RE: [External] [SBoC-F] Superposition and entanglement
Vasavada, Kashyap V
Hi Sung,
No!!! The 3rd sentence basically defines the word wavicle. Someone defined a short word wavicle to avoid repeating the dual wave particle properties every time. Quantum field is still primary object defined before wavicle, and wave-particle may be the only way yet to observe it. But quantum fields can exist independently whether particles or waves are present or not. In fact that is what is supposed to have happened at the time of origin of universe. Quantum fields and no particles or waves! Also for 50 years physicists were kind of convinced that there must be Higgs field to get weak-e-m unification. Weinberg, Glashow and Salam got Nobel Prize for unification using Higgs field. That made it urgent to find Higgs particle which took some 50 years or so because it needed lot higher energy. Quantum fields have so many properties, commutativity, non-commutativity , creation, annihilation operators etc. Particles and waves are not mathematical operators. Quantum fields are!! Particles inherit many properties of quantum fields, such as spin etc. when they are created. Waves do not have many properties like spin. So Instead of continuing these wordy arguments, you would have done better by reading some college level books!!
Best
kashyap
From: biological-phys...@googlegroups.com <biological-phys...@googlegroups.com>
On Behalf Of Sungchul Ji
Sent: Saturday, March 11, 2023 9:32 PM
To: Biological-Phys...@googlegroups.com
Cc: sboc-...@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: [External] [SBoC-F] Superposition and entanglement
Hi Kashyap,
"I agree with all the three statements in blue."
I reproduce below the three statements in blue. You are not thinking logically. You cannot accept the three statements together, because accepting Statements (3/11/2023/31) and (3/11/2023/32) would make wavicle and quantum field equivalent which contradicts Statement (3/11/2023/30).
"So quantum field and wavicle are the same is nonsense." (3/11/2023/3
"Waves and particles are two aspects of quantum field when measured under appropriate circumstances." (3/11/2023/31)
"Waves and particles are two aspects of wavicles when measured under appropriate circumstances." (3/11/2023/32)
All the best.
Sung
---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: Vasavada, Kashyap V <vasa...@iupui.edu>
Date: Sat, Mar 11, 2023 at 9:00 PM
Subject: RE: [External] [SBoC-F] Superposition and entanglement
To:
Biological-Phys...@googlegroups.com <Biological-Phys...@googlegroups.com>
Cc: sboc-...@googlegroups.com <sboc-...@googlegroups.com>
Hi Sung,
I agree with all the three statements in blue. My point is that quantum field is the primary object as of today. Wavicle word was coined by someone to express duality. But quantum field is not wavicle. To see particle or wave aspect one needs certain circumstances ,conditions. It is not that quantum fields are sometimes particles, sometimes waves at random!! Experimentalists typically know how to prepare beams of particles, they rarely care for waves!!
Best
kashyap
From:
biological-phys...@googlegroups.com <biological-phys...@googlegroups.com>
On Behalf Of Sungchul Ji
Sent: Saturday, March 11, 2023 8:48 PM
To:
Biological-Phys...@googlegroups.com
Cc: sboc-...@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: [External] [SBoC-F] Superposition and entanglement
Hi Kashyap,
"So quantum field and wavicle are the same is nonsense." (3/11/2023/30)
This statement would be true if wavicle and wave are synonymous but wrong if they are not.
My impression is that, for you, they are synonymous. If I am mistaken, please let me know.
"Waves and particles are two aspects of quantum field when measured under appropriate circumstances." (3/11/2023/31)
It is possible that I understand this statement more deeply than you in some sense, because for you the following equivalent statement would be is nonsense.
"Waves and particles are two aspects of wavicles when measured under appropriate circumstances." (3/11/2023/32)
All the best.
