How a wave and particle can coexist?
sadovnik socratus
==.
From Huygens / Newton’s time the light from the
one hand is wave and from the other hand is particle.
‘ But what is light really?
Is it a wave or a shower of photons? ‘
/ N. Bohr /
How to understand this coexistence?
#
The wave of air consists of air - particles.
The wave of water consists of water- particles.
The electric wave must consist of . . electrons.
The light wave must consist of light- particles.
So, to understand the wave phenomena we must
examine its single particle. What is a single
quantum of light? We don’t know.
Let us say that quantum of light is an abstract particle
and then put it into another abstraction ‘ Ideal gas’,
which has only one physical condition: T= 0K.
What is possible to say about this abstract picture?
=======.
S.
==========.
#
"The Copenhagen interpretation of quantum theory
starts from a paradox." / Heisenberg,
Physics and Philosophy, pg. 44./
#
http://www.upscale.utoronto.ca/GeneralInterest/Harrison/Complementarity/CompCopen.html
dlzc
On Feb 8, 7:10 am, sadovnik socratus <is.socra...@gmail.com> wrote:
> How a wave and particle can coexist?
How can a coat be both red and warm? Different tests, different
results. That we think they might be exclusive is our problem, NOT
Nature's problem.
David A. Smith
mpc755
'Interpretation of quantum mechanics by the double solution theory -
Louis de BROGLIE'
http://www.ensmp.fr/aflb/AFLB-classiques/aflb124p001.pdf
"When in 1923-1924 I had my first ideas about Wave Mechanics I was
looking for a truly concrete physical image, valid for all particles,
of the wave and particle coexistence discovered by Albert Einstein in
his "Theory of light quanta". I had no doubt whatsoever about the
physical reality of waves and particles."
"In my view, the wave is a physical one..."
"This result may be interpreted by noticing that, in the present
theory, the particle is defined as a very small region of the wave
where the amplitude is very large, and it therefore seems quite
natural that the internal motion rythm of the particle should always
be the same as that of the wave at the point where the particle is
located."
"I called this relation, which determines the particle's motion in the
wave, the guidance formula. It may easily be generalized to the case
of an external field acting on the particle."
de Broglie, the person who first understood wave-particle duality,
understood a moving physical particle has an associated physical wave
and the particle occupies a very small region of the wave.
"I think that when this interpretation is further elaborated,
extended, and eventually modified in some of its aspects, it will lead
to a better understanding of the true coexistence of waves and
particles about which actual Quantum mechanics only gives statistical
information, often correct, but in my opinion incomplete."
The following further elaborates and modifies in some of its aspects
de Broglie's correct understanding of wave-particle duality.
The galaxy clusters in the following article are not traveling with
dark matter. The galaxy clusters are moving through the aether. The
galaxy clusters displace aether.
'Hubble Finds Ghostly Ring of Dark Matter'
http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/hubble/news/dark_matter_ring_feature.thml
"Astronomers using NASA's Hubble Space Telescope got a first-hand view
of how dark matter behaves during a titanic collision between two
galaxy clusters. The wreck created a ripple of dark mater, which is
somewhat similar to a ripple formed in a pond when a rock hits the
water."
The 'pond' consists of aether.
The moving 'particles' are the galaxy clusters.
The 'ripple' is an aether displacement wave.
The above is physical evidence of a moving 'particle' having an
associated aether displacement wave.
In a double slit experiment the particle travels a single path and
enters and exits a single slit. It is the associated aether
displacement wave which enters and exits multiple slits. The aether
displacement wave creates interference upon exiting the slits. It is
this interference which alters the direction the particle travels.
Detecting the particle causes a loss of coherence between the particle
and its associated aether displacement wave and there is no
interference.
Einstein stated the aether does not consist of individual particles
which can be separately tracked through time. My interpretation of
this is that it can not be known if aether consists of particles or
not. This also means, in my opinion, it can not be known if photons
propagate as particles which occupy a very small region of their
associated aether displacement wave or if a photon occupies a very
small region of the wave itself. A photon is detected as a quantum of
aether.
sadovnik socratus
/ David A. Smith /
==.
===.
S.
sadovnik socratus
==.
A coat isn’t a source of ‘warm’
A coat doesn’t produce ‘warm’
A coat consists of particles.
These particles don’t produce ‘warm’
The conception ‘warm’ doesn’t belong to any particle.
