home bbs files messages ]

Forums before death by AOL, social media and spammers... "We can't have nice things"

   sci.physics.research      Current physics research. (Moderated)      17,516 messages   

[   << oldest   |   < older   |   list   |   newer >   |   newest >>   ]

   Message 15,549 of 17,516   
   SEKI to Rich L.   
   Re: Can We Believe in Modern Quantum The   
   09 Feb 17 12:22:16   
   
   From: seki.hajime01@gmail.com   
      
   On Thursday, February 9, 2017 at 12:52:42 AM UTC+9, Rich L. wrote:   
   > The particle nature of light and particles is that they depart and   
   > arrive in discrete lumps at discrete times.  The wave nature is in   
   > how they propagate from the emission event to the absorption event.   
   > We have trouble separating these two aspects of their behavior   
   > because macroscopic particles propagate as particles, not waves and   
   > macroscopic waves are generated and destroyed as waves not particles.   
   > This is what causes so much conceptual difficulty.   
      
   I think that 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.   
   Don't you agree?   
      
   >   
   > Microscopic particles, such as a photon, are emitted at a discrete   
   > event that is localized (to varying degrees) in both time and space.   
   > How they propagate is a bit mysterious but shows more wavelike   
   > characteristics than particle characteristics.  For example, a   
   > photon reflecting from a mirror does not reflect from a single   
   > electron or atom on the mirror, but is reflected from ALL the   
   > electrons or atoms on the surface of the mirror.  If the photon is   
   > detected past an aperture with multiple holes, there is a wave of   
   > some kind that propagates through ALL of those holes to reach the   
   > detection event.  This appears inconsistent with the particle nature   
   > of the photon, but that is only because we have been conditioned   
   > to think of particles like rocks or baseballs.  Subatomic particles   
   > are different.   
      
   How do you define what a particle is?   
   To me, you 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   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)   

[   << oldest   |   < older   |   list   |   newer >   |   newest >>   ]


(c) 1994,  bbs@darkrealms.ca