Sung
On Sat, Mar 11, 2023 at 4:34 PM Vasavada, Kashyap V <vasa...@iupui.edu> wrote:
Hi Sung,
Sorry, you are offended by my statements. But scientists have to be honest and blunt. If I make some wrong statements about pharmacology and toxicology, you are welcome to say that I am talking nonsense!! You did make confusing and wrong statements about standing waves. Now you are making similar confusing statements about wave-particle duality. When you say quantum field is equal to wavicle, you are missing that quantum field is the primary object. Under different set ups of measurement it appears as particle or wave. Do you understand that they had to build a 10 B dollar LHC to pump enough energy to create Higgs Boson which decayed in 10^ (-21) sec. A quantum field does not automatically become wave or particle (wavicle) like tossing a coin! Some particles are stable, some are not. Also you pass an electron through Stern Gerlach equipment, it shows particle character like spin and bending trajectory. You let the output beam through double slit, it will show interference like wave. Otherwise the original quantum field will propagate unchanged for million miles if the Hamiltonian does not change. So quantum field and wavicle are same is nonsense. Waves and particles are two aspects of quantum field when measured under appropriate circumstances. Quantum fields obey basic equations of theory. Particles and waves are strictly experimental aspects.
Best
kashyap
From: biological-phys...@googlegroups.com <biological-phys...@googlegroups.com> On Behalf Of Sungchul Ji
Sent: Saturday, March 11, 2023 3:01 PM
To: Biological-Phys...@googlegroups.com
Cc: sboc-...@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: [External] [SBoC-F] Superposition and entanglement
Hi Kashyap,
"That is wave particle duality now known for some 100 years." (3/11/2023/1)
You do not have to keep repeating this well-known fact. Instead try to say something new.
"Show me a book which is called quantum particle theory or quantum wave theory." (3/11/2023/2)
It does not matter if there are or there are no books called quantum particle theory or quantum wave theory.
The important point is that
"There are many books on wavicles called (3/11/2023/3)
Quantum Field Theory".
The validity of Statement (3/11/2023/3) critically depends on the assumption that Quantum Field and Wavicle are equivalent,
wavicle being defined as the complementary union of wave and particle, just as light is the complementary union of wave and particle,
as indicated in Equation (3/11/2023/4).
Wavicle = (Wave)^(Particle) (3/11/2023/4)
Equation (3/11/2023/4) represents the Principle of Wave-Particle Duality (PWPD) which is violated by those who conflate wavicles (defined above) and waves.
In other words, those who dismiss the concept of wavicle by replacing it with wave are committing what may be called the 2-to-1 conflation error (2-to-1CE). In my humble opinion, Kashyap may be committing the 2-to-1 CE, since he seems to deny the concept of wavicle as fundamental.
With all the best.
Sung
Oat, Mar 11, 2023 at 7:50 AM Vasavada, Kashyap V <vasa...@iupui.edu> wrote:
Jo and Sung,
I have said enough. Quantum fields are fundamental objects. Calling them wavicle is not altogether wrong. But it is a confusing statement. It ignores the primacy of quantum fields in physics. Quantum field theory is used for theoretical calculations. Experimental methods of measurement reveal particle or wave character. That is wave particle duality now known for some 100 years. There is a quantum field theory. Show me a book which is called quantum particle theory or quantum wave theory. The current model of big bang is that initially there were only quantum fields. At some point in time, during 1st second particles came out. But even particles the moment you pass them through double slit equipment will show wave interference. You have to read some undergraduate physics books. End of discussion on my part! If you want to keep on believing in nonsense from MSP POV it is your problem, not mine!!! I do not lose anything.
Best
kashyap
From: sboc-...@googlegroups.com <sboc-...@googlegroups.com> On Behalf Of Edwards, Jonathan
Sent: Saturday, March 11, 2023 6:46 AM
To: sboc-...@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: [External] [SBoC-F] Superposition and entanglement
Kashyap,
I agree with Sung that you are being quite confusing. You say that a street lamp emits e-m fields. But my reading of the usage is that there is one universal EM field and the lamp emits packets with energy called photons that contribute to the total field. Photons must be there outside labs and have specific energy content and notional frequencies in order for trees to grow or drift wood to be bleached.
