Footnote:

The results of calculation indicate that if matter be distributed uniformly, the universe would necessarily be spherical. I must not fail to mention that a theoretical argument can be adduced in favor of the hypothesis of a finite universe. The general theory of relativity teaches that the inertia of a given body is greater as there are more ponderable masses in proximity to it, and the other bodies in the universe, as indeed, ever since Newton's time, gravity has been completely reduced to interactions between two bodies. (Albert Einstein 1954)

Closed Universe- density of the matter is above critical density producing a spherical universe caused by gravitational attraction exceeding outward expansion.

Open Universe- density of matter is below critical density curved like a saddle because gravitational attraction is insufficient to stop outward expansion.

Flat Universe- density of matter is equal to critical density causing expansion to cease after infinite time.
Benni
1 / 5 (7) Nov 09, 2012
Nat, Fleet, Tausch,

I guess for the first time in your novice careers you're getting an education (from my post above) about what Einstein really said, and not the baloney you keep making up without ever giving readers chapter & section numbers for verification in his GR.

You think it is cute to invoke his name as someone iconic with whom to attach yourselves to, and then turn right around & deny every premise of what he actually stated because you can't follow his math. The mere hint of the word "infinity" in any postings you have ever made is proof you do not understand Einstein's GR, so quit trying to kid us with your BS.

You guys need to learn something about "entropy", take some Thermodynamics courses, pass a final exam & get a grade. Until then you are wandering wannabe mathematically challenged novices in search of your first cogent thought, all the while imagining yourselves as being "wizards of smart" when you can't even follow the math.

Fleetfoot
5 / 5 (2) Nov 09, 2012
Albert Einstein:Relativity-Section 30
Written: 1916 (this revised edition 1924)
Part III: Considerations on the Universe as a Whole

The Structure of Space According to the General Theory of Relativity

If we are to have in the universe an average density of matter which differs from zero, however small may be that difference, then the universe cannot be quasi-Euclidean. On the contrary, the results of calculation indicate that if matter be distributed uniformly, the universe would necessarily be spherical (or elliptical).


He was there describing the universe he assumed, in general it is contradicted by the footnote which is more thorough (and correct).

(See also Mach's Principle which was the basis for Einstein's concept of a "closed universe")


The final GR ruled out Mach's Principle even though he started using it.
Fleetfoot
5 / 5 (2) Nov 09, 2012
Footnote:

Closed Universe- density of the matter is above critical density producing a spherical universe caused by gravitational attraction exceeding outward expansion.


Correct. The spherical solution requires the density to be greater than the critical value, not just greater than zero as stated in the main text.

Open Universe- density of matter is below critical density curved like a saddle because gravitational attraction is insufficient to stop outward expansion.


Correct, and "curved like a saddle" well describes the negative curvature solution illustrated on the WMAP site. It is not spherical and is spatially infinite.

Flat Universe- density of matter is equal to critical density causing expansion to cease after infinite time.


Mostly correct. Dark energy's contribution brings the total to the critical value, hence the universe is flat and infinite, but its negative pressure causes expansion to accelerate.

Exactly what I told you some posts back.
Fleetfoot
5 / 5 (3) Nov 09, 2012
Nat, Fleet, Tausch,

I guess for the first time in your novice careers you're getting an education (from my post above) about what Einstein really said, ..


Nope, I'm getting a good laugh at you finally catching up stuff I knew years ago.

You think it is cute to invoke his name ..


You brought his name into, not us. I only talked about GR, not Einstein. Hopwefully now that we've corrected your error, you'll learn the math and lay aside his out-dated popularisation. He called the Cosmological Constant his "greatest blunder", but in fact his error was assuming it would be zero before it was measured, and hence not covering the case of a non-zero value in that footnote.
Fleetfoot
5 / 5 (5) Nov 09, 2012
Obviously it must be since the electron states can only absorb light energy which satisfies the energy AND the frquency differencesw between the levels. What is so funny about that?


The ejected elctron is no longer bound, think about the long wavelength limit of the Lyman series.

Obviously you must take the momentum into account when you absorb a photon and emit light anoth! because the scattered photon decreases in frequency, while the electron increases in momentum.


There is no scattered photon in the photoelectric effect.

Obviously when the electron absorbs light-energy .. the re-emitted light-energy must be less. I just cannot see your problem.


The problem is that the incident photon is completely absorbed regardless of the frequency provided it is above the threshold. The excess energy and momentum are transferred to the ejected electron defining its speed, and that can be measured via the voltage needed to reduce the photo-current to zero.
johanfprins
1 / 5 (6) Nov 09, 2012
The ejected elctron is no longer bound, think about the long wavelength limit of the Lyman series.
Did I state that it is? It has been very unfortunate mistake to talk of the "free-electron" model. This misled physicists to believe that there are actually free electrons sloshing around within a metal.

The absorption of the photon creates the wave-packet, and the energy of this wave-packet is determined by the distributed energy levels below the workfunction plus the energy of the photon.

It tires me out that people do not understand that classical electrodynamics for free electrons does not apply within a material: If it did we would not have needed Schroedinger's wave-mechanics

There is no scattered photon in the photoelectric effect.
I have NEVER claimed that there is.

johanfprins
1 / 5 (6) Nov 09, 2012
The problem is that the incident photon is completely absorbed regardless of the frequency provided it is above the threshold.
I do not see any problem with this. It follows logically from Einstein's Special Relativity and mass-energy relationship that it must be so.
The excess energy and momentum are transferred to the ejected electron defining its speed, and that can be measured via the voltage needed to reduce the photo-current to zero.
No the total mass-energy of the wave-packet created within the material determines its speed. And this mass-energy is determined by the frequency of the light-wave and the allowed frequencies of the stationary electron-waves within the metal.
Fleetfoot
5 / 5 (1) Nov 09, 2012
The ejected elctron is no longer bound, ..
Did I state that it is?


You talked of it having discrete energy levels which is a characteristic of a system including bound electron, perhaps you need to clarify what you meant.

It has been very unfortunate mistake to talk of the "free-electron" model. This misled physicists to believe that there are actually free electrons sloshing around within a metal. ... It tires me out that people do not understand that classical electrodynamics for free electrons does not apply within a material:


I was talking about the electron after it has been ejected from the metal and is travelling through the vacuum towards the cathode. I am assuming you are familiar with the experimental setup.

There is no scattered photon in the photoelectric effect.
I have NEVER claimed that there is.


You said "the scattered photon decreases in frequency". If you didn't mean that there was an outgoing scattered photon, what do you mean?
Fleetfoot
5 / 5 (1) Nov 09, 2012
The problem is that the incident photon is completely absorbed regardless of the frequency provided it is above the threshold.
I do not see any problem with this. It follows logically from Einstein's Special Relativity and mass-energy relationship that it must be so.


Not necessarily, think of Compton Scattering. In fact from your previous post I thought that was what you were suggesting.

The excess energy and momentum are transferred to the ejected electron defining its speed, and that can be measured via the voltage needed to reduce the photo-current to zero.
No the total mass-energy of the wave-packet created within the material determines its speed. And this mass-energy is determined by the frequency of the light-wave and the allowed frequencies of the stationary electron-waves within the metal.


No problem, for practical target sizes the allowed modes are infinitesimally spaced so cannot show up experimentally, what I said is merely what is observed.
Benni
1 / 5 (7) Nov 09, 2012
You brought his name into, not us. I only talked about GR, not Einstein. Hopwefully now that we've corrected your error, you'll learn the math and lay aside his out-dated popularisation. He called the Cosmological Constant his "greatest blunder", but in fact his error was assuming it would be zero before it was measured, and hence not covering the case of a non-zero value in that footnote.


...and what you didn't know before shooting off your mouth in your quote above, is that Einstein did have the cosmological constant in his pre-published 1916 treatise, he generated the math that proved it. He dropped it because he thought what he proved in math was in reality erroneous. When Edwin Hubble proved the math of his original treatise to be correct, that the Universe was not static, Einstein republished his GR in 1924 to include the CC. That's why you see two publication dates, 1916 & 1924. His greatest error was the fact he did not publish the CC, not that he was ignorant of it.
Benni
1 / 5 (6) Nov 09, 2012
Did I state that it is? It has been very unfortunate mistake to talk of the "free-electron" model. This misled physicists to believe that there are actually free electrons sloshing around within a metal.

You are absolutely correct, "loosely bound" in the outermost orbital electron shell is the correct model.

It tires me out that people do not understand that classical electrodynamics for free electrons does not apply within a material:

I understand the feeling. As one of those engineers deeply involved in the design of the most sophisticated energy generation systems on the planet, and if you walk into my office clueless about "loosely bound electrons", you get a polite escort to the entrance.
Fleetfoot
5 / 5 (4) Nov 10, 2012
He called the Cosmological Constant his "greatest blunder", but in fact his error was assuming it would be zero before it was measured, and hence not covering the case of a non-zero value in that footnote.


...and what you didn't know before shooting off your mouth in your quote above, is that Einstein did have the cosmological constant in his pre-published 1916 treatise, he generated the math that proved it.


The CC cannot be either "proved" or refuted by the math alone. He added it because the prevailing view was a static universe and he needed to counteract gravitational collapse.

When Edwin Hubble proved the math of his original treatise to be correct, that the Universe was not static, Einstein republished his GR in 1924 to include the CC.


Wrong again, Hubble demonstrated expansion but that doesn't need the CC. Without it expansion would always slow as stated in the footnote. The CC is needed because it is accelerating, something not discovered until 1998.
johanfprins
1 / 5 (6) Nov 10, 2012
..think of Compton Scattering. ..from your previous post I thought that was what you were suggesting.

In Compton scattering you first have total absorption, as in the case of the photoelectric effect, and then emission of a lower energy photon: Just as one can find in the case of atomic spectra. Why would it be different for Compton "scattering"?

