Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

The Wave/Particle Paradox

#21
Syne Offline
(Oct 14, 2018 12:10 AM)Secular Sanity Wrote:
(Oct 13, 2018 11:49 PM)Syne Wrote: You're so full of shit. We all know you bringing up a supposed lie (that you won't actually name) is just you trying to poison the well. That's not being nice; that's being passive aggressive.

Nope. I already said that you used the word "academic" in regards to your knowledge base. The new one? Would you prefer a pm or do you want me to just blurt it out?
Again, your own faulty memory or intentional trolling. Might as well have out with the new one, as you'll no doubt eventually troll me with it on the forum anyway. Rolleyes
Quote:
Syne Wrote:What do you think makes the speed of light in vacuum NOT the same in all inertial reference frames (you know, violating the second postulate of SR)? O_o
Do you think light has a rest frame? If not, why did you think me saying it didn't refuted your claim at all? O_o
Or are you going to keep deflecting and trying to backpedal?  Rolleyes

Backpedaling is your forte. I wouldn't want to steal your thunder.

What I was trying to convey was that even if there were a valid rest frame where light was at rest, it would violate the postulate because it wouldn’t be a constant.

Where have I backpedaled? O_o

And how does that contradict my "No, light is never at rest, nor does it have a comoving frame"?
Why didn't you simply agree?

And how does that justify your nonsense about "without a limit of c, space-time would not even exist"?
Reply
#22
confused2 Offline
Been busy but having said 'naive' I thought I should come back to this .. more honestly I stumbled on it by chance..

From:-
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Path_integral_formulation
Quote:The path integral formulation of quantum mechanics .. replaces the classical notion of a single, unique classical trajectory for a system [with a photon in] with a sum, or functional integral, over an infinity of quantum-mechanically possible trajectories to compute a quantum amplitude.

So 'wave/particle' is an approximation to something much more fundamental.

Same source.. (originally Feynman) .. this is 'sum over paths'
Quote: 1.The probability for an event is given by the squared modulus of a complex number called the "probability amplitude".
2.The probability amplitude is given by adding together the contributions of all paths in configuration space.
3.The contribution of a path is proportional to eiS/ħ, where S is the action given by the time integral of the Lagrangian along the path.

In order to find the overall probability amplitude for a given process, then, one adds up, or integrates, the amplitude of the 3rd postulate over the space of all possible paths of the system in between the initial and final states, including those that are absurd by classical standards. In calculating the probability amplitude for a single particle to go from one space-time coordinate to another, it is correct to include paths in which the particle describes elaborate curlicues, curves in which the particle shoots off into outer space and flies back again, and so forth. The path integral assigns to all these amplitudes equal weight but varying phase, or argument of the complex number. Contributions from paths wildly different from the classical trajectory may be suppressed by interference (see below).

If we can get the same answer by different methods (and we are encouraged to do this) it becomes (a bit) a matter of personal preference which (or all or none) you choose to regard as 'true'. I choose 'sum over paths' as true because it involves no approximations and makes no concessions to our ability to perform the maths required to get a result. With it (sum over paths) I get (what I regard as) the best approximation to 'making sense' of the double slit experiment.
Reply
#23
confused2 Offline
Lets assume we have a photon source surrounded by a black sphere. We can reasonably assume that any photon created by the source will ultimately strike the surface of the sphere - at which point we say 'got it'. Since a photon is (arguably) infinitely small we have to look at the chances of finding it within a finite area - the chances of finding it 'somewhere' on the sphere are 100%. Let's look at big spheres and look at the chances of finding our photon within a chosen area of 1 square metre.

The surface area of a sphere is 4πr² so the chances of finding our photon in any 1 square metre are our chosen area (1) divided by the total area which gives a chance of 1/(4πr²). This is (of course) the inverse square law derived from knowing absolutely nothing.

Next we make two small holes in the sphere and see what our photon makes of that - for convenience we actually make slits because they're easier to make. This is what is called the double slit experiment which we may or may not choose to look at in more detail.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double-sli..._particles

The options when looking at the double slit experiment are to say that sometimes a photon behaves like a wave and sometimes it behaves like a particle OR (a possible alternative) a photon always does exactly the same thing, inside a sphere, outside a sphere, before slits and after slits.

From previous post we'd see:-

1.The probability for an event is given by the squared modulus of a complex number called the "probability amplitude".
2.The probability amplitude is given by adding together the contributions of all paths in configuration space.
3.The contribution of a path is proportional to e^(iS/ħ), where S is the action given by the time integral of the Lagrangian along the path.

The e^(iS/ħ) is a mathematical burblish that conceals a sine wave (should have added that earlier) - we could tackle this beast with no more than high school maths if we wanted to. Obviously some outrageous approximations and assumptions but if we did it we might see an alternative to wave/particle duality.