A coat is a thing which keeps you be ‘warm’ because
you are (as a warm-blooded animal ) source of ‘warm’
and the coat doesn’t give the ‘warm’ of your body go away.
Your example doesn’t suit to quantum of light.
===.
dlzc
On Feb 8, 9:32 am, sadovnik socratus <is.socra...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Feb 8, 3:16 pm, dlzc <dl...@cox.net> wrote:
> > On Feb 8, 7:10 am, sadovnik socratus <is.socra...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > How a wave and particle can coexist?
>
> > How can a coat be both red and warm? Different tests, different
> > results. That we think they might be exclusive is our problem, NOT
> > Nature's problem.
>
> > David A. Smith
>
> How can a coat be both red and warm?
> Different tests, different results.
> ==.
> A coat isn’t a source of ‘warm’
> A coat doesn’t produce ‘warm’
Light does not source "wavelength", that is a measure impressed /
sourced by "Universe". The wavelength of ancient light did not
"stretch", yet we see its wavelength as red shifted.
> A coat consists of particles.
> These particles don’t produce ‘warm’
> The conception ‘warm’ doesn’t belong to any
> particle.
>
> A coat is a thing which keeps you be ‘warm’
> because you are (as a warm-blooded animal )
> source of ‘warm’ and the coat doesn’t give the
> ‘warm’ of your body go away.
>
> Your example doesn’t suit to quantum of light.
Your ignorance is not my problem. I am trying to draw a rough simile.
We see light as having the properties of the test we design. Light is
very flexible and shows us what we look for, in some means / value.
But it is pre-conceptions of "light like water wave" and "light like
billiard ball" that blinds you currently.
David A. Smith
mpc755
It is you who is blinded by ignorance.
http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/hubble/news/dark_matter_ring_feature.html
jdawe
> How a wave and particle can coexist?
Time + distance of space create an inverse pair of pathways:
Linear + circular
Linear turns into circular, and circular turns into linear.
Energy + matter of mass can travel on one of these pathways at any one
time.
Wave energy is simply energy alternating between the linear and
circular pathways.
Therefore,
Energy or matter travelling directly on either a linear path or a
circular path only is better referred to as:
DC ( Direct Current ) or maybe you could call it DF ( Direct Flow ) to
refer to both energy and matter.
Energy or matter that is alternating frequently between a linear or
circular path is better referred to as:
AC ( Alternating Current ) or maybe you could call it AF ( Alternating
Flow ) to refer to both energy and matter.
Regards,
-Josh.
holog
>
> AC ( Alternating Current ) or maybe you could call it AF ( Alternating
> Flow ) to refer to both energy and matter.
>
> Regards,
>
> -Josh.
due to time constraints ..............it all goes in one
direction, time. since you have not yet figured out what most people
consider a dimension.
an ounce of time .
holog
sadovnik socratus
Let us say that quantum of light is an abstract particle
and then put it into another abstraction ‘ Ideal gas’,
which has only one physical condition: T= 0K.
Now we will test it with Heisenberg’s Uncertainty
principle. What is possible to say about this picture?
We see that the abstract particle becomes real alive particle.
The dead person was reborn again.
Is it mysticism?
I don’t know.
I only know that according to Heisenberg’s Uncertainty
Principle and the ‘ method of renormalization‘ the Universe
begins to show itself.
==========.
Israel Socratus.
jdawe
> > AC ( Alternating Current ) or maybe you could call it AF ( Alternating
> > Flow ) to refer to both energy and matter.
>
> > Regards,
>
> > -Josh.
>
> due to time constraints ..............it all goes in one
> direction, time.
Energy and time flow entwined outward.
Matter and distance flow entwined inward.
> since you have not yet figured out what most people
> consider a dimension.
Rather than looking at the universe as a various 'quantity' of
dimensions, you need to view it logically as an inverse tree.
The first inverse pair at the top of the tree is:
Space + mass.
Space is the inverse pair:
Time + Distance.
Mass is the inverse pair:
Energy + matter.
To understand the universe you must understand where each inverse pair
fits in the inverse tree.
In regards to the inverse pair of pathways that time + distance of
space create:
Linear + circular.
I would just like to point out that it is more efficient for energy +
matter of mass to be frequently alternating between linear + circular
pathways to a destination rather than attempting to use only a linear
path or only a circular path.