What I have seen that confuses people is that photons, electrons etc. are described as themselves having ‘field structure’ because ‘wave equations’ allocate values to many locations. However, these are merely devices for predicting measurements in labs and have as much to do with set up as the object of study.
I looked quickly on Google and found hundreds of references to ‘mode of excitation’ used as a standard term for photons, electrons, Higgs etc. I use it for a specific reason; all alternatives confuse people greatly. Particle suggests a grain of matter. Wave suggests fluctuations of something. Wavicle suggests both at once. As far as I am aware none of these apply to any reality. As you suggest the ‘wavicality’ of these packets of energy is an artefact of ascertaining measurements. Quantum seems to be used confusingly either for a single energy step or a single mode of excitation – so a p2 orbital is two quanta in one sense and one quantum in the other. People also quibble about ‘quasiparticles’. (Even mode is troublesome because it can refer to an ensemble or an instance of an ensemble.)
My reasons for carefully avoiding all these confusions relates to your (incorrect!) statement:
On the other hand, existence of soul is not required to explain any physics/science experiment.
You absolutely have to have souls, specifically for experiments because souls are observers. To say that physics only really applies in lab experiments (how your account sounds) with observations and that it needs no souls is a complete contradiction because you need souls for observations, whereas you don’t need them for trees to grow or lamps to shine when we are asleep.
You are very keen on dismissing ontology but you are heavily into ontology yourself – and an ontology that cannot work. It is a bit like Spinoza’s. It denies that physics has to include dynamic units that can do the observing. A physics with no account of observers is a sham. Which is why Leibniz, in addition to identifying conservation of energy and other stuff, proposed that there must be individual dynamic units and it would be parsimonious if there was only one sort – that could be both observers and observed.
The study of consciousness then becomes crucially dependent on whether this is right, that there is only one general class of dynamic unit that can be both, and if so which ones are we, or whether souls are something quite different, like complex non-linear dynamical systems. Without laying out these questions discussion of consciousness in the context of physics become a waste of time.
My strong suspicion is that many people discard the idea that observers are mode of excitation of fields because they cannot see how a ‘particle’ or ‘wavicle’ could be an observer. I think this is due to unsound assumptions. As far as I can see all the alternatives generate contradictions. This is all physics if one is going to have a complete physics rather than one that only applies in labs where there are no observers!
From: sboc-...@googlegroups.com <sboc-...@googlegroups.com> on behalf of Vasavada, Kashyap V <vasa...@iupui.edu>
Date: Friday, 10 March 2023 at 22:43
To: sboc-...@googlegroups.com <sboc-...@googlegroups.com>
Cc: Biological Physics and Meaning <biological-phys...@googlegroups.com>
Subject: RE: [External] [SBoC-F] Superposition and entanglementJo,
Yes. Street lamp is emitting e-m fields like TV tower with a different process. But if you set up photon counters you will see photon particles, if you set up double slits in front of it you will see interference. Until then whatever is propagating is a field satisfying e-m equations!! Physics is done with mathematics and experimental equipment for more than 400 years now. The words you are using, modes and boundary conditions are mathematical words!!
BTW you and Sung might be arguing that when particles are created in high energy experiments, they were already inside some bag!! E =mC^2 creates particles out of energy.
Best
kashyap
From: sboc-...@googlegroups.com <sboc-...@googlegroups.com> On Behalf Of Edwards, Jonathan
Sent: Friday, March 10, 2023 4:01 PM
To: sboc-...@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: [External] [SBoC-F] Superposition and entanglement
Kashyap,
I fully understand what you are saying in practical terms but it does sound a bit odd.
I have been trying to persuade people that a ‘wave function’ is merely a mathematical artifice applied to an experimental set up that defines an ensemble of possible modes and boundary conditions and then works out predictions for measurements. You seem to agree, which is reassuring.