Sphere area - fun thing (not huge fun but a thing)
https://www.mathopenref.com/spherearea.html
Reply
#24
Syne Offline
(Oct 14, 2018 12:43 AM)Syne Wrote:
(Oct 14, 2018 12:10 AM)Secular Sanity Wrote:
(Oct 13, 2018 11:49 PM)Syne Wrote: You're so full of shit. We all know you bringing up a supposed lie (that you won't actually name) is just you trying to poison the well. That's not being nice; that's being passive aggressive.

Nope. I already said that you used the word "academic" in regards to your knowledge base. The new one? Would you prefer a pm or do you want me to just blurt it out?
Again, your own faulty memory or intentional trolling. Might as well have out with the new one, as you'll no doubt eventually troll me with it on the forum anyway.  Rolleyes

SS NEVER told us what the supposed "new" lie was. Apparently just more empty trolling.  Rolleyes
Reply
#25
Secular Sanity Offline
(Feb 20, 2019 08:47 PM)Syne Wrote:
(Oct 14, 2018 12:43 AM)Syne Wrote:
(Oct 14, 2018 12:10 AM)Secular Sanity Wrote:
(Oct 13, 2018 11:49 PM)Syne Wrote: You're so full of shit. We all know you bringing up a supposed lie (that you won't actually name) is just you trying to poison the well. That's not being nice; that's being passive aggressive.

Nope. I already said that you used the word "academic" in regards to your knowledge base. The new one? Would you prefer a pm or do you want me to just blurt it out?
Again, your own faulty memory or intentional trolling. Might as well have out with the new one, as you'll no doubt eventually troll me with it on the forum anyway.  Rolleyes

SS NEVER told us what the supposed "new" lie was. Apparently just more empty trolling.  Rolleyes

Wow! You're getting pretty desperate, aren't you? Well, that's what happens when you lie just to try to make yourself look good.
Reply
#26
Syne Offline
No, deary, the desperation is how much you claim I've lied without any support whatsoever. See, even here you are only repeating the unsupported claim yet again.
Reply
#27
Secular Sanity Offline
(Feb 20, 2019 10:10 PM)Syne Wrote: No, deary, the desperation is how much you claim I've lied without any support whatsoever. See, even here you are only repeating the unsupported claim yet again.

I asked you about being homeless. You told me that it was more like a social experiment just to see if you could survive but that's not what you told C2.
Reply
#28
Syne Offline
(Feb 20, 2019 10:14 PM)Secular Sanity Wrote:
(Feb 20, 2019 10:10 PM)Syne Wrote: No, deary, the desperation is how much you claim I've lied without any support whatsoever. See, even here you are only repeating the unsupported claim yet again.

I asked you about being homeless. You told me that it was more like a social experiment just to see if you could survive but that's not what you told C2.

Again, you're lying...and I know for a fact that you have nothing to support it. Again, easy to know if you don't make a habit of lying. But your repeated, unsupported insistence certainly seems like projection.
Reply
Reply
#30
Syne Offline
(Feb 20, 2019 11:13 PM)Secular Sanity Wrote: Nope. I'm lying. I've no reason to.

Yes, we all know you're lying, and it's obvious you hold some sort of long-standing, personal grudge as motive.

Or that's a typo, and you're delusional and actually believe the crap you make up.
Reply


Possibly Related Threads…
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  Article Repeated particle measurements disagree with wheory—what now? C C 0 55 Jan 14, 2024 08:40 AM
Last Post: C C
  Article What is a quantum particle really like? + What is neutral naturalness? C C 3 154 Sep 21, 2023 11:29 PM
Last Post: confused2
  Article How to tame the endless infinities hiding in the heart of particle physics C C 1 74 Apr 8, 2023 12:17 PM
Last Post: Kornee
  Twin Paradox without acceleration confused2 13 320 Jan 18, 2023 01:04 PM
Last Post: Kornee
  Rewriting a vexing quantum rule + Particle physicists envision future of the field C C 1 210 Sep 28, 2022 04:40 AM
Last Post: Kornee
  Wave function isn't real + ‘Beyond-quantum’ equivalence principle + Lee Smolin int... C C 1 96 May 2, 2022 06:17 PM
Last Post: Ostronomos
  Crisis in particle physics forces a rethink of what is ‘natural’ C C 1 128 Mar 3, 2022 05:01 AM
Last Post: Kornee
  Why "pilot wave theory" failed + Why BHs aren't made of DM + Wormholes may be viable C C 1 96 Nov 17, 2021 05:37 PM
Last Post: Syne
  This exotic particle had an out-of-body experience; scientists took a picture of it C C 0 91 Aug 25, 2021 06:36 PM
Last Post: C C
  Crisis of quantum gravity + Has the black hole information paradox evaporated? C C 0 133 Mar 24, 2021 05:32 PM
Last Post: C C



Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)