Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #403766 > unrolled thread
| Started by | SEKI <seki.hajime01@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2017-01-02 02:27 -0800 |
| Last post | 2017-02-15 02:14 -0800 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 121 — 19 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity
Can We Believe in Modern Physics Theories? SEKI <seki.hajime01@gmail.com> - 2017-01-02 02:27 -0800
Re: Can We Believe in Modern Physics Theories? mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-01-02 03:32 -0800
Re: Can We Believe in Modern Physics Theories? Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2017-01-02 14:04 +0000
Re: Can We Believe in Modern Physics Theories? SEKI <seki.hajime01@gmail.com> - 2017-01-02 09:27 -0800
Re: Can We Believe in Modern Physics Theories? Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2017-01-02 20:35 +0100
Re: Can We Believe in Modern Physics Theories? alsor@interia.pl - 2017-01-02 12:02 -0800
Re: Can We Believe in Modern Physics Theories? Demetrice Barren <teercere@tmerunin.tme> - 2017-01-02 20:10 +0000
Re: Can We Believe in Modern Physics Theories? Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2017-01-02 21:13 +0100
Re: Can We Believe in Modern Physics Theories? Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2017-01-02 21:16 +0100
Re: Can We Believe in Modern Physics Theories? alsor@interia.pl - 2017-01-02 12:28 -0800
Re: Can We Believe in Modern Physics Theories? Demetrice Barren <teercere@tmerunin.tme> - 2017-01-02 20:43 +0000
Re: Can We Believe in Modern Physics Theories? Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2017-01-03 01:46 +0000
Re: Can We Believe in Modern Physics Theories? alsor@interia.pl - 2017-01-02 11:03 -0800
Re: Can We Believe in Modern Physics Theories? Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2017-01-03 17:23 -0600
Re: Can We Believe in Modern Physics Theories? benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-01-03 19:46 -0500
Re: Can We Believe in Modern Physics Theories? Ermelinda Haymond <nmam@idandly.id> - 2017-01-04 01:00 +0000
Re: Can We Believe in Modern Physics Theories? SEKI <seki.hajime01@gmail.com> - 2017-01-04 06:06 -0800
Re: Can We Believe in Modern Physics Theories? "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2017-01-04 06:18 -0800
Re: Can We Believe in Modern Physics Theories? Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2017-01-06 09:36 -0600
Re: Can We Believe in Modern Physics Theories? Aubrey Primmer <myr@ejmr.info> - 2017-01-06 15:51 +0000
Re: Can We Believe in Modern Physics Theories? SEKI <seki.hajime01@gmail.com> - 2017-01-06 23:54 -0800
Re: Can We Believe in Modern Physics Theories? Julio Di Egidio <julio@diegidio.name> - 2017-01-04 07:38 -0800
Re: Can We Believe in Modern Physics Theories? alsor@interia.pl - 2017-01-04 11:21 -0800
Re: Can We Believe in Modern Physics Theories? "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2017-01-07 19:19 -0800
Re: Can We Believe in Modern Physics Theories? "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2017-01-07 19:31 -0800
Re: Can We Believe in Modern Physics Theories? SEKI <seki.hajime01@gmail.com> - 2017-01-13 07:55 -0800
Re: Can We Believe in Modern Physics Theories? Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2017-01-13 17:37 +0100
Re: Can We Believe in Modern Physics Theories? SEKI <seki.hajime01@gmail.com> - 2017-01-14 00:29 -0800
Re: Can We Believe in Modern Physics Theories? Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2017-01-16 07:24 +0100
Re: Can We Believe in Modern Physics Theories? "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2017-01-13 10:15 -0800
Re: Can We Believe in Modern Physics Theories? Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2017-01-14 08:31 -0600
Re: Can We Believe in Modern Physics Theories? SEKI <seki.hajime01@gmail.com> - 2017-01-14 22:21 -0800
Re: Can We Believe in Modern Physics Theories? "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2017-01-14 22:58 -0800
Re: Can We Believe in Modern Physics Theories? Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2017-01-15 14:52 -0600
Re: Can We Believe in Modern Physics Theories? "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2017-01-15 13:36 -0800
Re: Can We Believe in Modern Physics Theories? Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2017-01-15 14:48 -0600
Re: Can We Believe in Modern Physics Theories? SEKI <seki.hajime01@gmail.com> - 2017-01-16 00:24 -0800
Re: Can We Believe in Modern Physics Theories? Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2017-01-16 13:08 -0600
Re: Can We Believe in Modern Physics Theories? Reid Schaffner <dnfoonio@acdnfni.info> - 2017-01-16 19:39 +0000
Re: Can We Believe in Modern Physics Theories? "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2017-01-16 12:20 -0800
Re: Can We Believe in Modern Physics Theories? SEKI <seki.hajime01@gmail.com> - 2017-01-16 19:31 -0800
Re: Can We Believe in Modern Physics Theories? alsor@interia.pl - 2017-01-15 10:13 -0800
Re: Can We Believe in Modern Physics Theories? JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2017-01-17 12:21 -0800
Re: Can We Believe in Modern Physics Theories? alsor@interia.pl - 2017-01-17 12:59 -0800
Re: Can We Believe in Modern Physics Theories? JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2017-01-18 12:40 -0800
Re: Can We Believe in Modern Physics Theories? alsor@interia.pl - 2017-01-19 10:57 -0800
Re: Can We Believe in Modern Physics Theories? JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2017-01-19 12:01 -0800
Re: Can We Believe in Modern Physics Theories? RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> - 2017-02-16 14:03 -0800
Re: Can We Believe in Modern Physics Theories? Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2017-02-17 00:03 +0100
Re: Can We Believe in Modern Physics Theories? Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2017-02-16 21:22 -0600