No the total mass-energy....


No problem, for practical target sizes the allowed modes are infinitesimally spaced so cannot show up experimentally, what I said is merely what is observed
Wrong again: The waves are the entities; and to absorb light and form a wave-packet with a higher mass-energy and frequency, the waves must superpose; and to do this the spacing cannot be ignored as if a wave packet is a classical "particle". Classical electrodynamics as applied to free electrons in free-space cannot be applied to what happens within a metal! This was not known in the time of Einstein, but should now be well-known.
johanfprins
1 / 5 (6) Nov 10, 2012
You are absolutely correct, "loosely bound" in the outermost orbital electron shell is the correct model.
Thanks: In addition these loosely-bound electrons around the atoms, become more tightly bound when the atoms bond to form a solid. That is why, when not changing the boundary conditions of a solitary block of metal, there are no mobile charges present, only delocalised waves.

I understand the feeling. As one of those engineers deeply involved in the design of the most sophisticated energy generation systems on the planet, and if you walk into my office clueless about "loosely bound electrons", you get a polite escort to the entrance.
Thank God for engineers: I think that the escort need not be polite if the person is a mainstream theoretical physicist. It is quite amazing that they know that you can only model condution through a material in terms of wave-packets (it is in every SS text book), but then still argue that these charge-carriers are free-electrons
Fleetfoot
5 / 5 (1) Nov 10, 2012
..think of Compton Scattering. ..from your previous post I thought that was what you were suggesting.

In Compton scattering you first have total absorption, as in the case of the photoelectric effect, and then emission of a lower energy photon: Just as one can find in the case of atomic spectra. Why would it be different for Compton "scattering"?


Because there is no emitted photon in the photoelectric effect as you claimed.

Classical electrodynamics as applied to free electrons in free-space cannot be applied to what happens within a metal!


Correct, but I was talking about the free electron AFTER it had been ejected from the metal and is in the vacuum, You need to read posts more carefully, or not try creating 'strawman' arguments.

The question remains, if an electron can be ejected by one photon of ANY frequency and sufficient energy, why can it not be ejected by two whose energies sum to the the same as that of the single photon.
Benni
1 / 5 (6) Nov 10, 2012
Thank God for engineers: I think that the escort need not be polite if the person is a mainstream theoretical physicist. It is quite amazing that they know that you can only model condution through a material in terms of wave-packets (it is in every SS text book), but then still argue that these charge-carriers are free-electrons


In our product design division we have physicists who from time to time I have had to put through a re-education process. They often overlook the "practical" in favor of the "whimsical". Some months back we had a very expensive piece of equipment go down because of a materials selection problem, we got tremendous induction carryover from one piece of equipment into another causing overheating, then failure. The field engineers simply replaced the failed equipment, same thing, then it was turned over to us in design. It was one of our physicists who screwed up. I reviewed & revamped some of his math, changed some materials layout, problem solved.
ValeriaT
1 / 5 (6) Nov 10, 2012
The waves are the entities; and to absorb light and form a wave-packet with a higher mass-energy and frequency, the waves must superpose
This is just what the wave-particle duality of Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics is about: the "particle" concept is just contained in the "packet" word, because free waves cannot form isolated "packets" = only periodic interference patterns. The Bohm/Bohr weren't so wrong, as you're trying to present them here. And if you're still calling them a "crackpots", then you should consider the dual possibility too...;-)
johanfprins
1 / 5 (6) Nov 10, 2012
if an electron can be ejected by one photon of ANY frequency and sufficient energy, why can it not be ejected by two whose energies sum to the the same as that of the single photon.
Since an electron can ONLY absorb light with a frequency nu, if there are TWO allowed electron states with this frequency-difference between them. Thus only a light-wave with an energy that fits this frequency-difference can be absorbed: And this demands that the light-wave MUST be a photon-wave; even when the incoming light is a laser beam which does not consist of separate photons.

The frequency difference does not just relate to electrons within the material. Electrons which move freely through space are also waves, and thus have frequencies. Thus even if the one electron-state is within the material, and the other one with the correct frequency is a state outside the material, it still requires from the incoming light-wave to disentangle a photon which can be absorbed to eject an electron.
johanfprins
1 / 5 (6) Nov 10, 2012
In our product design division we have physicists who from time to time I have had to put through a re-education process. They often overlook the "practical" in favor of the "whimsical"...


Sounds familiar.

After my MSc in physics, I was set on doing theoretical physics. At that stage the School of Engineering at the University of Virginia, started up a Materials Science Department and was looking for students from all disciplines. I was offerred an opportunity to join this new endeavour. It was not easy to give up my dream of theoretical physics. But thank God, I took up the opportunity to do my doctorate at an engineering faculty.

I have started to come to the conclusion that the only way to save physics is to move independent physics departments to fall under the control of engineering faculties.
johanfprins
1 / 5 (6) Nov 10, 2012
This is just what the wave-particle duality of Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics is about: the "particle" concept is just contained in the "packet" word,
I disagree, since the wave-packets within a metal ONLY forms when you change the boundary condition by, for example, applying an electric field, or irradiating it with light, which, in this manner also introduces an electric-field. Within an isolated block of metal there are no wave-packets (ignoring temperature effects): Only stationary waves where each wave fills the whole volume of the metal. Thus there is no simultaneous duality involved.

Furthermore, a solitary free electron-wave moving through space is not a wave-packet but a coherent EM-wave.
The Bohm/Bohr weren't so wrong, as you're trying to present them here.
Unfortunately they have been wrong all along. The fact that the shape of a wave can change when the boundary conditions change has NOTHING to do with "wave-particle duality".
ValeriaT
1 / 5 (6) Nov 10, 2012
The problem is, the physics is flooded with people, who have new ideas - but because these people do want to appear as transformative, fundamental and insightful as possible, they often exaggerate their position way too much and they have tendency to throw out the baby with the bath water. It applies to particle-wave duality, as presented with classical interpretations of quantum mechanics too. IMO this concept is not only insightful and fully relevant physically, but even much more widespread, than its opponents are willing to admit - even to classical systems. Actually - with honest exception of abstract wave equation of formal geometry - you cannot have physical wave, which wouldn't behave like the particle at least a bit. Every wave deforms its environment in such a way, it exposes its density fluctuations to another waves, which are slowed down with the undulating place in this way - in this sense every wave is behaving like the particle focusing other waves into itself
ValeriaT
1 / 5 (6) Nov 10, 2012
..since the wave-packets within a metal ONLY forms when you change the boundary condition by..
What the "metal" has to do with it? We are talking about Compton effect, which works in vacuum.
a solitary free electron-wave moving through space is not a wave-packet but a coherent EM-wave
Coherent EM wave cannot have EM charge (not to say about weak leptonic charge) and it cannot stay at place, like the electrons often do. Electrons are apparently quite different from coherent laser beam.

You're trying to mix apple with strawberries in an silly effort to push your "everything is wave" POV, which is an ideologically if not religiously motivated behavior. Not only the mainstream physicists can behave like the sectarian trolls - even their opponents can behave in the same way.
johanfprins
1 / 5 (6) Nov 10, 2012
The problem is, .................. throw out the baby with the bath water. It applies to particle-wave duality, as presented with classical interpretations of quantum mechanics too. IMO this concept is not only insightful and fully relevant physically, but even much more widespread, than its opponents are willing to admit - even to classical systems. Actually - with honest exception of abstract wave equation of formal geometry - you cannot have physical wave, which wouldn't behave like the particle at least a bit. Every wave deforms its environment in such a way, it exposes its density fluctuations to another waves, which are slowed down with the undulating place in this way - in this sense every wave is behaving like the particle focusing other waves into itself


It is the SAME raving BS you have posted OVER and OVER again. I am not AGAIN going to waste my time to try and explain simple wave-mechanics to you.
johanfprins
1 / 5 (6) Nov 10, 2012
What the "metal" has to do with it? We are talking about Compton effect, which works in vacuum.
The Compton effect was discovered by irradiating graphite with X-rays. Is graphite a "vacuum"?
a solitary free electron-wave moving through space is not a wave-packet but a coherent EM-wave
Coherent EM wave cannot have EM charge (not to say about weak leptonic charge) and it cannot stay at place, like the electrons often do. Electrons are apparently quite different from coherent laser beam. {/q] Of course they are different since they have charge: However, as I have proved on this forum, when an electron moves, it is modelled by Maxwell's equation for a coherent light-wave moving with a speed less than the speed of light. You have not proved my derivation wrong except to rant and rave like lunatic.

johanfprins
1 / 5 (6) Nov 10, 2012
You're trying to mix apple with strawberries
N YOU are mixing waves with particles: Apple and strawberries can be mixed but not waves and particles.
in an silly effort to push your "everything is wave" POV,
It is YOU who are the silly one
which is an ideologically if not religiously motivated behavior. Not only the mainstream physicists can behave like the sectarian trolls - even their opponents can behave in the same way.
A very good description of your crackpot belief in wave-particle duality and your behaviour in general.

It is a waste of valuable time to argue with you since you ignore anything which is posted that goes against your irrational belief in "wave-particle duality". Since a moving electron is modelled by a Maxwell equation, as I have proved hree times on this forum, it cannot be a wave and a particle: It is only a wave: Nothing else!
Benni
1 / 5 (6) Nov 10, 2012
Since an electron can ONLY absorb light with a frequency nu, if there are TWO allowed electron states with this frequency-difference between them. Thus only a light-wave with an energy that fits this frequency-difference can be absorbed:


Exactly right, different metals have different photo-sensitivity based upon the configuration of the orbital shell in which loosely bound electrons are located. Some metals are sensitive only to yellow frequencies, etc.