But the way you put it makes it sound as if a sodium vapour street light when everyone is asleep is not emitting photons in the yellow range at all. I agree we can say the EM field is just doing its thing but most people assume that there really are individual modes of excitation – in accordance with the logical step that led from black body radiation spectrum to quantum theories. If you have a wave function for an ensemble of modes it seems like there out to be a possibility of a mode showing up. And I don’t think anyone thinks that physicists are powerful enough magicians to conjure modes out of nowhere when doing experiments when the rest of the time the world doesn’t bother with modes and black bodies don’t really have that spectrum unless you sneak a look?
Presumably in certain sorts of vast catastrophic astronomic phenomena like supernovae Higgs particles are likely to pop up now and again?
From: sboc-...@googlegroups.com <sboc-...@googlegroups.com> on behalf of Vasavada, Kashyap V <vasa...@iupui.edu>
Date: Friday, 10 March 2023 at 21:46
To: biological-phys...@googlegroups.com <biological-phys...@googlegroups.com>
Cc: sboc-...@googlegroups.com <sboc-...@googlegroups.com>
Subject: RE: [External] [SBoC-F] Superposition and entanglementHi Sung,
What I am saying is that Quantum fields are fundamental. All theory is and should be in terms of these fields. Until you set up an experiment to measure, it remains field. So wavicle is not equivalent to field. Higgs field is in our houses all the time. Higgs particles are produced for a small time and decay in 10^ (-21) sec or so in LHC. They are not present in our houses right now. So they are not equivalent. LHS had to pump in lot of energy to excite Higgs field and produce Higgs particles momentarily. Lot of people confuse between fields and particles or waves. They are not same!!
Best
kashyap
From: biological-phys...@googlegroups.com <biological-phys...@googlegroups.com> On Behalf Of Sungchul Ji
Sent: Friday, March 10, 2023 3:20 PM
To: Biological-Phys...@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: [External] [SBoC-F] Superposition and entanglement
Hi Kashyap,
(1) Quantum Field Theory (QFT) and the concept of Wavicles.
"Quantum field is a fundamental object in QFT. There is no quantum particle theory or quantum wave theory." (3/10/2023/1)
But aren't they all related -- i) quantum fields, ii) waves, and iii) particles -- in the context of the principle of wave-particle duality? In other words, don't quantum fields give rise to waves or particles, upon measurement ? In agreement with many physicists, I find it useful to use the word 'wavicle' to represent (or signify) the complementary union of waves and particles, just as light can be viewed as the complementary union of waves and particles. Using this convenient term, we may logically assume that quantum field and wavicle are synonyms. That is, the following two expressions may be considered as equivalent, where the symbol ^ indicates the complementary relation:
Wavicle = (Wave)^(Particle) (3/10/2023/1)
Quantum Field = (Wave)^(Particle) (3/10/2023/2)
The quantum-field-as-a-wavicle idea is depicted in Figure 50.
Figure 50. The Quantum Field Theory and Wavicles: Quantum Fields as Wavicles, a postulate.
According to the principle of wave-particle duality [1], light is neither wave or particle until it is measured. Hence light can be viewed as ‘wavicle’, a neologism that combines ‘wave’ (wavi-) and ‘particle’ (-cle). The so-called ‘Collapse of wave function’ is then thought to occur when wavicles interact with a measuring device to generate waves and/or particles, depending on the nature of the measuring device.
Reference:
[1] Wavicle-particle duality. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wave%E2%80%93particle_duality
[2]
(2) The Incompleteness of QFT.
To the best of my knowledge, QFT, being a mathematical theory, captures only the quantitative aspect of reality, leaving out its qualitative aspect. If this conjecture is correct, quantum mechanics is incomplete as pointed out by Einstein for a different reason.
Let me know if you have any questions, comments or criticisms.
With all the best.
Sung
_________________________________________
Sungchul Ji, Ph.D.
Emeritus Professor of Theoretical Cell BiologyDepartment of Pharmacology and Toxicology
Ernest Mario School of Pharmacy
Rutgers University
Piscataway, N.J. 08855
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Biological Physics and Meaning" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to
Biological-Physics-an...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web, visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Biological-Physics-and-Meaning/CA%2B9VsvPQ8yU2%2Bu2Yq6euqtRLfQtK7FOSv688QqgOBFu%2BYJeK8g%40mail.gmail.com.