Re: Can We Believe in Modern Physics Theories? RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> - 2017-02-17 11:35 -0800
Re: Can We Believe in Modern Physics Theories? SEKI <seki.hajime01@gmail.com> - 2017-02-17 00:05 -0800
Re: Can We Believe in Modern Physics Theories? SEKI <seki.hajime01@gmail.com> - 2017-02-12 23:49 -0800
Re: Can We Believe in Modern Physics Theories? mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-02-13 00:11 -0800
Re: Can We Believe in Modern Physics Theories? SEKI <seki.hajime01@gmail.com> - 2017-02-13 00:31 -0800
Re: Can We Believe in Modern Physics Theories? mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-02-13 00:47 -0800
Re: Can We Believe in Modern Physics Theories? SEKI <seki.hajime01@gmail.com> - 2017-02-13 02:09 -0800
Re: Can We Believe in Modern Physics Theories? mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-02-13 03:19 -0800
Re: Can We Believe in Modern Physics Theories? SEKI <seki.hajime01@gmail.com> - 2017-02-13 06:45 -0800
Re: Can We Believe in Modern Physics Theories? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-02-13 07:21 -0600
Re: Can We Believe in Modern Physics Theories? Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2017-02-13 14:26 +0100
Re: Can We Believe in Modern Physics Theories? SEKI <seki.hajime01@gmail.com> - 2017-02-13 06:51 -0800
Re: Can We Believe in Modern Physics Theories? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-02-13 09:26 -0600
Re: Can We Believe in Modern Physics Theories? SEKI <seki.hajime01@gmail.com> - 2017-02-13 07:37 -0800
Re: Can We Believe in Modern Physics Theories? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-02-13 09:55 -0600
Re: Can We Believe in Modern Physics Theories? SEKI <seki.hajime01@gmail.com> - 2017-02-13 09:10 -0800
Re: Can We Believe in Modern Physics Theories? Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2017-02-13 18:44 +0100
Re: Can We Believe in Modern Physics Theories? Sanjuanita Peeples <naalu@nwmeela.org> - 2017-02-13 18:33 +0000
Re: Can We Believe in Modern Physics Theories? Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2017-02-13 20:11 +0100
Re: Can We Believe in Modern Physics Theories? Sanjuanita Peeples <naalu@nwmeela.org> - 2017-02-13 19:21 +0000
Re: Can We Believe in Modern Physics Theories? Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2017-02-13 20:43 +0100
Re: Can We Believe in Modern Physics Theories? SEKI <seki.hajime01@gmail.com> - 2017-02-13 07:11 -0800
Re: Can We Believe in Modern Physics Theories? Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2017-02-13 10:56 -0600
Re: Can We Believe in Modern Physics Theories? SEKI <seki.hajime01@gmail.com> - 2017-02-13 09:18 -0800
Re: Can We Believe in Modern Physics Theories? Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2017-02-13 12:45 -0600
Re: Can We Believe in Modern Physics Theories? Sanjuanita Peeples <naalu@nwmeela.org> - 2017-02-13 20:44 +0000
Re: Can We Believe in Modern Physics Theories? Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2017-02-14 09:40 -0600
Re: Can We Believe in Modern Physics Theories? Sanjuanita Peeples <naalu@nwmeela.org> - 2017-02-15 16:13 +0000
Re: Can We Believe in Modern Physics Theories? Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2017-02-15 17:34 +0100
Re: Can We Believe in Modern Physics Theories? Sanjuanita Peeples <naalu@nwmeela.org> - 2017-02-15 17:11 +0000
Re: Can We Believe in Modern Physics Theories? Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2017-02-15 18:23 +0100
Re: Can We Believe in Modern Physics Theories? Sanjuanita Peeples <naalu@nwmeela.org> - 2017-02-15 17:31 +0000
Re: Can We Believe in Modern Physics Theories? Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2017-02-15 20:01 +0100
Re: Can We Believe in Modern Physics Theories? SEKI <seki.hajime01@gmail.com> - 2017-02-13 13:24 -0800
Re: Can We Believe in Modern Physics Theories? Sanjuanita Peeples <naalu@nwmeela.org> - 2017-02-13 21:47 +0000
Re: Can We Believe in Modern Physics Theories? Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2017-02-13 23:01 +0100
Re: Can We Believe in Modern Physics Theories? Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2017-02-13 18:19 -0600
Re: Can We Believe in Modern Physics Theories? mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-02-13 23:24 -0800
Re: Can We Believe in Modern Physics Theories? SEKI <seki.hajime01@gmail.com> - 2017-02-13 23:53 -0800
Re: Can We Believe in Modern Physics Theories? SEKI <seki.hajime01@gmail.com> - 2017-02-13 13:30 -0800
Re: Can We Believe in Modern Physics Theories? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-02-14 06:43 -0600
Re: Can We Believe in Modern Physics Theories? SEKI <seki.hajime01@gmail.com> - 2017-02-14 07:55 -0800
Re: Can We Believe in Modern Physics Theories? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-02-14 11:55 -0600
Re: Can We Believe in Modern Physics Theories? SEKI <seki.hajime01@gmail.com> - 2017-02-14 23:21 -0800
Re: Can We Believe in Modern Physics Theories? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-02-15 14:58 -0600
Re: Can We Believe in Modern Physics Theories? SEKI <seki.hajime01@gmail.com> - 2017-02-15 15:40 -0800
Re: Can We Believe in Modern Physics Theories? Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2017-02-16 13:14 -0600
Re: Can We Believe in Modern Physics Theories? Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2017-02-16 20:39 +0000
Re: Can We Believe in Modern Physics Theories? Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2017-02-16 21:21 -0600
Re: Can We Believe in Modern Physics Theories? Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2017-02-17 11:55 +0000
Re: Can We Believe in Modern Physics Theories? mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-02-17 03:57 -0800
Re: Can We Believe in Modern Physics Theories? Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2017-02-17 21:42 +0000
Re: Can We Believe in Modern Physics Theories? mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-02-18 01:20 -0800