It is the loosely bound electron configurations of the outer orbital shells of metals that separates their conductive properties from the remainder of the periodic table.

johanfprins
1 / 5 (6) Nov 10, 2012
Exactly right, different metals have different photo-sensitivity based upon the configuration of the orbital shell in which loosely bound electrons are located. Some metals are sensitive only to yellow frequencies, etc.

It is the loosely bound electron configurations of the outer orbital shells of metals that separates their conductive properties from the remainder of the periodic table.


Thank you Benni.
ValeriaT
1 / 5 (6) Nov 10, 2012
Since a moving electron is modeled by a Maxwell equation
Sorry, this is impossible. The Maxwell's equation doesn't describe the charge, it doesn't describe the spin, it cannot be quantized, it cannot describe the isolate particle staying at place - only waves propagating with speed of light. Actually, the Maxwell equation cannot be used even for modeling of photon, which is way closer to behavior of EM wave, than some electron with its spin, weak and EM charges. You're living in the world of your fantasies: a senile old chap.
ValeriaT
1.6 / 5 (7) Nov 10, 2012
The Compton effect was discovered by irradiating graphite with X-rays. Is graphite a "vacuum"?
You told "metal" first. Now it's "graphite". But the Compton effect applies even to free electrons inside of vacuum. It doesn't require the presence of some material environment at all, it's "boundary conditions" the less. Therefore your remarks about "metals" or "graphite" are solely irrelevant here - they just demonstrate the sloppiness of your thinking.
Apple and strawberries can be mixed but not waves and particles
Waves and particles can be mixed quite easily with space-time curvature concept. The harmonic wave moving inside of gravitational lens isn't harmonic anymore and it can bounce from its internal walls like the standing wave packet. This is what the particle-wave duality is: the gravity lens or space-time curvature has its center of mass, so it behaves like the particle.
johanfprins
1 / 5 (6) Nov 10, 2012
Since a moving electron is modeled by a Maxwell equation
Sorry, this is impossible. The Maxwell's equation doesn't describe the charge, it doesn't describe the spin, it cannot be quantized, it cannot describe the isolate particle staying at place - only waves propagating with speed of light. Actually, the Maxwell equation cannot be used even for modeling of photon, which is way closer to behavior of EM wave, than some electron with its spin, weak and EM charges. You're living in the world of your fantasies: a senile old chap.


Is the motion of a free electron through with momentum p through space modelled by:

E^2=p^2*c^2-plus-(m(e)*c^2)^2

where m(e) is its rest-mass? YES or NO!

Is the motion of an photon modelled by the same equation when setting m(e)=0? YES or NO?

Let us see who is really senile!
ValeriaT
1 / 5 (6) Nov 10, 2012
Is the motion of a free electron through with momentum p through space modelled by...Is the motion of an photon modeled by the same equation..
1)The E=mc^2 equation is not Maxwell's equation 2) The electrons/photons are particles, not coherent EM waves. 3) The fact some equation (E=mc^2) does apply to two artifacts (electron and photon) doesn't imply, some another equation (Maxwell) does apply to another two concepts (particle and EM wave). You're incoherent freak totally confused with your imagination. It's called a schizophrenia in certain circles.
ValeriaT
1 / 5 (6) Nov 10, 2012
I indeed know, that the elementary particles CAN be described with EM or gravitational WAVES inside of gravity lens (PARTICLE), formed with their own mass borrowed from E=mc^2 - it is exactly what J.A.Wheeler derived and called a "geon" in 1954 already. But J.A.Wheeler never attempted to disprove the particle-wave duality with it: he EXPLAINED this duality with his model instead...;-)

Which is why I do consider J.A.Wheeler a coherent scientist and J.F.Prins an incoherent (and uninformed) troll, who is not only reinventing a wheel, but it even confuses its meaning during it.
johanfprins
1 / 5 (6) Nov 10, 2012
You're incoherent freak totally confused with your imagination. It's called a schizophrenia in certain circles.

You are avoiding the questions. When Dirac deduced his wave eauation for an electron he started from:

E^2=p^2*c^2-plus-(m(e)*c^2)^2.

Do you agree? YES or NO?
ValeriaT
1 / 5 (6) Nov 10, 2012
When Dirac deduced his wave equation for an electron he started from: E^2=p^2*c^2-plus-(m(e)*c^2)^2.
He used a Schrodinger equation for it too. This is typical equation for particle object - not for coherent but massless EM wave. The E=mc^2 equation is a typical equation for particle objects having (center of) mass too - not for coherent EM wave. This is just a problem of yours, you're mixing equations describing the particles with Maxwell's equations describing the waves - but after then from some reason - rooted probably in your senile and sloppy thinking - are forgetting it immediately, while claiming, everything derived has the wave character only.

Sorry, but this is just a nonsense. The main reason, why I'm continuing with this funny discussion with you is the opportunity to demonstrate for other laymans, how the particle-wave duality actually works in contemporary physics and how it manifest itself in its equations.
ValeriaT
1 / 5 (6) Nov 10, 2012
Actually the problem of yours in not only your personal problem, but the general problem of all formally thinking physicists, who are combining their equations freely without bothering, under which less or more hidden assumptions and postulates they were derived originally. Not surprisingly, this numerology often leads to unphysical results or to results, which are relevant from very special and limited perspective only. It does apply to derivation of gravitation waves, strings of string theory and many other concepts. Even Wheeler's geon suffered this inconsistency too - but Wheeler was rather a clever guy - and he realized soon (well, after ten years...), the bastard formed with mixing of equations from different areas of physics cannot exist physically. The string theorists, fans of gravitational waves or J.F.Prins are still apparently waiting for such an understanding.
ValeriaT
1 / 5 (6) Nov 10, 2012
This conceptual confusion explains too, why P.A.Diract - who mixed the Schrodinger equation for particles with E=mc^2 equation for particles - was rather lucky guy with his numerology, whereas Feynman - who mixed the result with Maxwell's theory for WAVES wasn't: his QED is abandoned theory today, because it works in very narrow range of conditions only. J.A.Wheeler/J.F.Prins theory, which is mixing Maxwell's theory for waves and E=mc^2 for particles will be just abandoned faster from the same perspective (as it doesn't contain Schrodinger equation, which dilutes this inconsistent mixture of equations with uncertainty principle - so that its internal paradox is more apparent).
johanfprins
1 / 5 (6) Nov 10, 2012
When Dirac deduced his wave equation for an electron he started from: E^2=p^2*c^2-plus-(m(e)*c^2)^2.
He used a Schrodinger equation for it too.

Wow! You surprise me that you know at least a bit of wave mechanics. So you agree that he used Schroedinger;s eauation from which he concluded that an energy term must be replaced by i(d/dt) (d partial differential opertor) and momentum by -i(del) where del is the gradient oprator.

Do you agree that these have been the starting conditions of Dirac, and that he then found the square of the operator under a square-root? And to you agree that in order to remove the square root he used two matrices? YES or NO?

So first answer this before I even try to respond to the utter nonsense you have posted in your next two posts.
johanfprins
1 / 5 (6) Nov 10, 2012
I am sorry I made typing errors: So let us summarise: Dirac started with:

E^2==p^2*c^2-plus-(m(e)*c^2)^2

And he used the operators i*(hbar)*(d/dt) and -i*(hbar)*(del) to obtain:

i*(hbar)*(d/dt)(psi)=SQRT(c^2*(-i*(hbar)*(del))^2-plus-(m(e)*c^2)^2)(psi)

where (psi) is the wave function. This is where the problem started, since the operator (del) under the square root cannot operate on the wave-function (psi).

If you are a wise physicist you will realise that mathematics is telling you that this equation CANNOT model physics. But Dirac decided to replace the square root with two matrices and in this manner he derived his wave equation on which Quantum Field Theory was subsequently based.

Are there ANYBODY on this forum who disagrees that this has been the case? To expect ValeriaT to give a direct answer is to expect the devil to be God!
johanfprins
1 / 5 (6) Nov 11, 2012
Nobody came back? So I have to conclude that you all agree with my previous post. So let's go one step further and note that

E^2==p^2*c^2-plus-(m(e)*c^2)^2

also models the motion of a photon when setting m(e)=0: The equation can then be written as:

p^2=E^2/c^2

Now replace p by -i*(hbar)*(del) and E with i*(hbar)*(d/dt); and one gets that:

(hbar)^2*(del)^2(PSI)=(((hbar)^2)/c^2)*(d/dt)^2(PSI):

(hbar)^2 cancels and (d/dt)^2 is the second derivative of time: The equation thus becomes:

(del)^2(PSI)=(1/c^2)*(d/dt)^2(PSI)

Which is Maxwell's equation for a light-wave of ANY energy. Thus the photon is modelled by Maxwell's equation for light of any energy, except that in the case of a photon the energy must be h*(nu). Thus a photon has NOTHING to do with a particle; it is a light-wave with energy h*(nu). Note that ValeriaT stated clearly that this cannot be the case for a photon: LOL!

Any disagreement before I proceed further?

Note:

p^2=(E^2)/c^2=(m*c^2)^2/c^2 m is the mass.
Mike_Massen
1.7 / 5 (6) Nov 11, 2012
@ johanfprins

Why didnt you do any of these analyses on *any* of the now 60 or so special relativity experiments ?

You got ridiculous needing a gravity free space when no such place exists and kept having a go at Einstein for making mistakes when its your interpretations that are flawed !

And you wonder why you dont get published, get real, wake up !

Other 'theoretical' physicists are able to disentangle special from general relativity in experimental data.

Why do you claim it cant be done ?

Where is your analysis of this experiment:-
http://en.wikiped...periment

Rather than your paranoid claim they 'subconsciously' altered the result, how does one do that with so many participants without there being an outright conspiracy ?

And what about the subsequent experiments that had higher precision and confirmed special relativity is real - such as is absolutely necessary in GPS - did you calculate why it works so well from REAL corrections ?

johanfprins
1 / 5 (6) Nov 11, 2012
@ johanfprins

Why didnt .. these analyses on *any* of the now 60 or so SR experiments ?

