Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #381608

Re: Waves - fundamental or emergent ?

Show all headers | View raw

On 14/04/2016 6:27 PM, benj wrote:
> On 04/13/2016 10:45 PM, Sylvia Else wrote:
>> On 13/04/2016 10:02 PM, Y wrote:
>>> On Wednesday, April 13, 2016 at 9:10:16 PM UTC+10, Sylvia Else
>>> wrote:
>>>> On 12/04/2016 12:54 PM, Y wrote:
>>>>> On Tuesday, April 12, 2016 at 5:58:53 AM UTC+10, Odd Bodkin
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> I want to recast this the way that scientists think of this
>>>>>> today. Let's take the case of electrons fired from an electron
>>>>>> gun at a double slit, where there is an electron-sensitive
>>>>>> screen behind that records where the electrons land. In what
>>>>>> follows, you can substitute the word "photon" for "electron"
>>>>>> everywhere, and there would be no change in the statements.
>>>>>> (Or, for that matter, you can substitute "proton" or "pion" or
>>>>>> "oxygen molecule" or "carbon atom" or "neutrino".)
>>>>>
>>>>> Sure.
>>>>>
>>>>>> The fact that there is an interference pattern that arises is
>>>>>> an indicator of the wavelike properties of the electron.
>>>>>
>>>>> Not of single electrons though - that wavelike behavior only
>>>>> 'emerges' and becomes more apparent with the more electrons
>>>>> hitting the screen.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> You can fire the electrons at the screen at the rate of one per
>>>> hour. Eventually, the interference pattern still shows.
>>>>
>>>> Sylvia.
>>>
>>> Yes, but maybe it's not a wave doing this, but rather waves just are
>>> a useful way to model what happens ? :) Maybe instead of wave
>>> interference, what we have is a distribution ?
>>
>> You're trying to look beneath the model. Essentially, you're trying to
>> construct a different model. If it's different, it must make different
>> predictions about the results of measurements, or it will be
>> mathematically equivalent, and not really be a different model at all.
>>
>> So what you're trying to do is an exercise in futility unless you can
>> show that the current model does not correctly predict the results of
>> some measurements. That would require some actual measurements to be
>> done.
>
> So, if you can fire electrons (or photons) one at a time at one per hour
> and the pattern still shows then that means it's NOT an "interference
> pattern, right? What are the waves? What is "interfering" with what?
> It's a gigantic mess that people try to "explain" with some Lord of the
> Rings type fantasy.

There is interference, but the waves that interfere exist in the 
mathematics of quantum mechanics.

Sylvia.

Back to sci.physics.relativity | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread

Thread

Waves - fundamental or emergent ? Y <yanarchi@hotmail.com> - 2016-04-11 08:15 -0700
  Re: Waves - fundamental or emergent ? Y <yanarchi@hotmail.com> - 2016-04-11 08:23 -0700
    Re: Waves - fundamental or emergent ? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-04-11 11:20 -0500
      Re: Waves - fundamental or emergent ? Y <yanarchi@hotmail.com> - 2016-04-11 09:34 -0700
        Re: Waves - fundamental or emergent ? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-04-11 14:01 -0500
          Re: Waves - fundamental or emergent ? Y <yanarchi@hotmail.com> - 2016-04-11 18:55 -0700
            Re: Waves - fundamental or emergent ? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-04-12 07:55 -0500
        Re: Waves - fundamental or emergent ? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-04-11 14:58 -0500
          Re: Waves - fundamental or emergent ? Y <yanarchi@hotmail.com> - 2016-04-11 19:54 -0700
            Re: Waves - fundamental or emergent ? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-04-12 08:03 -0500
              Re: Waves - fundamental or emergent ? Y <yanarchi@hotmail.com> - 2016-04-13 03:21 -0700
                Re: Waves - fundamental or emergent ? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-04-13 11:55 -0500
                Re: Waves - fundamental or emergent ? Y <yanarchi@hotmail.com> - 2016-04-13 18:25 -0700
                Re: Waves - fundamental or emergent ? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-04-19 10:05 -0500
            Re: Waves - fundamental or emergent ? Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-04-13 21:10 +1000
              Re: Waves - fundamental or emergent ? Y <yanarchi@hotmail.com> - 2016-04-13 05:02 -0700
                Re: Waves - fundamental or emergent ? Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-04-14 12:45 +1000
                Re: Waves - fundamental or emergent ? Y <yanarchi@hotmail.com> - 2016-04-13 20:25 -0700
                Re: Waves - fundamental or emergent ? Y <yanarchi@hotmail.com> - 2016-04-13 20:31 -0700
                Re: Waves - fundamental or emergent ? Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-04-14 16:24 +1000
                Re: Waves - fundamental or emergent ? benj <none@gmail.com> - 2016-04-14 04:13 -0400
                Re: Waves - fundamental or emergent ? Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-04-14 18:40 +1000
                Re: Waves - fundamental or emergent ? Y <yanarchi@hotmail.com> - 2016-04-14 02:44 -0700
                Re: Waves - fundamental or emergent ? Y <yanarchi@hotmail.com> - 2016-04-14 04:11 -0700
                Re: Waves - fundamental or emergent ? John Heath <heathjohn2@gmail.com> - 2016-04-14 05:07 -0700
                Re: Waves - fundamental or emergent ? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-04-19 10:15 -0500
                Re: Waves - fundamental or emergent ? benj <none@gmail.com> - 2016-04-14 04:27 -0400
                Re: Waves - fundamental or emergent ? Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-04-14 18:42 +1000
                Re: Waves - fundamental or emergent ? Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-04-16 06:39 +0200
                Re: Waves - fundamental or emergent ? Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-04-16 18:43 +1000
                Re: Waves - fundamental or emergent ? Y <yanarchi@hotmail.com> - 2016-04-16 05:57 -0700
                Re: Waves - fundamental or emergent ? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-04-19 10:19 -0500
              Re: Waves - fundamental or emergent ? Y <yanarchi@hotmail.com> - 2016-04-13 05:10 -0700
  Re: Waves - fundamental or emergent ? Y <yanarchi@hotmail.com> - 2016-04-11 08:45 -0700
    Re: Waves - fundamental or emergent ? Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-04-12 06:45 +0200
      Re: Waves - fundamental or emergent ? Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-04-14 04:24 +0200
  Re: Waves - fundamental or emergent ? Carl Susumu <numbernumber1212@gmail.com> - 2016-04-11 19:52 -0700
  Re: Waves - fundamental or emergent ? bruntlybunky <bruntlybunky@gmail.com> - 2016-04-19 15:12 -0700

csiph-web