Re: Can We Believe in Modern Physics Theories? Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2017-02-18 16:31 +0000
Re: Can We Believe in Modern Physics Theories? mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-02-18 11:58 -0800
Re: Can We Believe in Modern Physics Theories? Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2017-02-19 08:47 -0600
Re: Can We Believe in Modern Physics Theories? SEKI <seki.hajime01@gmail.com> - 2017-02-16 23:59 -0800
Re: Can We Believe in Modern Physics Theories? Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2017-02-17 12:18 +0000
Re: Can We Believe in Modern Physics Theories? Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2017-02-19 09:01 -0600
Re: Can We Believe in Modern Physics Theories? Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-02-17 04:52 -0800
Re: Can We Believe in Modern Physics Theories? Sanjuanita Peeples <naalu@nwmeela.org> - 2017-02-17 12:57 +0000
Re: Can We Believe in Modern Physics Theories? Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2017-02-19 09:49 -0600
Re: Can We Believe in Modern Physics Theories? Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-02-19 09:58 -0800
Re: Can We Believe in Modern Physics Theories? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-02-17 07:52 -0600
Re: Can We Believe in Modern Physics Theories? SEKI <seki.hajime01@gmail.com> - 2017-02-17 09:03 -0800
Re: Can We Believe in Modern Physics Theories? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-02-17 11:28 -0600
Re: Can We Believe in Modern Physics Theories? SEKI <seki.hajime01@gmail.com> - 2017-02-17 09:51 -0800
Re: Can We Believe in Modern Physics Theories? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-02-17 12:22 -0600
Re: Can We Believe in Modern Physics Theories? SEKI <seki.hajime01@gmail.com> - 2017-02-15 00:23 -0800
Re: Can We Believe in Modern Physics Theories? Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2017-02-15 11:09 +0100
Re: Can We Believe in Modern Physics Theories? mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-02-15 02:14 -0800
Page 3 of 7 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 Next page →
| From | SEKI <seki.hajime01@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-01-16 19:31 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <665d3ad8-8d92-4731-bff9-d3adca3c09d4@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #405823 |
On Tuesday, January 17, 2017 at 4:08:30 AM UTC+9, tjrob137 wrote: > On 1/16/17 1/16/17 - 2:24 AM, SEKI wrote: > > if a quantum have the wave nature, some mechanism to > > prevent it from diffusing infinitely is essential. > > And if wishes were horses beggars would ride. > > Counterfactual assumptions yield useless statements. > > > its a logical consequence. > > Nope. Just a lack of understanding on your part. > > Tom Roberts I can understand your suffering. Good luck. SEKI
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | alsor@interia.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-01-15 10:13 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <a00ebaf9-dfd8-48df-8e9c-97335458dba8@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #405557 |
W dniu sobota, 14 stycznia 2017 15:31:56 UTC+1 użytkownik tjrob137 napisał: > On 1/13/17 1/13/17 9:55 AM, SEKI wrote: > > A quantum is said to have wave-particle duality. > > Speaking loosely, yes. Speaking precisely about photons in QED, no. Note that > QED is the theory in which the word and concept "photon" originated. Note also > that it comes from a perturbation APPROXIMATION to the theory. > > > Considering single particle (quantum) interference in a double slit > > experiment and other so-called quantum paradoxes, however, I cannot > > but assume quanta are definitely waves, which are countable and each > > can be localized. > > Except that waves can not account for many observed behaviors of photons and > light, such as: > * photoelectric effect > * stability of atomic states > * atomic spectra > * interactions of photons with other particles > * photonic and semi-photonic decays of particles > * phenomena involving polarization > * lots of other phenomena dubbed "quantum optics", such as lasers > Note these are the phenomena that forced physicists into developing QED. Note > also that QED models them all quite well, as well as other phenomena such as the > electron anomalous magnetic moment, and electron scattering (below hadron > threshold). > > (Some of the above are modeled quite well by non-rel QM, an > APPROXIMATION to QED in which light is not really a wave.) > > > Those who deny the possible existence of cohesive force seem to > > neglect the wave nature of a quantum. > > But it does NOT have a "wave nature". Experiments like the double-slit > experiment display the way photon probabilities behave, which certainly displays > wavelike behavior in such experiments, but photons are not waves. > > QED models the behavior of light extremely well, without any additional > "cohesive force". > > And I strongly suspect that it would be quite difficult to > add such a "cohesive force" in a Lorentz-invariant way. > > > Why do they believe that there exist extremely small elementary > > particles (regardless of whether point-like or string) in reality? > > Because the experiments indicate that transitions between photon and electron > states happen extremely quickly and in an extremely localized manner -- far too > quick and local for waves. Non-relativistic QM models this as "collapse of the > wave function" (or other unphysical mechanisms in other interpretations), but > QED does NOT. If you want to understand this, you MUST learn QED, as non-rel QM > is woefully inadequate; after all, it is merely an APPROXIMATION to QED. > > Tom Roberts QM and QED are the most stupid models, disproved by elementary algebra rules already! A quantum Bell's greatest discovery is just that: |x-y| <= 1-xy what's a problem? It's a very big problem!, but of a pseudoscience (means: mainstream). Similarily the Earth's rotation was the greatest problem in the middle ages...