Since I have other things that are far more important to do at present.

I am, however, working on a manuscript on Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity. But it has at present a low priority.

Suffice to say that when you do the Lorentz transformation, not just for the time but also the position, you will find that the LT-transformed time t of the time tp on the moving clock when it is a distance (say L) away from the stationary clock, is the time on the moving clock when it is further away from the stationary clock than the distance L.

Thus the LT-time t on the stationary clock is not simultaneous to the time tp transformed from the moving clock.

To state that the one clock keeps time at another rate than the other, the simultaneous times on the clocks, when they are a distance L from one another, must be copmpared: The LT does not give the simultaneous times for the distance L.
ValeriaT
1 / 5 (7) Nov 11, 2012
Thus the photon is modelled by Maxwell's equation for light of any energy..
This is nothing special, as the momentum term has been inserted into mass-energy equivalence artificially just to keep the photon massless - because it's believed, it's moving with speed of light. Therefore, with respect to these trivial equation the photon is moving like the harmonic Maxwell's wave and nothing strange is about it. Except it isn't true and the special relativity has nothing to say about photons, which are quantum mechanical artifacts. In AWT the photons don't move with speed of light and they're unstable due the decoherence: they dissolve in vacuum and emerge somewhere else in the light wave - which implies, they're moving superluminaly during it. Which implies, they must move subluminaly for the rest of their time.
Mike_Massen
1.6 / 5 (7) Nov 11, 2012
ValeriaT assumed
Except it isn't true and the special relativity has nothing to say about photons, which are quantum mechanical artifacts.
NOT true otherwise solid state gyroscopes wouldnt work, see:-
http://en.wikiped...c_effect
as always refs are key to value of wikipedia though intros are useful.

johanfprins LOL
Gave further excuses for not doing any analysis of SR experiments of the last 30 years & mumbles theory when TESTs are definitive & substantive
I am, however, working on a manuscript on Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity.
Ha ! A high EGO way of saying a 'paper' :-)

How can you submit a PAPER when you haven't done ONE analyses of ANY experiment on SR which shows REAL results, staggering naivety & no INTEGRITY you 'work' ONLY on theory by ignoring ALL experimental data ?

YOU instead accuse experimenters of 'altering' data or world wide conspiracy.

WHY have you been unable for 30 years plus to do ONE analysis on any SR tests ?

Problem ?
johanfprins
1 / 5 (6) Nov 11, 2012
This is nothing special, as the momentum term has been inserted into mass-energy equivalence artificially just to keep the photon massless -
There is nothing "artificial" about it, since although the photon has mass-energy m*c^2=h(nu)it does NOT have rest-mass: If it had there would be an inertial refrence frame within which light energy is stationary: This will violate Einstein's STR.

Therefore, with respect to these trivial equation
It is not trivial unless you claim that Schroedinger's and Dirac's equations are "trivial". The SAME substitutions have been used.
the photon is moving like the harmonic Maxwell's wave and nothing strange is about it.
When I claimed this earlier you said it is impossible! Now you call it "trivial": LOL!

In AWT .. don't move with speed of light
So they violate Einstein's STR!
and they're unstable due the decoherence:..

Can you not get it through your thick skull that you are posting incoherent Bullshit ALL THE TIME!
ValeriaT
1 / 5 (6) Nov 11, 2012
NOT true otherwise solid state gyroscopes wouldnt work
Solid state gyroscopes do work with light wave, not with photons. Apparently it makes no difference for modern half-educated physicists. But I'm still distinguishing these two concepts carefully. Special relativity is based on light wave description, where the properties of photons are already averaged.
johanfprins
1 / 5 (6) Nov 11, 2012
Gave further excuses for not doing any analysis of SR experiments of the last 30 years
My paper I am working on is a precursor, since I think that not one of us has really understood the implication of STR: especially not you!.

Problem ?
I do not think you will ever have the intelligence to understand the problem. Nonetheless: Try the following: After synchronisation the time on the moving clock is tp: This means that according to the moving clock if has moved a distance Lp fromm the stationary clock where Lp=v*tp. Now LT the time tp on the moving clock and the coordinate xp=0 at the moving clock to obtain the corresponding LT coordinates ts and distance Ls from the stationary clock to the moving clock: You will find that

ts=(bet)*tp
and
Ls=(bet)*Lp

The time on the moving clock was ts when the clocks were a distance Lp apart, the LT time on the stationary clock is the time when they are a distance Ls>Lp apart. This is as it must be when the clocks keep the same time.
johanfprins
1 / 5 (6) Nov 11, 2012
NOT true otherwise solid state gyroscopes wouldnt work
Solid state gyroscopes do work with light wave, not with photons. Apparently it makes no difference for modern half-educated physicists. But I'm still distinguishing these two concepts carefully. Special relativity is based on light wave description, where the properties of photons are already averaged.


As I have just proved a photon is also a light wave with energy h*nu: It is in principle possible to build a light gyroscope that works with a single photon, and also to do the Michelson Morley experiment by using a single photon. The photon can be split in two parts that simultaneously follow both paths and then come together again so that one can measure a phase change.

Anton Zeilinger has done many such experiments, but is too dimwitted to ubderstand that "particles" are not involved.
johanfprins
1 / 5 (6) Nov 11, 2012
Let us now derive the wave equation for an electron moving with momentum p: The starting equation is still

E^2==p^2*c^2-plus-(m(e)*c^2)^2

But now m(e) is NOT zero. Nonetheless E=m*c^2 where m>m(e) and the relationship between m and m(e) follows from STR as:

m=(be)*m(e) where (bet)= 1/(sqrt(1-v^2/c^2))

From the first equation one can write that:

p^2=((m*c^2)^2-(m(e)*c^2)^2)/c^2 By now substituting the relationship for m in terms of m(e) and doing a bit of algebra, one obtains that:

p^2=(m*v^2)^2/v^2. If one campare this with the concomitant equation for the photon which is given by:

p^2=(m*c^2)^2/c^2=E^2/c^2, one must conclude that the frequency energy of the moving electron must be E=m*v^2: Thus for the electron one has that:

p^2=E^2/v^2

By now replacing E with i*(hbar)*(d/dt) and p with -i*(hbar)*(del), one obtains that:

(hbar)^2*(del)^2(PSI)=(hbar)^2*(1/v^2)*(d/dt)^2(PSI)

(hbar)^2 cancels out so that one obtains a wave equation

(del)^2(PSI)=(1/v^2)*(d/dt)^2(PSI)
johanfprins
1 / 5 (6) Nov 11, 2012
Thus the wave equation for an electron moving with momentum p so that it has an energy m*c^2, is given by:

(del)^2(PSI)=(1/v^2)*(d/dt)^2(PSI)

This Maxwell's equation for EM energy moving with a speed v that is less than light speed. The differential equation itself is independent of the mass-energy of the wave and therefore models any matter-wave moving with a speed v, be it an electron, a proton and what have you!

Note also that the frequency of the wave is not directly related to the total energy of the wave as in the case of a photon-wave since in this case h*nu=m*v^2.

Thus a moving photon is an EM wave moving with speed c and a moving electron is also an EM wave; but now moving with a speed v that is less than c: As it must since it has rest-mass. Again no "particle" involved at all. The distributed mass energies of both a photon-wave and an electron-wave have centres-of-mass which move like a "point-particle". But the entity is a wave, NOT a "particle" and a "wave".
ValeriaT
1 / 5 (6) Nov 11, 2012
As I have just proved a photon is also a light wave with energy h*nu
You didn't prove anything: as I already said, the term p*c has been inserted into E=m*c^2 equation artificially just in an effort to make the photon massless, i.e. equivalent to light wave. Now you just reversing the work of this anonymous genius, who blurred the photon and EM wave concepts in this way. The original E=mc^2 equation of Einstein (and few guys before him) didn't contain the momentum at all. Your stupidity is shinning very brightly.
Mike_Massen
1.6 / 5 (7) Nov 11, 2012
ValeriaT claimed
Solid state gyroscopes do work with light wave, not with photons.
How can you be SURE ?
These have been tested with very short packets & they work fine.

How can ValerieT POSSIBLY claim these devices know whether they are operating with packets or what you imply are 'particulate' photons surely it can only be waves ?

[Thats the ONLY thing I agree with johanfprins about]

Where is distinction as far as the device is concerned ?

Whereas johanfprins goes off on theory again & CANT explain WHY he hasnt done any analyses of ANY single SR experiment of the 60 or so that have been done in the last 30 years.

My advice is, before wasting time on 'precursor' PAPER you do (AT LEAST) one analyses & you will see EXPERIMENTAL results !

That way, you wont waste YOUR time & other's TIME !

Please, try it, others can, why are you so STUBBORN or UNABLE to even TRY to understand the theory behind ONE experiment of the 60 or so of the last 30 years plus ??????????
johanfprins
1 / 5 (7) Nov 11, 2012
As I have just proved a photon is also a light wave with energy h*nu
You didn't prove anything: as I already said, the term p*c has been inserted into E=m*c^2 equation artificially
There is no articiality at all. My derivation does not contradict any of Einstein's equations or the interpretation of STR like the bullshit that you post. It also follows exactly the same substitutions that both Schroedinger and Dirac have used
just in an effort to make the photon massless,
It is NOT an "effort" to do this since only an entity that does NOT have rest-mass can move with the speed of light: And a photon DOES move with c!
Now you just reversing the work of this anonymous genius, who blurred the photon [/q} there is nothong "blurred" about it.
Your stupidity is shinning very brightly.
Any person who believes that a photon is not moving with the speed of light is THE moron of ALL morons. So just F-off and go and play marbles. You have nothing to contribute here
ValeriaT
1 / 5 (6) Nov 11, 2012
These have been tested with very short packets & they work fine
Short packets <> photons. Solid state gyroscopes work only with light wave and they were never tested with single photons.
johanfprins
1 / 5 (6) Nov 11, 2012
@ Mike_Massen,

I am sick and tired of your distortions and unstable rantings. I will do my work when it suits me: Not to satisfy your demands. You are not my boss and thank God for that: It would be terrible to work for a person like you for whom it is impossible to have any respect.