Vasavada, Kashyap V
Hi Ram,
Physicists are pretty sure that graviton exists and gravity can be quantized. But experimentally graviton is very hard to detect because gravity is at least 10^40 to 10^48 times weaker than e-m interaction at elementary particle level. Also since gravitation is non renormalizable and there are some issues with quantum version of Einstein’s GR curvature of space, it has been so far not possible to give a theory of quantum gravity. But your calculation of wavelength is right, since the speed of gravitational waves is the same as speed of light.
BTW detection of gravitational waves was not trivial. They had to measure displacements of 10 ^(-15) m !! IT took years and big effort by thousands of people with fancy laser equipment. Anyway, you do not want to be close to whatever emitted those gravitational waves. You would be crushed!
Best
kashyap
From: sboc-...@googlegroups.com <sboc-...@googlegroups.com>
On Behalf Of Ram Lakhan Pandey Vimal
Sent: Sunday, March 12, 2023 7:32 PM
To: sboc-...@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: [External] [SBoC-F] Superposition and entanglement
Hi Siegfried and Kashyap,
The elementary particle graviton with (mass~0, charge=0, spin = 2) is particle aspect and gravitational wave is the wave aspect of gravitational quantum field (G-QF). However, G-QF is hypothetical at present time.
Does gravitational wave has frequency of 0.5 Hz, and a wavelength of about 600 000 km, or 47 times the diameter of the Earth?
Regards
Ram
Sent from my iPhone
On Mar 12, 2023, at 1:22 PM, Siegfried Bleher <sbl...@msn.com> wrote:
Dear Ram,
For weak gravity, QFT can make some predictions, as the math still works then. But it fails for strong curvature. Superstring theory purports to provide a consistent picture of gravity if extra compact dimensions are added to our 4D spacetime, but so far little about string theory is experimentally accessible. Plus, it is also perturbative. Loop quantum gravity is nonperturbative, but also not accessible experimentally; CFT/AdS duality sidesteps the problems of quantizing gravity by showing quantum entanglement in a conformal QFT on a flat spacetime is dual to curvature in a one-higher dimension spacetime when the CFT is the boundary of the bulk spacetime. However, the bulk spacetimes this duality have been shown to work with are not ours! So, some incremental progress, but nothing yet solves the big problems (like identifying dark matter, why is dark energy so small, etc.).
Cheers,
Siegfried
From: sboc-...@googlegroups.com <sboc-...@googlegroups.com> On Behalf Of Ram Lakhan Pandey Vimal
Sent: Sunday, March 12, 2023 12:31 PM
To: sboc-...@googlegroups.com
Cc: Biological-Phys...@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: [External] [SBoC-F] Superposition and entanglement
Thanks, Siegfried.
You propose third definition for wavicle as a mixture of wave and particle.
Kashyap’s definition for wavicle is wave or particle.
Sing’s definition: wavicle = quantum field.
Is there any development for QFT on curved background spacetime to include gravity?
Regards
Ram
Sent from my iPhone
On Mar 11, 2023, at 6:26 PM, Siegfried Bleher <sbl...@msn.com> wrote:
Dear Sung and Jo,
I don’t know if this helps at all, but part of the confusion may be coming from the fact that the quantum description of nature began with the Schrodinger wave equation and was superseded by the quantum field description, which set forces and particles on an equal footing (well, almost equal—supersymmetry does the latter more thoroughly, but so far no supersymmetric particles have been discovered). One can derive the quantum field description for classical many body systems from the Schrodinger equation, but the field description is far more convenient to use for many body systems, it lends itself better to relativistic conditions in which particles can be created and destroyed, symmetries can be better represented, etc. The situations where one can predict probabilities of various kinds using QFT or wave mechanics (i.e., the Schrodinger equation), the methods are equivalent. The ‘thing’ the mathematical object represents cannot be said to have existence until it is observed precisely because the formalism of the method can make no specific claim until the conditions of the observation are specified too.