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-01-17 12:21 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <1a7c2d9c-0bd2-494d-92c6-bc8c32f85522@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #405683 |
On Sunday, January 15, 2017 at 10:13:06 AM UTC-8, al...@interia.pl wrote: > W dniu sobota, 14 stycznia 2017 15:31:56 UTC+1 użytkownik tjrob137 napisał: > > On 1/13/17 1/13/17 9:55 AM, SEKI wrote: > > > A quantum is said to have wave-particle duality. > > > > Speaking loosely, yes. Speaking precisely about photons in QED, no. Note that > > QED is the theory in which the word and concept "photon" originated. Note also > > that it comes from a perturbation APPROXIMATION to the theory. > > > > > Considering single particle (quantum) interference in a double slit > > > experiment and other so-called quantum paradoxes, however, I cannot > > > but assume quanta are definitely waves, which are countable and each > > > can be localized. > > > > Except that waves can not account for many observed behaviors of photons and > > light, such as: > > * photoelectric effect > > * stability of atomic states > > * atomic spectra > > * interactions of photons with other particles > > * photonic and semi-photonic decays of particles > > * phenomena involving polarization > > * lots of other phenomena dubbed "quantum optics", such as lasers > > Note these are the phenomena that forced physicists into developing QED. Note > > also that QED models them all quite well, as well as other phenomena such as the > > electron anomalous magnetic moment, and electron scattering (below hadron > > threshold). > > > > (Some of the above are modeled quite well by non-rel QM, an > > APPROXIMATION to QED in which light is not really a wave.) > > > > > Those who deny the possible existence of cohesive force seem to > > > neglect the wave nature of a quantum. > > > > But it does NOT have a "wave nature". Experiments like the double-slit > > experiment display the way photon probabilities behave, which certainly displays > > wavelike behavior in such experiments, but photons are not waves. > > > > QED models the behavior of light extremely well, without any additional > > "cohesive force". > > > > And I strongly suspect that it would be quite difficult to > > add such a "cohesive force" in a Lorentz-invariant way. > > > > > Why do they believe that there exist extremely small elementary > > > particles (regardless of whether point-like or string) in reality? > > > > Because the experiments indicate that transitions between photon and electron > > states happen extremely quickly and in an extremely localized manner -- far too > > quick and local for waves. Non-relativistic QM models this as "collapse of the > > wave function" (or other unphysical mechanisms in other interpretations), but > > QED does NOT. If you want to understand this, you MUST learn QED, as non-rel QM > > is woefully inadequate; after all, it is merely an APPROXIMATION to QED. > > > > Tom Roberts > > QM and QED are the most stupid models, > disproved by elementary algebra rules already! > > A quantum Bell's greatest discovery is just that: > |x-y| <= 1-xy > > what's a problem? > > It's a very big problem!, but of a pseudoscience (means: mainstream). > Similarily the Earth's rotation was the greatest problem in the middle ages... Not even wrong. -- Jan
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | alsor@interia.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-01-17 12:59 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <fdd54520-e4fc-411b-a5dc-13c014ddea96@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #405934 |
W dniu wtorek, 17 stycznia 2017 21:21:44 UTC+1 użytkownik JanPB napisał: > On Sunday, January 15, 2017 at 10:13:06 AM UTC-8, al...@interia.pl wrote: > > W dniu sobota, 14 stycznia 2017 15:31:56 UTC+1 użytkownik tjrob137 napisał: > > > On 1/13/17 1/13/17 9:55 AM, SEKI wrote: > > > > A quantum is said to have wave-particle duality. > > > > > > Speaking loosely, yes. Speaking precisely about photons in QED, no. Note that > > > QED is the theory in which the word and concept "photon" originated. Note also > > > that it comes from a perturbation APPROXIMATION to the theory. > > > > > > > Considering single particle (quantum) interference in a double slit > > > > experiment and other so-called quantum paradoxes, however, I cannot > > > > but assume quanta are definitely waves, which are countable and each > > > > can be localized. > > > > > > Except that waves can not account for many observed behaviors of photons and > > > light, such as: > > > * photoelectric effect > > > * stability of atomic states > > > * atomic spectra > > > * interactions of photons with other particles > > > * photonic and semi-photonic decays of particles > > > * phenomena involving polarization > > > * lots of other phenomena dubbed "quantum optics", such as lasers > > > Note these are the phenomena that forced physicists into developing QED. Note > > > also that QED models them all quite well, as well as other phenomena such as the > > > electron anomalous magnetic moment, and electron scattering (below hadron > > > threshold). > > > > > > (Some of the above are modeled quite well by non-rel QM, an > > > APPROXIMATION to QED in which light is not really a wave.) > > > > > > > Those who deny the possible existence of cohesive force seem to > > > > neglect the wave nature of a quantum. > > > > > > But it does NOT have a "wave nature". Experiments like the double-slit > > > experiment display the way photon probabilities behave, which certainly displays > > > wavelike behavior in such experiments, but photons are not waves. > > > > > > QED models the behavior of light extremely well, without any additional > > > "cohesive force". > > > > > > And I strongly suspect that it would be quite difficult to > > > add such a "cohesive force" in a Lorentz-invariant way. > > > > > > > Why do they believe that there exist extremely small elementary > > > > particles (regardless of whether point-like or string) in reality? > > > > > > Because the experiments indicate that transitions between photon and electron > > > states happen extremely quickly and in an extremely localized manner -- far too > > > quick and local for waves. Non-relativistic QM models this as "collapse of the > > > wave function" (or other unphysical mechanisms in other interpretations), but > > > QED does NOT. If you want to understand this, you MUST learn QED, as non-rel QM > > > is woefully inadequate; after all, it is merely an APPROXIMATION to QED. > > > > > > Tom Roberts > > > > QM and QED are the most stupid models, > > disproved by elementary algebra rules already! > > > > A quantum Bell's greatest discovery is just that: > > |x-y| <= 1-xy > > > > what's a problem? > > > > It's a very big problem!, but of a pseudoscience (means: mainstream). > > Similarily the Earth's rotation was the greatest problem in the middle ages... > > Not even wrong. Show me the proof of the fantastic (strongly nonclassical) 'Bells type' inequalities firstly.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-01-18 12:40 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <917c6a2a-344d-4eee-ad2b-a8cc8aacea13@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #405942 |