I asked you to do a simple derivation by using Einstein's STR, and you are unable to do that. I will not respond to your posts again!
johanfprins
1 / 5 (6) Nov 11, 2012
These have been tested with very short packets & they work fine
Short packets <> photons. Solid state gyroscopes work only with light wave and they were never tested with single photons.
If it is done one day in the future it will work since a photon is also a light-wave: Not a particle; whatever the latter undefined term means.

At least here I agree with Mike_Massen!
ValeriaT
1 / 5 (6) Nov 11, 2012
Photon is soliton of light wave. If it would be equal to light wave, we wouldn't even introduce this concept into physics. With compare to light wave the photons cannot propagate at infinite distance without decomposition. Which is the reason, why they cannot be of zero mass and therefore move with speed of light. At the moment, when you succeed with single photon transfer at infinite distance, I would change my opinion - but not before.
Mike_Massen
1.7 / 5 (6) Nov 11, 2012
ValeriaT is getting muddled with
Photon is soliton of light wave. If it would be equal to..
Are you trying to say the large number of photons in the solid state gyroscope only become a wave because there are so many ?

In that case what happens if you have a small number say 200 or even 2 etc, Is there some delineation by you in respect of particle or wave according to some magic number of photons - what is this magic ?

Is it like the magic that johanfprins claims he needs 'gravity free space' which obviously cant exist ?

Oh johanfprins, you need a little detachment, going down a useless precursor for a theory paper WITHOUT first analysing at least ONE of the 60 or so SR experiments just makes you look like you are suffering from Obsessive Compulsive Disorder fixation re theory.

johanfprins, complaining I didnt do something you asked doesnt help your case, I asked about your analyses LONG before that, unlike you I dont have tenure (or retirement) & must work for a living...!
johanfprins
1 / 5 (6) Nov 11, 2012
Photon is soliton of light wave.[/q} Bullshit!
If it would be equal to light wave, we wouldn't even introduce this concept into physics.
It had to be introduced since it is the minimum-energy light-wave that can be absorbed and emitted by stationary electron-waves. The moronic part came when it was interpreted as a "particle".
With compare to light wave the photons cannot propagate at infinite distance without decomposition.
Where can a light-wave do this? Are you cpmpletely insane?
when you succeed with single photon transfer at infinite distance, I would change my opinion - but not before.
You cannot do this with ANY light wave no matter what its total energy is! You really need psychiatric help, you know.
johanfprins
1 / 5 (6) Nov 11, 2012
Is it like the magic that johanfprins claims he needs 'gravity free space' which obviously cant exist ?
STR is ONLY valid in such a space: So you agree that the deduction that STR applies to flying clocks must be wrong?

..., going down a useless precursor for a theory paper
How can I analyse it if we do not agree on the interpretation of "time-dilation" and "length contraction".

That is why I am asking you to first explain these two effects by using the Lorentz-transformation, which you refuse to do: Most probably because you are too stupid to do this. I am waiting for you to derive "time-dilation" from the Lorentz-transformation and to prove to me that it means that the moving clock keeps slower time than the stationary clock.

I am stating that according to the Lorentz transformation this is NOT possible, since the LT time on the stationary clock is not simultaneous to the untransformed time on the moving clock!
Kron
1 / 5 (7) Nov 11, 2012
You cannot prove that light is a wave. You cannot prove that light is particles. Since light behaves as both under different experimental set-ups, the only objective way of viewing it is as both particle and wave, or, neither particle nor wave. This applies for all quanta for that matter, not only photons.

An assertion that quanta is one (either wave OR particle) is provable mathematically. Experimentally both have been proven (quanta is wave and light).

Math shows that both cases can be true. Experiment has shown that both cases can be true.

You can claim whatever you like Johan F. Prins, but this is your bias, your personal belief.

If you were any kind of scientist you would strive to remove bias from your method. QM doesn't concern itself with interpretation. QM does not claim certainty for things that can't be known as certain. QM allows quanta to be what it is, ignoring half of the math and half of experiments (showing particle nature of quanta), makes you an ignoramus.
johanfprins
1 / 5 (7) Nov 11, 2012
An assertion that quanta is one (either wave OR particle) is provable mathematically.
No it has not!
Experimentally both have been proven (quanta is wave and light).
No it has not.

Math shows that both cases can be true. Experiment has shown that both cases can be true.
You just repeated yourself: Proof of a weak mind?

You can claim whatever you like Johan F. Prins, but this is your bias, your personal belief.
No it is not a "belief": P have derived that both a moving photon and a moving electron are modelled by Maxwell's equation for light waves. To do this I have used the same substitutions that Schroedinger and Dirac have used to derive their equations: Are their equations ONLY THEIR PERSONAL BELIEFS: Stop being childishly moronic.
If you were any kind of scientist you would strive to remove bias from your method.
You are the one that is biased, not me! Please derive "wave-particle" duality and "complementarity".
johanfprins
1 / 5 (6) Nov 11, 2012
QM doesn't concern itself with interpretation. QM does not claim certainty for things that can't be known as certain.
Then it is at best superstition and Voodoo!

QM allows quanta to be what it is, ignoring half of the math and half of experiments (showing particle nature of quanta), makes you an ignoramus.
No it does not even know what quanta is: You just admitted to that. Only a moron will call such an interpretation "physics". Tell me what is a quantum? Something that cannot be known because God ordained that we as mortal beings cannot know this? "Albert stop telling God what He can or cannot do". You are way back in the Dark Ages: just as Carver Mead stated. It scares me to think that as far as theoretical physics is concerned the mentality is he same as it was long before the renaissance! You have been born at least 1000 years AFTER your time!
Kron
1.5 / 5 (8) Nov 11, 2012
Quanta come in discrete energy packets (Plancks). These packets of energy are particles (they have a single position and size), the particles when examined at a scale smaller than the particle size are wave-like (as in they are distributed between the particle boundary). So the quanta is both wave and particle.

We can play along though (childish minds love to play). The double slit experiment has shown us that a single particle (be it photon or electron) can interfere with itself. Particles have a single location and a measurable size. Self interference means either: a) the particle exists in multiple locations, or b) the particle is distributed across a distance larger than the distance between the slits (wave-like).

Intuitively, we'd exclude option a. Objects don't exist in 2 places at once, right? Quanta must fall under option b then, no? No. When checking which slit the quanta passes through the interference pattern is destroyed.
ValeriaT
1 / 5 (7) Nov 11, 2012
Are you trying to say the large number of photons in the solid state gyroscope only become a wave because there are so many?

Of course, the electromagnetic wave in classical sense is just an entangled system of many photons. I presume, it's widespread textbook stuff.
No it does not even know what quanta is: You just admitted to that.
But we have macroscopic analogies for it, for example the ripples at the water surface. They do emerge from nothing and disappear again in their environment. It's not so mysterious behavior when extradimensions of space-time are taken into account. At the water surface it's quite normal, when some surface transversal ripple scatters into longitudinal waves and emerges somewhere else. The vacuum is just larger and more dense pond, we're sorta fluid animals and the smallest portions of our bodies dissolve and condense periodically all the time. It's quite imaginable behavior for me.
ValeriaT
1 / 5 (6) Nov 11, 2012
Another example of objects which condense from extradimensions and evaporate again. The density of atmosphere is much higher, than the density of clouds so they move with dissolving and reapearing somewhere else. Macroscopically the whole cloud is just moving, but microscopically it proceeds via many condensing and evaporating steps of tiny particles which are forming it. Because the density of vacuum in dense æther model is considered much higher, than the density of particles forming our bodies, their motion appears similarly at the microscopic scale.
johanfprins
1 / 5 (6) Nov 12, 2012
Quanta come in discrete energy packets (Plancks).
Correct.
These packets of energy are particles
Wrong!
(they have a single position and size)
Singlle position: when moving through free space YES, since their EM-energy is then distributed dynamic mass-energy, and therefore each one of them has a centre-of-mass; but this does not make them "particles". Single size: Not required: For example, after a photon has moved through double slits, it spreads out to have the intensity of a diffracted wave. Its size is then different from the size of the photon which impinged into the double slits.
We can play along though (childish minds love to play).
You are the proof that this is so.
The double slit experiment has shown us that a single particle (be it photon or electron) can interfere with itself.
We know that it is physically impossible for "particles" to interfere with themselves. It is more probable that an elephant can wipe its ass with confetti.
johanfprins
1 / 5 (6) Nov 12, 2012
Self interference means either: a)particle exists in multiple locations,
Which is not possible and therefore a photon cannot be a "particle"
or b) particle is distributed across a distance larger than the distance between the slits (wave-like).
Which is incontrovertible proof that a photon is NOT a "particle" but a wave.

Objects don't exist in 2 places at once, right?
A single holistic coherent wave can, since it can move through two slits while still reamaining a single wave.
Quanta must fall under option b then
Exactly! That is why thy are waves and not "particles".
When checking which slit the quanta passes through the interference pattern is destroyed.
Exactly! Just as it must be since when detecting the wave hehind the slits you are changing the boundary conditions, and since one can only detect a single quantum of light at a time, the wave must collapse to record at one of the two available detectors: This MUST destroy the interference-pattern.
johanfprins
1 / 5 (6) Nov 12, 2012
Are you trying to say the large number of photons in the solid state gyroscope only become a wave because there are so many?