Kind regards,
-Josh.
dlzc
On Feb 8, 10:54 pm, sadovnik socratus <is.socra...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Let us say that quantum of light is an
> abstract particle and then put it into
> another abstraction ‘ Ideal gas’,
> which has only one physical condition: T= 0K.
>
> Now we will test it with Heisenberg’s
> Uncertainty principle. What is possible to
> say about this picture?
That it is bogus. Light is momentum, yet you require it to have
none. Light does not interact with light, such that it "bounces
off". It has zero viscosity, therefore does not qualify as any sort
of gas, ideal or not.
> ... the Universe begins to show itself.
It's trying, but you paint over it with some other brush, to keep from
learning something new.
David A. Smith
mpc755
>
> > ... the Universe begins to show itself.
>
> It's trying, but you paint over it with some other brush, to keep from
> learning something new.
>
> David A. Smith
And so do you.
rasterspace
ba-doomp.
mpc755
> well, hand-waving definitely is not a particle,
> ba-doomp.
If you are unable or unwilling to understand a moving physical
particle has an associated physical wave then that is your choice.
k...@kymhorsell.com
...
> That it is bogus. Light is momentum, yet you require it to have
> none. Light does not interact with light, such that it "bounces
> off". It has zero viscosity, therefore does not qualify as any sort
> of gas, ideal or not.
...
Interestingly, photon/photon interactions via virtual particles
is one of the modes of operation of the ILC
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Linear_Collider>.
--
[Cause and effect:]
>[explanations for climate change]
You left out "emerging from an ice age"!
-- BO...@27-32-240-172.static.tpgi.com.au [86 nyms and counting], 8 Feb 2011 12:40 +1100
BURT
What force wave is the particle in?
Is it in the magnetic field or the electric?
No. Einstein in 1937 wrote down he could never resolve his particle
with the light wave.
Therefore he doubted what he won the Nobel Prize for.
Mitch Raemsch
herbert glazier
herbert glazier
Alternating current is back and forth of electrons,and DC is smooth
flow of electrons .Both need a conductor. An imperial electric motor
can run on both AC and DC. Light bulb too. All batteries are DC. To
get current to go back and forth you have to change the terminals to
positive to negative and vice-versa TreBert
rasterspace
it involves only cut-and-paste macros.
mpc755
> ... but handwaving is a good exercise, esp. when
> it involves only cut-and-paste macros.
I realize you do not understand what occurs physically in nature to
cause gravity and choose to remain ignorant to understanding force
exerted towards matter by aether displaced by matter is gravity.
I realize you do not understand what occurs physically in nature in a
double slit experiment and choose to remain ignorant to understanding
a moving particle has an associated aether displacement wave.
I realize you do not understand how dark matter travels with matter
and choose to remain ignorant to understanding it doesn't, what is
postulated as dark matter is aether and matter moves through the
aether.
I realize you do not understand the relationship between mass and
energy and choose to remain ignorant to understanding a change in
state of that which has mass is energy.
I realize you choose ignorance over understanding what occurs
physically in nature.
I realize you prefer to be ignorant over understanding the physics of
nature.
http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/hubble/news/dark_matter_ring_featur...
BURT
> On Feb 9, 1:10 am, sadovnik socratus <is.socra...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > How a wave and particle can coexist?
>
> Time + distance of space create an inverse pair of pathways:
>
> Linear + circular
>
> Linear turns into circular, and circular turns into linear.
They do not turn into each other. Rather they are two seperate motions
that can happen together.
that multiply by their Gamma factor for total energy or "the two
motion's" energies.
These two motions give matter two increased energies that come
together mathematically as one total.
So the Earth's turn adds energy by its speed for instance to the
Earth's surface and other matter.
The Earth's flow through space also gives the other added energy by
Einstein's math of the Gamma factor.
Mitch Raemsch
rasterspace
of *only* using gravitation a la Einstein's equations,
when most of matter in Universe is plasma (charged).
your verbiage is horse-puckey.
mpc755
Like I said, explain what occurs physically in nature to cause
gravity.
Like I said, explain what occurs physically in nature in a double slit
experiment.
Like I said, explain the relationship between mass and energy.
Still can't, can you?
How long are you going to insist on remaining ignorant?