On Tuesday, January 17, 2017 at 12:59:29 PM UTC-8, al...@interia.pl wrote: > W dniu wtorek, 17 stycznia 2017 21:21:44 UTC+1 użytkownik JanPB napisał: > > On Sunday, January 15, 2017 at 10:13:06 AM UTC-8, al...@interia.pl wrote: > > > W dniu sobota, 14 stycznia 2017 15:31:56 UTC+1 użytkownik tjrob137 napisał: > > > > On 1/13/17 1/13/17 9:55 AM, SEKI wrote: > > > > > A quantum is said to have wave-particle duality. > > > > > > > > Speaking loosely, yes. Speaking precisely about photons in QED, no. Note that > > > > QED is the theory in which the word and concept "photon" originated. Note also > > > > that it comes from a perturbation APPROXIMATION to the theory. > > > > > > > > > Considering single particle (quantum) interference in a double slit > > > > > experiment and other so-called quantum paradoxes, however, I cannot > > > > > but assume quanta are definitely waves, which are countable and each > > > > > can be localized. > > > > > > > > Except that waves can not account for many observed behaviors of photons and > > > > light, such as: > > > > * photoelectric effect > > > > * stability of atomic states > > > > * atomic spectra > > > > * interactions of photons with other particles > > > > * photonic and semi-photonic decays of particles > > > > * phenomena involving polarization > > > > * lots of other phenomena dubbed "quantum optics", such as lasers > > > > Note these are the phenomena that forced physicists into developing QED. Note > > > > also that QED models them all quite well, as well as other phenomena such as the > > > > electron anomalous magnetic moment, and electron scattering (below hadron > > > > threshold). > > > > > > > > (Some of the above are modeled quite well by non-rel QM, an > > > > APPROXIMATION to QED in which light is not really a wave.) > > > > > > > > > Those who deny the possible existence of cohesive force seem to > > > > > neglect the wave nature of a quantum. > > > > > > > > But it does NOT have a "wave nature". Experiments like the double-slit > > > > experiment display the way photon probabilities behave, which certainly displays > > > > wavelike behavior in such experiments, but photons are not waves. > > > > > > > > QED models the behavior of light extremely well, without any additional > > > > "cohesive force". > > > > > > > > And I strongly suspect that it would be quite difficult to > > > > add such a "cohesive force" in a Lorentz-invariant way. > > > > > > > > > Why do they believe that there exist extremely small elementary > > > > > particles (regardless of whether point-like or string) in reality? > > > > > > > > Because the experiments indicate that transitions between photon and electron > > > > states happen extremely quickly and in an extremely localized manner -- far too > > > > quick and local for waves. Non-relativistic QM models this as "collapse of the > > > > wave function" (or other unphysical mechanisms in other interpretations), but > > > > QED does NOT. If you want to understand this, you MUST learn QED, as non-rel QM > > > > is woefully inadequate; after all, it is merely an APPROXIMATION to QED. > > > > > > > > Tom Roberts > > > > > > QM and QED are the most stupid models, > > > disproved by elementary algebra rules already! > > > > > > A quantum Bell's greatest discovery is just that: > > > |x-y| <= 1-xy > > > > > > what's a problem? > > > > > > It's a very big problem!, but of a pseudoscience (means: mainstream). > > > Similarily the Earth's rotation was the greatest problem in the middle ages... > > > > Not even wrong. > > Show me the proof of the fantastic (strongly nonclassical) 'Bells type' inequalities firstly. Not even wrong. Gobbledygook. -- Jan
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | alsor@interia.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-01-19 10:57 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <9979b3c8-6c9d-4ccc-8f2f-bad27cf2fc58@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #406023 |
W dniu środa, 18 stycznia 2017 21:40:41 UTC+1 użytkownik JanPB napisał: > On Tuesday, January 17, 2017 at 12:59:29 PM UTC-8, al...@interia.pl wrote: > > W dniu wtorek, 17 stycznia 2017 21:21:44 UTC+1 użytkownik JanPB napisał: > > > On Sunday, January 15, 2017 at 10:13:06 AM UTC-8, al...@interia.pl wrote: > > > > W dniu sobota, 14 stycznia 2017 15:31:56 UTC+1 użytkownik tjrob137 napisał: > > > > > On 1/13/17 1/13/17 9:55 AM, SEKI wrote: > > > > > > A quantum is said to have wave-particle duality. > > > > > > > > > > Speaking loosely, yes. Speaking precisely about photons in QED, no. Note that > > > > > QED is the theory in which the word and concept "photon" originated. Note also > > > > > that it comes from a perturbation APPROXIMATION to the theory. > > > > > > > > > > > Considering single particle (quantum) interference in a double slit > > > > > > experiment and other so-called quantum paradoxes, however, I cannot > > > > > > but assume quanta are definitely waves, which are countable and each > > > > > > can be localized. > > > > > > > > > > Except that waves can not account for many observed behaviors of photons and > > > > > light, such as: > > > > > * photoelectric effect > > > > > * stability of atomic states > > > > > * atomic spectra > > > > > * interactions of photons with other particles > > > > > * photonic and semi-photonic decays of particles > > > > > * phenomena involving polarization > > > > > * lots of other phenomena dubbed "quantum optics", such as lasers > > > > > Note these are the phenomena that forced physicists into developing QED. Note > > > > > also that QED models them all quite well, as well as other phenomena such as the > > > > > electron anomalous magnetic moment, and electron scattering (below hadron > > > > > threshold). > > > > > > > > > > (Some of the above are modeled quite well by non-rel QM, an > > > > > APPROXIMATION to QED in which light is not really a wave.) > > > > > > > > > > > Those who deny the possible existence of cohesive force seem to > > > > > > neglect the wave nature of a quantum. > > > > > > > > > > But it does NOT have a "wave nature". Experiments like the double-slit > > > > > experiment display the way photon probabilities behave, which certainly displays > > > > > wavelike behavior in such experiments, but photons are not waves. > > > > > > > > > > QED models the behavior of light extremely well, without any additional > > > > > "cohesive force". > > > > > > > > > > And I strongly suspect that it would be quite difficult to > > > > > add such a "cohesive force" in a Lorentz-invariant way. > > > > > > > > > > > Why do they believe that there exist extremely small elementary > > > > > > particles (regardless of whether point-like or string) in reality? > > > > > > > > > > Because the experiments indicate that transitions between photon and electron > > > > > states happen extremely quickly and in an extremely localized manner -- far too > > > > > quick and local for waves. Non-relativistic QM models this as "collapse of the > > > > > wave function" (or other unphysical mechanisms in other interpretations), but > > > > > QED does NOT. If you want to understand this, you MUST learn QED, as non-rel QM > > > > > is woefully inadequate; after all, it is merely an APPROXIMATION to QED. > > > > > > > > > > Tom Roberts > > > > > > > > QM and QED are the most stupid models, > > > > disproved by elementary algebra rules already! > > > > > > > > A quantum Bell's greatest discovery is just that: > > > > |x-y| <= 1-xy > > > > > > > > what's a problem? > > > > > > > > It's a very big problem!, but of a pseudoscience (means: mainstream). > > > > Similarily the Earth's rotation was the greatest problem in the middle ages... > > > > > > Not even wrong. > > > > Show me the proof of the fantastic (strongly nonclassical) 'Bells type' inequalities firstly. > > Not even wrong. Gobbledygook. > > -- > Jan Run babe - show how you compute this! You can even use the nonclasical - negaive probablities... :) Oh! these stupid pseudoscientists...
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-01-19 12:01 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <d0cfc3bc-8ffc-43ad-998a-bbe20561c047@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #406106 |
On Thursday, January 19, 2017 at 10:58:01 AM UTC-8, al...@interia.pl wrote: > W dniu środa, 18 stycznia 2017 21:40:41 UTC+1 użytkownik JanPB napisał: > > On Tuesday, January 17, 2017 at 12:59:29 PM UTC-8, al...@interia.pl wrote: > > > W dniu wtorek, 17 stycznia 2017 21:21:44 UTC+1 użytkownik JanPB napisał: > > > > On Sunday, January 15, 2017 at 10:13:06 AM UTC-8, al...@interia.pl wrote: > > > > > W dniu sobota, 14 stycznia 2017 15:31:56 UTC+1 użytkownik tjrob137 napisał: > > > > > > On 1/13/17 1/13/17 9:55 AM, SEKI wrote: > > > > > > > A quantum is said to have wave-particle duality. > > > > > > > > > > > > Speaking loosely, yes. Speaking precisely about photons in QED, no. Note that > > > > > > QED is the theory in which the word and concept "photon" originated. Note also > > > > > > that it comes from a perturbation APPROXIMATION to the theory. > > > > > > > > > > > > > Considering single particle (quantum) interference in a double slit > > > > > > > experiment and other so-called quantum paradoxes, however, I cannot > > > > > > > but assume quanta are definitely waves, which are countable and each > > > > > > > can be localized. > > > > > > > > > > > > Except that waves can not account for many observed behaviors of photons and > > > > > > light, such as: > > > > > > * photoelectric effect > > > > > > * stability of atomic states > > > > > > * atomic spectra > > > > > > * interactions of photons with other particles > > > > > > * photonic and semi-photonic decays of particles > > > > > > * phenomena involving polarization > > > > > > * lots of other phenomena dubbed "quantum optics", such as lasers > > > > > > Note these are the phenomena that forced physicists into developing QED. Note > > > > > > also that QED models them all quite well, as well as other phenomena such as the > > > > > > electron anomalous magnetic moment, and electron scattering (below hadron > > > > > > threshold). > > > > > > > > > > > > (Some of the above are modeled quite well by non-rel QM, an > > > > > > APPROXIMATION to QED in which light is not really a wave.) > > > > > > > > > > > > > Those who deny the possible existence of cohesive force seem to > > > > > > > neglect the wave nature of a quantum. > > > > > > > > > > > > But it does NOT have a "wave nature". Experiments like the double-slit > > > > > > experiment display the way photon probabilities behave, which certainly displays > > > > > > wavelike behavior in such experiments, but photons are not waves. > > > > > > > > > > > > QED models the behavior of light extremely well, without any additional > > > > > > "cohesive force". > > > > > > > > > > > > And I strongly suspect that it would be quite difficult to > > > > > > add such a "cohesive force" in a Lorentz-invariant way. > > > > > > > > > > > > > Why do they believe that there exist extremely small elementary > > > > > > > particles (regardless of whether point-like or string) in reality? > > > > > > > > > > > > Because the experiments indicate that transitions between photon and electron > > > > > > states happen extremely quickly and in an extremely localized manner -- far too > > > > > > quick and local for waves. Non-relativistic QM models this as "collapse of the > > > > > > wave function" (or other unphysical mechanisms in other interpretations), but > > > > > > QED does NOT. If you want to understand this, you MUST learn QED, as non-rel QM > > > > > > is woefully inadequate; after all, it is merely an APPROXIMATION to QED. > > > > > > > > > > > > Tom Roberts > > > > > > > > > > QM and QED are the most stupid models, > > > > > disproved by elementary algebra rules already! > > > > > > > > > > A quantum Bell's greatest discovery is just that: > > > > > |x-y| <= 1-xy > > > > > > > > > > what's a problem? > > > > > > > > > > It's a very big problem!, but of a pseudoscience (means: mainstream). > > > > > Similarily the Earth's rotation was the greatest problem in the middle ages... > > > > > > > > Not even wrong. > > > > > > Show me the proof of the fantastic (strongly nonclassical) 'Bells type' inequalities firstly. > > > > Not even wrong. Gobbledygook. > > > > -- > > Jan > > Run babe - show how you compute this! > You can even use the nonclasical - negaive probablities... :) Not even wrong. -- Jan