Of course, the electromagnetic wave in classical sense is just an entangled system of many photons. I presume, it's widespread textbook stuff.
Correct but you are too stupid to understand what "widespread textbook stuff" like "entanglement" means: It means the formation of a single macro-wave which does not consist of separate identical entities anymore. If they are still separate entities, they will be distinguishable; and it is well known from quantum wave-mechanics that identical, distinghuisable entities MUST lose their distinguishability to form a macro-wave. Thus, a macro- light-wave that has energy larger than that of a photon-wave CANNOT exist of separate photons. If it is a bundle of separate distinguishable photons, you do not have a macro-wave; like, for example, a laser beam.
johanfprins
1 / 5 (7) Nov 12, 2012
Another http://www.youtub...ndscreen which condense from extradimensions and evaporate again. The density of atmosphere is much higher, than the density of clouds so they move with dissolving and reapearing somewhere else. Macroscopically the whole cloud is just moving, but microscopically it proceeds via many condensing and evaporating steps of tiny particles which are forming it. Because the density of vacuum in dense æther model is considered much higher, than the density of particles forming our bodies, their motion appears similarly at the microscopic scale.


Please stop posting BS based on irrelevant analogues, like a duck swimming on a pond. It is clear that you know a lot of physics but without understanding it. Your logic is that of a demented person!
ValeriaT
1 / 5 (6) Nov 12, 2012
It means the formation of a single macro-wave which does not consist of separate identical entities anymore.
Try to imagine entangled atoms, for example inside of atom condensate. Do you believe, their orbitals or let say atom nuclei aren't distinguishable anymore? Actually these atoms are still visible like the individual glowing points in the space. They're still isolated particles, just moving collectively. The more it applies to entangled macroscopic objects, like the various mirrors and cantilevers. These objects don't dissolve mutually, they're still remain individually countable like the particles.
Self interference means either: a)particle exists in multiple locations or b) particle is distributed across a distance larger than the distance between the slits (wave-like).
Actually a third option still exists here - and this is just the AWT-compliant explanation of entanglement, which is allowing the particle-wave duality.
ValeriaT
1 / 5 (5) Nov 12, 2012
a macro- light-wave that has energy larger than that of a photon-wave CANNOT exist of separate photons. If it is a bundle of separate distinguishable photons, you do not have a macro-wave
Actually you can have such a light wave and recently we are even discussed it here (1, 2). You're of short memory.
stop posting BS based on irrelevant analogues, like a duck swimming on a pond. It is clear that you know a lot of physics but without understanding it..
Just the existence of real life analogies is what enables you understand the physics better, than mainstream physicists, who have only their equations only and without computing they're unable to predict anything testable about it.
Tausch
1 / 5 (5) Nov 12, 2012
it is well known from quantum wave-mechanics that identical, distinghuisable entities MUST lose their distinguishability to form a macro-wave. - jp


Just have understanding for laypersons' confusion when they read the words identical and distinguishable.

And no sympathy for those already familiar with QM's physical, internal, and intrinsic bookkeeping.

johanfprins
1 / 5 (6) Nov 12, 2012
Try to imagine entangled atoms, for example inside of atom condensate. Do you believe, their orbitals or let say atom nuclei aren't distinguishable anymore?
They are! That is why these orbitals are NOT entangled with one another or with the nucleus. If they were they would not have been distinguishable as is required for the formation of a single holistic macro-wave. Only such a wave can diffract by moving through two slits.

Self interference means either: a)particle exists in multiple locations or
No "particle" can do this!
b) particle is distributed across a distance larger than the distance between the slits (wave-like)
No "particle" can do this either!
Actually a third option still exists here - and this is just the AWT-compliant explanation
And this is even greater BS than to claim that a "particle" can be simultaneously at different positions or extend over two slits!

The only non-insane conclusion is that a photon is a wave: Not a "pa
johanfprins
1 / 5 (6) Nov 12, 2012
Actually you can have such a light wave and recently we are even discussed it here
Obviously you can have a collection of separate photons moving together through space, but this is not a single, entangled macro-wave
stop posting BS based on irrelevant analogues, like a duck swimming on a pond. It is clear that you know a lot of physics but without understanding it..
Just the existence of real life analogies is what enables you understand the physics better, than mainstream physicists, who have only their equations only and without computing they're unable to predict anything testable about it.

Strangely enough, here I have sympathy with your viewpoint: But then your analogies must be rational and you must be able to back them up with suitable mathematics: Your analogies are unfortunately assine, and do not lead to any quantitative results. Can you not see that a film of floating clouds means NOTHING in this regard? Please, go for some mental help!
johanfprins
1 / 5 (6) Nov 12, 2012
Just have understanding for laypersons' confusion when they read the words identical and distinguishable.
Yes I surely do; but I have no sympathy for the founding fathers of "many-body" quantum mechanics who also did not grasp this difference between "identical" and "indistinguishable". They used the term "identical" to derive Fermi-Dirac and Bose-Einstein statistics, and claimed that this is the reason why these two statistics replace Boltzmann-statistics; even though they should have known that Boltzmann statistics also do apply to "identical particles", like say argon-gas atoms in a flask.

And no sympathy for those already familiar with QM's physical, internal, and intrinsic bookkeeping.
The problem is that they learn this from the textbooks they are using, and thus accept it as "holy writ" without being able to think for themselves.

Most modern physicists are not able to think for themselves: They think that when they write an algorithm they are doing physics.

ValeriaT
1 / 5 (6) Nov 12, 2012
If they were they would not have been distinguishable as is required for the formation of a single holistic macro-wave. Only such a wave can diffract by moving through two slits.
The double slit interference doesn't require the presence of entangled photons pairs, it even doesn't require a presence of pairs: it works with single photon and electron. Which is why the notion of double slit experiment is irrelevant to discussion of entanglement.
you can have a collection of separate photons moving together through space, but this is not a single, entangled macro-wave
It isn't but you said, we even cannot have a collection of such entangled photons - which is not true.
Most modern physicists are not able to think for themselves: They think that when they write an algorithm they are doing physics
At least we have some point in common. But the ability of independent thinking doesn't imply this thinking is logically coherent.
ValeriaT
1 / 5 (6) Nov 12, 2012
You're actually doing the very same mistake like the mainstream physicists, when you're arguing, the photon is not a particle at the moment, when you start to use mathematics developed with mainstream physics for it. Because this mathematics has been derived mindlessly and you're carrying this confusion even into your nonformal deductions in this way.

When Einstein derived his E=mc^2 equation, the physicists realized soon, that the photons would have their mass too due their energy content, so that they cannot move with speed of light. It was quite relevant conclusion, but physicists didn't realize, that the photons aren't equivalent to light wave and they proposed a solution of this seeming "dilemma": they did append the momentum term to E=mc^2 and attributed it to the photons. Now you're reversing this fringe logics deducing from this momentum term, that the photons aren't particles but a waves. But this math is wrong and the photons are really moving slower than light.
ValeriaT
1 / 5 (6) Nov 12, 2012
If the photons wouldn't have real physical mass, only momentum, they couldn't transfer a matter during stellar explosions, for example. As we know, during explosion of supernova a significant amount of matter is radiated in form of X-ray and gamma ray photons. These photons therefore not only exert a radiation pressure to material particles - but they really increasing their mass at the moment, when they're absorbed with it. It was proven with mass spectroscopy of atom nuclei, which were excited with X-ray photons. At the moment, when these atom nuclei absorbed these photons, they really did become heavier in measurable way in mass spectrometer. This result is consistent with AWT model of photon - but it cannot be consistent with "photon is a EM wave" model of yours, because the EM wave is always massless artifact and it propagates with speed of light.
johanfprins
1 / 5 (6) Nov 12, 2012
If they were they would not have been distinguishable as is required for the formation of a single holistic macro-wave. Only such a wave can diffract by moving through two slits.
The double slit interference doesn't require the presence of entangled photons pairs,
I have not said that: Please don't be so stupid
it works with single photon and electron.
I am glad you realise this: I thought according to you it requires a duck on a pond!
Which is why the notion of double slit experiment is irrelevant to discussion of entanglement.
Wrong. The single coherent photon-wave splits into two parts to move through the two slits: These two parts are not separate entities, but form part of a single photon-wave. The two parts are thus entangled.
but you said, we even cannot have a collection of such entangled photons - which is not true
If they are separate photons they CANNOT be entangled. To be entangled, the photons CANNOT be separate photons anymore.
johanfprins
1 / 5 (6) Nov 12, 2012
Because this mathematics has been derived mindlessly
Some of it yes, like the Dirac equation and Feynman diagrams; but not the Special Theory of Relativity and Schroedinger's equation: The mathematics is fine, it is the interpretation that is wrong.

When Einstein derived his E=mc^2 equation, the physicists realized soon, that the photons would have their mass too due their energy content,
You forgot to state dynamic mass: And you forgot that this is true for ANY light wave; not just a photon-wave.
so that they cannot move with speed of light.
Nooooo!! Only entities with REST MASS cannot move with the speed of light.
Now you're reversing this fringe logics deducing from this momentum term, that the photons aren't particles but a waves.
It follows directly from Eisntein's STR which in turn follows directly from Maxwell's equations.
But this math is wrong
I have posted the mathematics above: If you claim it is wrong show me where it is wrong.
johanfprins
1 / 5 (7) Nov 12, 2012
If the photons wouldn't have real physical mass,
You are gaim not discrminating between REST mass and DYNAMIC mass. BOTH relate to momentum.
As we know, during explosion of supernova a significant amount of matter is radiated in form of X-ray and gamma ray photons.
Correct.
These photons therefore not only exert a radiation pressure to material particles - but they really increasing their mass at the moment, when they're absorbed with it.
Obviously, when light-energy is absorbed by matter its dynamic mass-energy turns into rest-mass energy: This happens within atoms all the time; but it does not mean that a moving light-wave, like a photon wave, has rest-mass while it is moving!