The wave described by the Schrodinger equation (and the field excitation that embeds the boundary conditions) are complex objects (i.e., they have imaginary components), so they are not like a water wave in that respect.
Experiments that confirm Wheeler’s delayed choice thought experiment confirm the notion that whatever the field carries that we call an electron or photon is not a particle, nor a wave, nor a mixture of both (a wavicle) until the moment of detection. If we could ‘see’ properties other than particulate or wave, the Schrodinger equation could represent that too. Coherent states (wave packets in phase space) are an example of this sort of thing, so the ‘binary’ description is also missing the mark as to what the field excitation represents (or wave function).
For all its successes, QFT assumes a flat background spacetime for its perturbative methods to work properly, so it doesn’t play well with gravity. I add this just to point out that we may not yet have the best theoretical substrate on which to pin our hopes for a successful theory of consciousness—if we wish to look to QFT for either helpful insights or useful methodology.
Best,
Siegfried
<image001.png>
Figure 50. The Quantum Field Theory and Wavicles: Quantum Fields as Wavicles, a postulate.
According to the principle of wave-particle duality [1], light is neither wave or particle until it is measured. Hence light can be viewed as ‘wavicle’, a neologism that combines ‘wave’ (wavi-) and ‘particle’ (-cle). The so-called ‘Collapse of wave function’ is then thought to occur when wavicles interact with a measuring device to generate waves and/or particles, depending on the nature of the measuring device.
Reference:
[1] Wavicle-particle duality. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wave%E2%80%93particle_duality
[2]
(2) The Incompleteness of QFT.
To the best of my knowledge, QFT, being a mathematical theory, captures only the quantitative aspect of reality, leaving out its qualitative aspect. If this conjecture is correct, quantum mechanics is incomplete as pointed out by Einstein for a different reason.
Let me know if you have any questions, comments or criticisms.
With all the best.
Sung
On Wed, Mar 8, 2023 at 9:27 AM Vasavada, Kashyap V <vasa...@iupui.edu> wrote:
Jo,
Additional. Wave-particle duality is an experimental fact and that is built into formalisms of QM and QFT. AS I said before, it is high time people understand that Quantum field is a fundamental object in QFT. There is no quantum particle theory or quantum wave theory. Non physicists are unnecessarily confusing themselves. If you want to talk to a cardiologist, you have to use his/her language. You cannot use the same language that you use with carpenters!!
Best
kashyap
From: sboc-...@googlegroups.com <sboc-...@googlegroups.com> On Behalf Of Vasavada, Kashyap V
Sent: Wednesday, March 8, 2023 9:20 AM
To: sboc-...@googlegroups.com
Cc: Biological Physics and Meaning <Biological-Phys...@googlegroups.com>
Subject: RE: [External] [SBoC-F] Superposition and entanglement
Jo,
I do not know what you mean by modes of excitation. But mathematics of QFT has not changed from the first day. Lagrangian
And Hamiltonian are written as products of field operators , like phi1(x, t)* [ ] phi2(x, t) … Here there may be derivatives in the [] brackets. All observables are derived from these.
Best
kashyap
From: sboc-...@googlegroups.com <sboc-...@googlegroups.com> On Behalf Of Edwards, Jonathan
Sent: Wednesday, March 8, 2023 4:27 AM
To: sboc-...@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: [External] [SBoC-F] Superposition and entanglement
I still think that Kashyap is being too ontological even talking of waves and particles. Isn’t it time the language of QFT accepted that modes of excitation are absolutely neither and as such make complete logical sense (Stan). Maybe that is why they make sense in Vedanta, maybe not!
A wave and a particle are both divisible dynamic concepts. They have actual states inside their histories. The wave has different phases, the particle different positions. If a mode of excitation is indivisible it would make no logical sense for it to have either – it would be a contradiction.