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-16 14:03 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <2b2f7198-ac1f-4292-b15d-2fc533cb3b34@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #405557 |
On January 14, tjrob137 wrote: >> Considering single particle (quantum) interference in a double slit >> experiment and other so-called quantum paradoxes, however, I cannot >> but assume quanta are definitely waves, which are countable and each >> can be localized. > > Except that waves can not account for many observed behaviors of photons and > light, such as: > * phenomena involving polarization ? Classical EM handles polarization naturally. -- Rich
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-17 00:03 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <o85avs$55l$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #409528 |
Dne 16/02/2017 v 23:03 RichD napsal(a): > On January 14, tjrob137 wrote: >>> Considering single particle (quantum) interference in a double slit >>> experiment and other so-called quantum paradoxes, however, I cannot >>> but assume quanta are definitely waves, which are countable and each >>> can be localized. >> >> Except that waves can not account for many observed behaviors of photons and >> light, such as: >> * phenomena involving polarization > > ? > Classical EM handles polarization naturally. > Hmm, IMHO, the polarization phenomena is not the same as the phenomena involving polarization. -- Poutnik ( The Pilgrim, Der Wanderer ) A wise man guards words he says, as they say about him more, than he says about the subject.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-16 21:22 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <lbKdnUA3mtYc8TvFnZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #409528 |
On 2/16/17 2/16/17 4:03 PM, RichD wrote: > On January 14, tjrob137 wrote: >>> Considering single particle (quantum) interference in a double slit >>> experiment and other so-called quantum paradoxes, however, I cannot >>> but assume quanta are definitely waves, which are countable and each >>> can be localized. >> >> Except that waves can not account for many observed behaviors of photons and >> light, such as: >> * phenomena involving polarization > > ? > Classical EM handles polarization naturally. But not the detailed way it behaves, especially in quantum entangled states. Tom Roberts
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-17 11:35 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <b9af0e00-e7db-4da3-a6ce-8d109a1f1224@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #409575 |
On February 16, tjrob137 wrote: >>> Except that waves can not account for many observed behaviors of >>> photons and light, such as: > >> * phenomena involving polarization > >> ? >> Classical EM handles polarization naturally. > > But not the detailed way it behaves, especially in quantum entangled states. well OK, but that's exotic. Besides entanglement, are there any 'normal' polarizations which classical waves cannot handle? -- Rich
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | SEKI <seki.hajime01@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-17 00:05 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <43ed7fd9-82ad-4c8d-9edd-1594303cad23@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #409528 |
On Friday, February 17, 2017 at 7:03:30 AM UTC+9, RichD wrote: > On January 14, tjrob137 wrote: > >> Considering single particle (quantum) interference in a double slit > >> experiment and other so-called quantum paradoxes, however, I cannot > >> but assume quanta are definitely waves, which are countable and each > >> can be localized. > > > > Except that waves can not account for many observed behaviors of photons and > > light, such as: > > * phenomena involving polarization > > ? > Classical EM handles polarization naturally. Anyway, quantum theories are constructed as theories of waves, and particles appear only in interpretations. Thank you. SEKI
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | SEKI <seki.hajime01@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-12 23:49 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <1aba6221-055f-4b80-b41a-716fc0df5bad@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #403766 |
Considering single particle (quantum) interference in a double slit experiment, we can't deny the fact that a quantum is more of a wave than anything. In case where a quantum (wave) is localized in a small area, it can be seen as a particle. To me, most physicists seem to be obsessed by the particle model. It should be noted that most of so-called quantum paradoxes can be resolved by abandoning the particle model. (Of course, the Bell's inequality is an exception, though can never be resolved with the particle model.) Anyway, quantum theories are constructed as theories of waves, and particles appear only in interpretations. Thank you. SEKI
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mlwozniak@wp.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-13 00:11 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <1114114d-5457-4a7b-bda7-cd05824f8cfc@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #409000 |
W dniu poniedziałek, 13 lutego 2017 08:49:50 UTC+1 użytkownik SEKI napisał: > Considering single particle (quantum) interference in a double slit > experiment, we can't deny the fact that a quantum is more of a wave > than anything. And how do you know it was single?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | SEKI <seki.hajime01@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-13 00:31 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <6c26e0bb-b81e-487a-bf75-cfad6dd732dc@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #409003 |