At the moment, when these atom nuclei absorbed these photons, they really did become heavier in measurable way in mass spectrometer.
Not just these atoms but any atom which absorb light-energy.
johanfprins
1 / 5 (7) Nov 12, 2012
This is normal physics which flows logically from Einstein's STR without having to assume that a photon moves at a slower speed than light within free space.

This result is consistent with AWT model of photon -
You do not need this Voodoo since it flows logically from existing physics that it must be so.
but it cannot be consistent with "photon is a EM wave" model of yours, because the EM wave is always massless artifact and it propagates with speed of light.
It is NOT massless since it has dynamic mass even though it travels with the speed of light. When you trap such a wave within a cavity, it the becomes a stationary standing wave which cannot move with speed c anymore. Therefore its dynamic mass-energy is now rest-mass energy. The same happens when electrons around an atom or within a material absorbs light: The light must become immobile and its dynamic mass-energy MUST thus become rest-mass energy. It has F-all to do with AWT Voodoo!.

ValeriaT
1 / 5 (7) Nov 12, 2012
The single coherent photon-wave splits into two parts to move through the two slits: These two parts are not separate entities, but form part of a single photon-wave. The two parts are thus entangled.
But it would require higher energy, then the photon itself contains. This paradox is even more apparent at the case of passing of electron or even whole furulene molecule through both slits. Could such complex molecule dissolve in vacuum and recombine again after the split? IMO the good sense tells us, it's impossible and after then the "swimming duck" mechanism of AWT gains merit (actually it's the pilot wave mechanism of Louis deBroglie, who had proposed it first).
I have posted the mathematics above: If you claim it is wrong show me where it is wrong
I explained it already: the photon transfers mass, not only momentum. The momentum term of your math is redundant.
ValeriaT
1 / 5 (6) Nov 12, 2012
AWT model of double slit is not woodoo at all - Ywes Couder has demonstrated it macroscopically already. It's actually the only interpretation of quantum mechanics, which has been demonstrated experimentally - all other models are speculative only. In Couder's experiment the particle doesn't propagate through environment like the wave, but like the normal particle which is surrounded with standing wave of environment, deformed with its motion.
johanfprins
1 / 5 (6) Nov 12, 2012
But it would require higher energy, then the photon itself contains.
No it does not! Why would it?
This paradox is even more apparent at the case of passing of electron or even whole http://129.94.162...enes.pdf through both slits. Could such complex molecule dissolve in vacuum
Why does it have to "dissolve" in vacuum? You are really insane you know!
IMO the good sense tells us, it's impossible
Read the article again if you can read? It is clear from the data that at temperatures where you can distinguish the subcomponents of the buckeyballs they do NOT difract. Since the bonds between the atoms are VERY strong you reach the situation at low temperatures that the atoms lose their separate existences, and ONLY THEN do you get diffraction; since the buckey-ball is now a holistic, coherent matter-wave.
johanfprins
1 / 5 (7) Nov 12, 2012
IMO the good sense tells us, it's impossible and after then the "swimming duck" mechanism of AWT gains merit (actually it's the pilot wave mechanism of Louis deBroglie, who had proposed it first).
Why do you need a "pilot wave" when the entity itself is a wave?
I have posted the mathematics above: If you claim it is wrong show me where it is wrong
I explained it already: the photon transfers mass, not only momentum.The momentum term of your math is redundant.
Your "explanation" violates Einstein's STR and is thus in the first place wrong physics, and it is NOT mathematical. If you want to prove the mathematics wrong, you must go step by step through the derivation and say, here is the mathematical mistake. You are not able to do this. So, as usual, you are spouting insane nonsense!

johanfprins
1 / 5 (6) Nov 12, 2012
AWT model of double slit is not woodoo at all - Ywes Couder has http://phys.org/n...11.html.
We already had this argument and I have pointed out that his experiment DOES NOT explain double slit diffraction since his "pilot" wave for each "particle" does NOT move through both slits simultaneously.

Kron
1 / 5 (7) Nov 12, 2012
The human mind deciphers quantum energy densities to form relevant images. The observer does not see reality that surrounds him in the objective state reality exists in, the observer makes sense of the objective reality through mental imagery. Our brains are the hardware which collects data through our sensors, our software (the mind) is responsible for the images, our view of reality.

Do not confuse the physical reality and the physical model of reality. We are not privy to the former as our processors are built up from it.

In your MODEL, Johan F Prins, the physical reality is waves. Photons being unbounded, matter being bounded and standing.

I have no problem with your model. I do have a problem with you stating what is and isn't real. Learn the difference between the physical world and the physical model of the world.
johanfprins
1 / 5 (7) Nov 12, 2012
Do not confuse the physical reality and the physical model of reality.
I NEVER have!
In your MODEL, Johan F Prins, the physical reality is waves.
That seems to eliminate the Voodoo that arises from "wave-particle" duality.
Photons being unbounded,
Not after a photon is absorbed.
matter being bounded and standing.
Stationary is the better word. Moving matter is also not bounded: it is only bounded in its own inertial reference frame.

I have no problem with your model.
Thanks!
I have problem with you stating what is and isn't real between the physical world and the physical model of the world.
Where have I done this? Stop being so dishonest! I have just said that any person who states that we cannot model physics by using visualisation, and must therefore just accept the mathematics, is not a physicist's A-hole!
ValeriaT
1 / 5 (6) Nov 12, 2012
Why do you need a "pilot wave" when the entity itself is a wave?
Because it fits the experimental evidence better. Actually I do consider both, but the wave character of heavier particles doesn't participate to the interference of double slit experiment very much. It's clearly visible by observations: these particles do impact the target like mutually separated points, which are only distributed in accordance to wave mechanics.
I have pointed out that his experiment DOES NOT explain double slit diffraction since his "pilot" wave for each "particle" does NOT move through both slits simultaneously.
Of course it does - it's the actually only way, in which furulene molecules could interact with both slits at the same moment. You're denying the possibility, such a molecule could dissolve in vacuum - so how it could separate itself into two parts?
Kron
1.5 / 5 (8) Nov 12, 2012
You keep doing math to prove what is and isn't real. While you know how to perform math, you seem to lack the understanding of what math is. Proofs are dependent upon axioms (starting assumptions). Assumptions are subjective, that which one assumes to be true another may not. So each model is based upon subjective reasoning. Since we do not see reality in the objective form it exists in but in the subjective form our minds construct - or MODEL - it in, the axioms cannot be known as ultimately true. A mathematical proof of a physical model does not prove the model as real. A mathematical proof proves the workability of your model, nothing more.
ValeriaT
1 / 5 (5) Nov 12, 2012
that any person who states that we cannot model physics by using visualisation, and must therefore just accept the mathematics
But the mathematics in physics is just an assumption written in formal language - nothing less, nothing more. For example, Einstein derived E=mc^2 equation. But this equation is violated with photons itself, which do appear to have inertial effects. So that another physicists did append the p^2c^2 term into equation - but this term is nothing less, nothing more than just formalized assumption, that the photon has no mass, only momentum. It's not God's will or something similar - just an expressed human belief into some interpretation, written into variables.

You may use this term in your deductions or you may not - but it still doesn't mean nothing more, than just belief in ad-hoced assumption of massless photon done originally during its derivation before years. Your belief in infallible trustfulness of formal math in physics is naive if not childish.
johanfprins
1 / 5 (7) Nov 12, 2012
Why do you need a "pilot wave" when the entity itself is a wave?
Because it fits the experimental evidence better.
NOOOO!!! IT DOES NOT!! FOR F-sakes!! Stop your inability to think!!!
Actually I do consider both, but the wave character of heavier particles doesn't participate to the interference of double slit experiment very much.
Obviously your physics is again tripping you up. The "heavier" particles, moving with thae same speed, have smaller wavelenghts, and will for the same slits thus diffract less. For God's sake go and read some ELEMENTARY text books OVER and OVER and OVER again.

I have pointed out that his experiment DOES NOT explain double slit diffraction since his "pilot" wave for each "particle" does NOT move through both slits simultaneously.
Of course it does -
Are you BLIND? Go and look at the simulation again: If you have honesty, which I doubt, you will see that the Emporer is naked!
johanfprins
1 / 5 (7) Nov 12, 2012
You keep doing math to prove what is and isn't real. While you know how to perform math, you seem to lack the understanding of what math is. Proofs are dependent upon axioms (starting assumptions). Assumptions are subjective, that which one assumes to be true another may not. So each model is based upon subjective reasoning. Since we do not see reality in the objective form it exists in but in the subjective form our minds construct - or MODEL - it in, the axioms cannot be known as ultimately true. A mathematical proof of a physical model does not prove the model as real. A mathematical proof proves the workability of your model, nothing more.
Please stop your pedantic patronization: I know better what physics is all about than you with you limited amount of grey matter will EVER know.
ValeriaT
1 / 5 (6) Nov 12, 2012
the "heavier" particles, moving with the same speed, have smaller wavelengths, and will for the same slits thus diffract less.
The same is valid for Couder's experiments with oil droplets bouncing at the water surface. The heavier droplets do require higher frequency of bouncing for not to coalesce with the water surface prematurely. Such a dependence cannot therefore serve as an evidence against Couder/AWT/deBroglie model at all.
I know better what physics is all about than you with you limited amount of grey matter will EVER know.
You cannot know it because I'm working OUTSIDE of physics, so I can judge it solely independently and objectively. For example, your apparent tendency to use formal math as an evidence of your abstract assumptions is typical for insiders of contemporary mainstream physics, who don't understand the physical reality at its intuitive level too.
johanfprins
1 / 5 (7) Nov 12, 2012
But the mathematics in physics is just an assumption
Jesus but YOU ARE stupid. Mathematics is a logical language NOT an assumption.
For example, Einstein derived E=mc^2 equation. But this equation is violated with photons itself,
IT IS NOT VIOLATED BY THE PHOTON ITSELF! My God even my first year students will collapse in fits of laughter when they hear this utter stupidity!