What is it with the posters who insist there is no aether or aether is
unnecessary at the same time can not explain such fundamentally simple
physical phenomenon as gravity and what occurs in a double slit
experiment?
How is it you think you have all this knowledge at the same time you
have no clue as to what occurs physically in nature to cause gravity,
what occurs physically in nature in a double slit experiment, and what
is the relationship between mass and energy?
How is it every time you post your ignorance is obvious to me and not
to you?
http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/hubble/news/dark_matter_ring_feature.html
Aether has mass.
Aether is displaced by matter.
Aether is not at rest when displaced.
Displaced aether exerts force towards matter.
Force exerted towards matter by aether displaced by matter is gravity.
rasterspace
in Young's two-pinhole experiment is interference
between waves of light, according to him. so,
that is "electromagnetism," no asther required, at all.
mpc755
Then explain how it is electrons are able to create an interference
pattern when they are sent through the slits one at a time in a double
slit experiment. You can't. Your placing quotes around
"electromagnetism" as an explanation is nothing more than saying its
magic.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double-slit_experiment#When_observed_emission_by_emission
"When electrons are fired singly through a double-slit apparatus they
do not cluster around two single points directly on lines between the
emitter and the two slits, but instead one by one they create an
interference pattern."
BURT
> On Feb 12, 8:11 pm, rasterspace <Space...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > one thing at a time. what "occurs"
> > in Young's two-pinhole experiment is interference
> > between waves of light, according to him. so,
> > that is "electromagnetism," no asther required, at all.
>
> Then explain how it is electrons are able to create an interference
> pattern when they are sent through the slits one at a time in a double
> slit experiment. You can't. Your placing quotes around
> "electromagnetism" as an explanation is nothing more than saying its
> magic.
>
>
> "When electrons are fired singly through a double-slit apparatus they
> do not cluster around two single points directly on lines between the
> emitter and the two slits, but instead one by one they create an
> interference pattern."
>
> In a double slit experiment the particle travels a single path and
> enters and exits a single slit. It is the associated aether
> displacement wave which enters and exits multiple slits. The aether
> displacement wave creates interference upon exiting the slits. It is
> this interference which alters the direction the particle travels.
> Detecting the particle causes a loss of coherence between the particle
> and its associated aether displacement wave and there is no
> interference.
In 1937 Einstein said ultimatley he could never resolve his light
particle with
the light wave. Einstein doubted what he won the Nobel Prize for. And
rightly.
Mitch Raemsch
mpc755
Please do not respond to my posts.
holog
a photon of light with a frequency and amplitude travel with the
properties of electromagnetism and interact with material
accordingly.
there is no need for asther .
the medium upon which they travel has been undetermined as of yet.
holog
BURT
Photons Einstein questioned. Light waves flow through space-time
continuum.
Aether is the best idea for a medium but dimension and time also does
the same for anything moving.
And dimension has its own aether form.
Mitch Raemsch
rasterspace
where does the atmosphere really end?
rasterspace
of "electromagnetism," but that may not be relevant
to your alleged programme. most folks have not bothered
with Young's original write-up ... incl. me. for instance,
how does your aether-waving hand account for permeability and
permeability, without electrons?
sueging to mere formulae about that pair of properties,
only appeals to the limit definition known as "free space,"
but it doesn't arrange a suitable experiment.
why do electrons need anything, other
than ordinary diffraction a la Fresnel et al?...
shoud have copied a very recondite reply in another thread,
which really laid that out, or some thing, similar.
it's all magic, at some level.
mpc755
> on the ground, it is known as the atmosphere;
> where does the atmosphere really end?
The medium upon which light waves travels has been determined. To
think it is other than the aether is more absolutely absurd ridiculous
nonsense.
What is postulated as dark matter is aether. Dark matter does not
travel with matter. Matter moves through the aether. Aether has mass.
Asking where the atmosphere ends is the same type of question as
asking where does the aether stop being displaced.
In a double slit experiment the particle travels a single path and
enters and exits a single slit. It is the associated aether
displacement wave which enters and exits multiple slits. The aether
displacement wave creates interference upon exiting the slits. It is
this interference which alters the direction the particle travels.
Detecting the particle causes a loss of coherence between the particle
and its associated aether displacement wave and there is no
interference.
Aether has mass.
Aether is displaced by matter.
Aether is not at rest when displaced.
Displaced aether exerts force towards matter.
