Massive Particles & Massless Waves: Behaving ≠ Being
Philip Benjamin
[Philip Benjamin]
Particles of matter with mass also BHAVE as waves [AS IF mass-less] with a wavelength, p=h/λ, first proposed by de Broglie, where p is momentum. Matter PARTICLE is found to have interference PROPERTIES AS IF any other wave. AS IF Logic ≠ BOTH & Fallacy Behaving ≠ Being. Behaving is a PROPERTY which can be epistemically understood. Being is ontology which is beyond the scope of finite sciences and finite brains, howsoever brilliant the brains be. One need not confound being with behaving.
The relationship between momentum and wavelength is fundamental for all PARTICLES (with MASS). That does not TRANSMUTE massive particles into massless waves, even in any microscope!! Electrons were the first particles with mass to be directly established to have the de Broglie wavelength. Protons, helium nuclei, neutrons, and many others have been observed later to display interference patterns when they interact with objects having masses but sizes similar to their de Broglie wavelengths.
Wolfgang Pauli (brilliant occultist-physicist) truly believed some of the views that Einstein accused Bohr with. He hypothesized a “lucid mysticism,” a synthesis between rationality and religion, and speculated that quantum theory could unify the psychological/scientific and philosophical/mystical approaches to consciousness. Philosopher and addict of Eastern mysticisms Arthur Schopenhauer, whose views on reality were in turn influenced by Eastern religions convinced Pauli of quantum mysticism. Planck considered religion (Christianity) and science compatible based on his opinion that they are both based on objectivity but refer to distinct facets of reality. Meanwhile, Paul Dirac rejected any kind of religious vocabulary, arguing that “religion is a jumble of false assertions with no basis in reality.”
Philip Benjamin
References.
Juan Miguel Marin https://phys.org/news/2009-06-quantum-mysticism-forgotten.html. . “’Mysticism’ in quantum mechanics: the forgotten controversy.” European Journal of Physics. 30 (2009) 807-822.
Morton Tolball. https://mortentolboll.weebly.com/quantum-mechanics-and-the-philosophy-of-niels-bohr.html
Bohr shows, that light in some experiments behaves, as if it is particles, and in others as if it is waves. And here we have the foundation for the next misinterpretation, that goes on, that it is the consciousness of the physicist, which affects the light. This has led to the misunderstanding in the public, that quantum mechanics should imply, that there isn´t given any objective or true description of the physical reality, consequently that it is the human consciousness, which produces the phenomena: subjectivism. The same misunderstanding characterizes by the way also Einstein´s theory of relativity, that this should support relativism.
Alan Grayson
[Philip Benjamin]
Particles of matter with mass also BHAVE as waves [AS IF mass-less] with a wavelength, p=h/λ, first proposed by de Broglie, where p is momentum. Matter PARTICLE is found to have interference PROPERTIES AS IF any other wave. AS IF Logic ≠ BOTH & Fallacy Behaving ≠ Being. Behaving is a PROPERTY which can be epistemically understood. Being is ontology which is beyond the scope of finite sciences and finite brains, howsoever brilliant the brains be. One need not confound being with behaving.
Philip Benjamin
Yes, “that something has existence;” if existence here means “theoretical” or “mathematical” or “statistical” not ontological. “Doesn't mean we know exactly what it is”, is true if that knowledge is necessarily ontological. A calculated wavelength of a particulate matter particle with mass does not imply the reality of massless waves. No such transmutations ever occur in the physical realm. Philip Benjamin
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to
everything-li...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/317061eb-ca42-49ce-a520-821619f34cd7n%40googlegroups.com.
Alan Grayson
Yes, “that something has existence;” if existence here means “theoretical” or “mathematical” or “statistical” not ontological. “Doesn't mean we know exactly what it is”, is true if that knowledge is necessarily ontological. A calculated wavelength of a particulate matter particle with mass does not imply the reality of massless waves. No such transmutations ever occur in the physical realm. Philip Benjamin