You may use this term in your deductions or you may not - but it still doesn't mean nothing more, than just belief in ad-hoced assumption
It is not an ad-hocked assumtion. If a photon moves with slower speed, it must be stationary within one of the myriad inertial reference frames within our Universe. IT IS NOT within any one of them! I feel sorry for you: You are really mentally disturbed, you know!

I better sign off before I get a coronary attack!
ValeriaT
1 / 5 (6) Nov 12, 2012
We can put a rhetorical question: who can understand the behavior of solar system better: the astronomer, who spend whole his life with its observation from INSIDE it, so that he believes in epicycle model firmly - or just the astronaut, who can see all this motion of planets from is OUTSIDE uncluttered perspective comfortably? The problem of insiders and experts in general is, they're way too much specialized to the subject of their interest, so they cannot judge their bellowed theories from holistic perspective of mutual connections with another models. The relativist is like the person, who believes he's still moving with speed of light, albeit he's already revolving the black hole at place.
I better sign off before I get a coronary attack!
You see - and you're still way more close to AWT, than any other proponent of mainstream physics.. So I presume, most of physicists will rather prefer to die out, after they realize their actual chance in refusal of æther model.
ValeriaT
1 / 5 (6) Nov 12, 2012
Mathematics is a logical language NOT an assumption.
Mathematic is strictly logical description of ideas, which are often quite counterintuitive and illogical by itself. Albert Einstein already said it all: "I don't believe in mathematics. As far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality, they are not certain; as far as they are certain, they do not refer to reality." (as quoted by Carl Seelig)
If a photon moves with slower speed, it must be stationary within one of the myriad inertial reference frames within our Universe. IT IS NOT within any one of them!
LOL, the vacuum itself contains myriads of fluctuations and tiny inertial reference frames (note the connection of this fact to the Everret's Many Worlds interpretation of quantum uncertainty).

Are you definitely sure, that this photon is really in motion with respect to all of these fluctuations at the single moment?
Tausch
1 / 5 (5) Nov 12, 2012
Theorem 1: In any logical system one can construct statements that are neither true nor false
(mathematical variations of the liar's paradox).

(The equivalency to Gödel's Incompleteness theorem is proved.)

A follow up theorem:

Theorem 2: Therefore no consistent system can be used to prove its own consistency. No proof can be proof of itself. In this work , we attempt to prove (successfully) the first theorem mention above.

What does this mean for physics?
Well, this means we can use models until inconsistencies appear and/or become untenable.

JP's objections are directed towards thinking/models that ignore inconsistencies when they appear, instead of addressing them immediately or worst, not opting to abandoning inconsistent models.

Source:
http://gsjournal....oad/4276

Why not opt to apply models having the least inconsistencies and the greatest agreement with observations while offering the greatest predictive, testable powers?
Fleetfoot
5 / 5 (1) Nov 12, 2012
I better sign off before I get a coronary attack!


Hint: That sort of emotional repsonse is what trolls seek ;-)
Mike_Massen
1.6 / 5 (7) Nov 12, 2012
Tausch offered
Why not opt to apply models having the least inconsistencies and the greatest agreement with observations while offering the greatest predictive, testable powers?
By all means but, we unfortunately lumber into potential obstacles.

1. Ability to agree on what is meant by 'inconsistencies', the paradigm of the one eyed man in the kingdom of the blind appears at the highest level of disagreement but below that we have issues of ability to appreciate complex logic & focus to work through.

2. The problem of irrationality, eg.
25% of people have a diagnosable mental illness
next 25% on the border of any number of diagnosable mental illnesses
the remaining 50% are boring automatons you dont want to bother with.
The greatest chance for change & a deep appreciation in relation to empathy & the human condition is derived from the 2nd 25%. So if some can agree on 'inconsistencies' in 1. above fine but, how many will pursue them & deal with them & then communicate ?

sigh
Tausch
1 / 5 (4) Nov 12, 2012
By least 'inconsistencies' is meant:

The constitutive laws governing the internal conditions of a physical system and the interactions between its parts should not depend on whatever external frame of reference is used to describe them. - Walter Noll

Equations of states > Constitutive equations > principle of material objectivity >(later reworded to) principle of material frame-indifference

That offers the least inconsistencies and places the highest demand on models of reality and their predictions of observables forthcoming.

MM offers:
50% suffer from thinking.
50% stopped thinking.



johanfprins
1 / 5 (6) Nov 13, 2012
Mathematic is strictly logical description of ideas, which are often quite counterintuitive and illogical by itself.
I have no problem with that. What I do have a problem with is when the mathematics proves that the ideas must be wrong, the mathematics is fudged, like Dirac did when he derived his "relativistic wave equation" for an electron; and like the QFT theorists do when their integrals explode into infinities. In all the cases I have modelled, such mathematical behaviour have been a message that the starting ideas are wrong.

the vacuum itself contains myriads of fluctuations and tiny inertial reference frames
Prove this experimentaklly
(note the connection of this fact to the Everret's Many Worlds interpretation..).
I have noted this: There is no experimental proof of Everret's Many Worlds whatsoever. Only a person without any common sense, like John Wheeler, will accept this BS as being possible.
johanfprins
1 / 5 (7) Nov 13, 2012
I better sign off before I get a coronary attack!


Hint: That sort of emotional repsonse is what trolls seek ;-)

I better sign off before I get a coronary attack!


Hint: That sort of emotional repsonse is what trolls seek ;-)


Thank you: In future I will only respond to VealeriaT's posts by posting: Yea! Yea! Yea! The same old story.
Tausch
1 / 5 (4) Nov 13, 2012
@Tausch: IMO the arguments regarding zero Ricci curvature tensor are invalid. They do apply to zero gravity field OUTSIDE of black hole, not somewhere else. - natello


????
There are "no arguments" regarding zero Ricci curvature.

Zero Ricci curvature is a spacetime that by construction contains no matter.
http://gsjournal....oad/1060

There is no "somewhere else".

There is no difference in my life or death...
whether you exist or not.
johanfprins
1 / 5 (7) Nov 13, 2012
I would say, the above insight applies to our subjective perceptions of reality quite perfectly. Is this theory intriguing or rather selfevident?


Yea! Yea! Yea! Another example of a hallucination from a demented mind!
johanfprins
1.4 / 5 (9) Nov 13, 2012
Another example of a hallucination from a demented mind!
The "arguments" of yours are becoming monotonous and boring. Are you still believing, when facing uncomfortable opinion,
"Uncomfortable opinion!" My God you are really of your rocker. I am willing to argue with anybody and I hvae been VERY patient with you: But you have proved OVER and OVER and OVER again that you just do not have enough grey matter to follow any physics whatsoever. All you can do is post irrelevant data so that you can keep on bleating AWT! AWT! AAAAAAWWWTTTT!

Please stop wasting my valuable time!
Fleetfoot
3 / 5 (2) Nov 14, 2012
There is no experimental proof of Everret's Many Worlds whatsoever
Everret basically says, every observer would see the same objective reality differently, because he's living in a bit different world (reference frame).


No, MWI says that there are different overlapping layers to existence called "worlds" and that, for a single observer, the copies in different "worlds" observe different results based on the quantum probabilities. Rather than having the wavefunction collapse to a single value as in the Copenhagen Interpretation, it collapses to all values but only one in each world.

Frames don't come into it at all.
johanfprins
1 / 5 (7) Nov 14, 2012
There is no experimental proof of Everret's Many Worlds whatsoever
Everret basically says, every observer would see the same objective reality differently, because he's living in a bit different world (reference frame).

I know Everet's mumbo-jumbo, and that he and John Wheeler invented this claptrap as an alernative to the claptrap of "probability-wave" collapse of the Copenhagen hallucination!

There is no collapse of a "probability-wave" required to understand quantum wave-mechanics. Waves change shape and size when their boundary-conditions change. As far as observation of the wave is concerned, the real wave collapses when it is absorbed, or detected, by an atomically-sized absorber or detector. If it does not do this it cannot be absorbed or detected. Thus, the spot seen on a diffraction screen has NOTHING to do with a "particle's" position. For a wave to be absorbed it must resonate with an absorber: When there are many absorbers it leaves a spot at the position
johanfprins
1 / 5 (8) Nov 14, 2012
of the first absorber with which it reonates: Since resonance is easier at the positions at whcih the wave has the highest intensity, one ends up with a spotty picture of the wave-intensity after many identical waves have been detected.

This distribution in spots is thus determined by the fact that the measuring apparatus consists of a large density of absorbers or detectors, and thus not by the wave on its own as if the wave's intensity is a "probability-distribution".

If there were only one detector, a wave can only collapse into this detctor when it resonates with it. If the consecutive waves are spaced to arrive at well separated times from one another, one expects that most, if not all, of them will collapse at this SAME single-detector; since there is now no competition by other detectors: When all these waves are measured at the same position, there is no distribution in positions which can be ascribed to "probability".

There is no need for ludicrous many worlds.

More news stories

Robotics goes micro-scale

(Phys.org) —The development of light-driven 'micro-robots' that can autonomously investigate and manipulate the nano-scale environment in a microscope comes a step closer, thanks to new research from the ...

Turning off depression in the brain

Scientists have traced vulnerability to depression-like behaviors in mice to out-of-balance electrical activity inside neurons of the brain's reward circuit and experimentally reversed it – but there's ...

Is Parkinson's an autoimmune disease?

The cause of neuronal death in Parkinson's disease is still unknown, but a new study proposes that neurons may be mistaken for foreign invaders and killed by the person's own immune system, similar to the ...