Force exerted towards matter by aether displaced by matter is
gravity.
Being unable or unwilling to understand the above is to insist on
remaining ignorant.
mpc755
The only thing magical is your insistence on remaining ignorant of
understanding the following.
'Interpretation of quantum mechanics by the double solution theory
Louis de BROGLIE'
http://www.ensmp.fr/aflb/AFLB-classiques/aflb124p001.pdf
(link has been down for a while)
"This result may be interpreted by noticing that, in the present
theory, the particle is defined as a very small region of the wave
where the amplitude is very large, and it therefore seems quite
natural that the internal motion rythm of the particle should always
be the same as that of the wave at the point where the particle is
located."
de Broglie's definition of wave-particle duality is of a physical
moving particle having an associated physical wave. The particle
occupies a very small region of the wave.
"I called this relation, which determines the particle's motion in the
wave, "the guidance formula". It may easily be generalized to the case
of an external field acting on the particle."
The external field acting on the particle is the aether.
"I think that when this interpretation is further elaborated,
extended, and eventually modified in some of its aspects, it will lead
to a better understanding of the true coexistence of waves and
particles about which actual Quantum mechanics only gives statistical
information, often correct, but in my opinion incomplete."
The following further elaborates, extends, and modifies in some of its
aspects de Broglie's correct understanding of wave-particle duality.
The galaxy clusters in the following article are not traveling with
dark matter. The galaxy clusters are moving through the aether. The
galaxy clusters displace aether.
'Hubble Finds Ghostly Ring of Dark Matter'
http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/hubble/news/dark_matter_ring_feature.html
"Astronomers using NASA's Hubble Space Telescope got a first-hand view
of how dark matter behaves during a titanic collision between two
galaxy clusters. The wreck created a ripple of dark mater, which is
somewhat similar to a ripple formed in a pond when a rock hits the
water."
The 'pond' consists of aether.
The moving 'particles' are the galaxy clusters.
The 'ripple' is an aether displacement wave.
The above is physical evidence of a moving 'particle' having an
associated aether displacement wave.
In a double slit experiment the particle travels a single path and
herbert glazier
>
> "Astronomers using NASA's Hubble Space Telescope got a first-hand view
> of how dark matter behaves during a titanic collision between two
> galaxy clusters. The wreck created a ripple of dark mater, which is
> somewhat similar to a ripple formed in a pond when a rock hits the
> water."
>
> The 'pond' consists of aether.
> The moving 'particles' are the galaxy clusters.
> The 'ripple' is an aether displacement wave.
>
> The above is physical evidence of a moving 'particle' having an
> associated aether displacement wave.
>
> In a double slit experiment the particle travels a single path and
> enters and exits a single slit. It is the associated aether
> displacement wave which enters and exits multiple slits. The aether
> displacement wave creates interference upon exiting the slits. It is
> this interference which alters the direction the particle travels.
> Detecting the particle causes a loss of coherence between the particle
> and its associated aether displacement wave and there is no
> interference.
It proves particles travel in pairs and wiggle a wave between them.
Some as big as a virus,or bucky ball. A single photon can go through
a million holes at once. Its reality in the QM realm,and makes us in
the large Macro GR realm think micro QM is weird. Its a lot weirder
that we can ever comprehend. O ya TreBert
mpc755
Particles do not travel in pairs.
The following double slit experiment was performed with one electron
at a time.
"When electrons are fired singly through a double-slit apparatus they
do not cluster around two single points directly on lines between the
emitter and the two slits, but instead one by one they create an
interference pattern."
In a double slit experiment the particle travels a single path and
enters and exits a single slit. It is the associated aether
displacement wave which enters and exits multiple slits. The aether
displacement wave creates interference upon exiting the slits. It is
this interference which alters the direction the particle travels.
Detecting the particle causes a loss of coherence between the particle
and its associated aether displacement wave and there is no
interference.
de Broglie correctly understood the existence of a physical moving
particle having an associated physical wave. Why can't you?
BURT
>
> - Show quoted text -
Particle creation under QM conjugate attributes of time and energy
generates free energy in space.
Science has to admit hat they don't believe in free energy so QM is a
contradiction if it can create new points of energy
in dimension that we call particle pairs.
The math of the zero point energy is that energy goes infinite and it
is at every instant at every point in space.
The math is a failure for zero point energy infinity.
Mitch Raemsch