On Monday, February 13, 2017 at 5:11:15 PM UTC+9, mlwo...@wp.pl wrote: > W dniu poniedziałek, 13 lutego 2017 08:49:50 UTC+1 użytkownik SEKI napisał: > > Considering single particle (quantum) interference in a double slit > > experiment, we can't deny the fact that a quantum is more of a wave > > than anything. > > And how do you know it was single? It is a time-honored and established experiment. See, for example, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photon#Wave.E2.80.93particle_duality_and_uncertainty_principles and in particular reference 53 of this article: Taylor, G.I. (1909). "Interference fringes with feeble light" Proceedings of the Cambridge Philosophical Society. 15. pp. 114--115.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mlwozniak@wp.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-13 00:47 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <ddc92d84-a9d3-42e9-a1a1-ed20e5e90f72@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #409005 |
W dniu poniedziałek, 13 lutego 2017 09:31:53 UTC+1 użytkownik SEKI napisał: > On Monday, February 13, 2017 at 5:11:15 PM UTC+9, mlwo...@wp.pl wrote: > > W dniu poniedziałek, 13 lutego 2017 08:49:50 UTC+1 użytkownik SEKI napisał: > > > Considering single particle (quantum) interference in a double slit > > > experiment, we can't deny the fact that a quantum is more of a wave > > > than anything. > > > > And how do you know it was single? > > It is a time-honored and established experiment. I'm asking, how do you know a photon is a SINGLE particle. > See, for example, > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photon#Wave.E2.80.93particle_duality_and_uncertainty_principles > and in particular reference 53 of this article: > Taylor, G.I. (1909). > "Interference fringes with feeble light" > Proceedings of the Cambridge Philosophical Society. 15. pp. 114--115.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | SEKI <seki.hajime01@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-13 02:09 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <6e56afe8-337b-4e26-bb41-7434e1c99b6b@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #409008 |
On Monday, February 13, 2017 at 5:47:43 PM UTC+9, mlwo...@wp.pl wrote: > W dniu poniedziałek, 13 lutego 2017 09:31:53 UTC+1 użytkownik SEKI napisał: > > On Monday, February 13, 2017 at 5:11:15 PM UTC+9, mlwo...@wp.pl wrote: > > > W dniu poniedziałek, 13 lutego 2017 08:49:50 UTC+1 użytkownik SEKI napisał: > > > > Considering single particle (quantum) interference in a double slit > > > > experiment, we can't deny the fact that a quantum is more of a wave > > > > than anything. > > > > > > And how do you know it was single? > > > > It is a time-honored and established experiment. > > I'm asking, how do you know a photon is a SINGLE > particle. First of all, I claimed that a photon is not a particle but a wave. I don't know the detailed setting of the experiment. I don't suppose, however, the experimenters overlooked the defects that you can come up with. Thanks anyway. SEKI
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mlwozniak@wp.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-13 03:19 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <6569dd55-dacf-46de-bf87-1bf4500cbb09@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #409011 |
W dniu poniedziałek, 13 lutego 2017 11:10:00 UTC+1 użytkownik SEKI napisał: > On Monday, February 13, 2017 at 5:47:43 PM UTC+9, mlwo...@wp.pl wrote: > > W dniu poniedziałek, 13 lutego 2017 09:31:53 UTC+1 użytkownik SEKI napisał: > > > On Monday, February 13, 2017 at 5:11:15 PM UTC+9, mlwo...@wp.pl wrote: > > > > W dniu poniedziałek, 13 lutego 2017 08:49:50 UTC+1 użytkownik SEKI napisał: > > > > > Considering single particle (quantum) interference in a double slit > > > > > experiment, we can't deny the fact that a quantum is more of a wave > > > > > than anything. > > > > > > > > And how do you know it was single? > > > > > > It is a time-honored and established experiment. > > > > I'm asking, how do you know a photon is a SINGLE > > particle. > > First of all, I claimed that a photon is not a particle but a wave. Quoting: Considering single particle (quantum) End of quote.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | SEKI <seki.hajime01@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-13 06:45 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <47f070ca-835c-4487-a83f-b80b23c94437@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #409014 |
On Monday, February 13, 2017 at 8:19:27 PM UTC+9, mlwo...@wp.pl wrote: > W dniu poniedziałek, 13 lutego 2017 11:10:00 UTC+1 użytkownik SEKI napisał: > > On Monday, February 13, 2017 at 5:47:43 PM UTC+9, mlwo...@wp.pl wrote: > > > W dniu poniedziałek, 13 lutego 2017 09:31:53 UTC+1 użytkownik SEKI napisał: > > > > On Monday, February 13, 2017 at 5:11:15 PM UTC+9, mlwo...@wp.pl wrote: > > > > > W dniu poniedziałek, 13 lutego 2017 08:49:50 UTC+1 użytkownik SEKI napisał: > > > > > > Considering single particle (quantum) interference in a double slit > > > > > > experiment, we can't deny the fact that a quantum is more of a wave > > > > > > than anything. > > > > > > > > > > And how do you know it was single? > > > > > > > > It is a time-honored and established experiment. > > > > > > I'm asking, how do you know a photon is a SINGLE > > > particle. > > > > First of all, I claimed that a photon is not a particle but a wave. > > Quoting: > Considering single particle (quantum) > End of quote. Only conventional representation, not substance.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-13 07:21 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <o7sbsv$5l1$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #409000 |
On 2/13/2017 1:49 AM, SEKI wrote: > Considering single particle (quantum) interference in a double slit > experiment, we can't deny the fact that a quantum is more of a wave > than anything. > In case where a quantum (wave) is localized in a small area, it can > be seen as a particle. > > To me, most physicists seem to be obsessed by the particle model. > > It should be noted that most of so-called quantum paradoxes can be > resolved by abandoning the particle model. > (Of course, the Bell's inequality is an exception, though can never > be resolved with the particle model.) > > Anyway, quantum theories are constructed as theories of waves, and > particles appear only in interpretations. I don't see any reason to try to force a decision. The fact is, these are quantum fields, which are NEITHER particles nor waves but a third kind of thing that exhibit wavelike and particlelike properties. > > Thank you. > > SEKI > -- Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 3 of 7 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web