I don’t understand the formalism but my guess is that the equations show that modes of excitation are posited causal connections the explain measurable variables at different locations in spacetime whose probability of occurrence is determined by a complex combination of (interdependent) discrete and periodic dynamic structural variables.
Which is why I like the chess move analogy – which similarly has a probability of occurrence determined by the current state of all relevant fields (where all the pieces are), discrete properties like being a King’s move or a Pawn’s move and a periodicity that reflects both the board (spacetime) metric and the way that piece makes use of the metric. (Not to mention some free choice.) The move has no trajectory like a particle, nor any oscillations. It just either happens, or not.
From: sboc-...@googlegroups.com <sboc-...@googlegroups.com> on behalf of Chris King <dhus...@gmail.com>
Date: Wednesday, 8 March 2023 at 03:32
To: Scientific Basis of Consciousness Forum <sboc-...@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: [External] [SBoC-F] Superposition and entanglement
⚠ Caution: External sender
I fully agree with what Kashyap just now sent.
Me too because Lagrangians don't lie …
<image002.jpg>
CK
On 8/03/2023, at 2:09 PM, Stanley A. KLEIN <skl...@berkeley.edu> wrote:
I fully agree with what Kashyap just now sent.
It is wonderfully strange that any of the 18 wavicles can be both waves and particles.
It doesn't make "logical" sense, but it is wonderful.
Stan
On Tue, Mar 7, 2023 at 4:55 PM Vasavada, Kashyap V <vasa...@iupui.edu> wrote:
Ram,
Yes. De Broglie got Nobel prize for his hypothesis of wave particle duality. BTW current concept is that fundamental quantity is quantum field which shows up as a wave or a particle depending on the measurement set up to measure wave property (Like interference) or particle property like in electric, magnetic field, spin etc. It is a wrong concept some people have on this forum that wave is fundamental and it becomes particle sometime!
Best
kashyap
From: sboc-...@googlegroups.com <sboc-...@googlegroups.com> On Behalf Of Ram Lakhan Pandey Vimal
Sent: Tuesday, March 7, 2023 7:43 PM
To: sboc-...@googlegroups.com
Subject: [External] Re: [SBoC-F] Superposition and entanglement
This message was sent from a non-IU address. Please exercise caution when clicking links or opening attachments from external sources.
Hi Surge, Jo, Stan, and Kashyap,
My understanding is that wave and particle (excitation/mode of field/wave) are two complementary aspects of a wavicle. Per (Wikipedia, 7mar23), “The de Broglie wavelength is the wavelength, λ, associated with a massive particle (i.e., a particle with mass [m], as opposed to a massless particle) and is related to its momentum, p, through the Planck constant, h”:
λ = h/p = h/mv; this equation earned Nobel Prize to de Broglie: is this correct?
Furthermore, energy E =hf (wave)=mc2 (particle)
Per (Wikipedia, 7mar23), “Louis Victor Pierre Raymond, 7th Duc de Broglie (15 August 1892 – 19 March 1987)[6] was a French physicist and aristocrat who made groundbreaking contributions to quantum theory. In his 1924 PhD thesis, he postulated the wave nature of electrons and suggested that all matter has wave properties. This concept is known as the de Broglie hypothesis, an example of wave–particle duality, and forms a central part of the theory of quantum mechanics. De Broglie won the Nobel Prize for Physics in 1929, after the wave-like behaviour of matter was first experimentally demonstrated in 1927.”
Cheers!
Kind regards,
Rām
----------------------------------------------------------
Rām Lakhan Pāndey Vimal, Ph.D.
Amarāvati-Hīrāmaṇi Professor (Research) and President
Vision Research Institute Inc, Physics, Neuroscience, & Consciousness Research Dept.
25 Rita Street, Lowell, MA 01854 USA
Ph: +1 978 954 7522; eFAX: +1 440 388 7907
Researched at the University of Chicago and Harvard Medical Schools
On Monday, 6 March, 2023 at 01:03:33 pm GMT-5, Serge Patlavskiy <prodi...@gmail.com> wrote:
Stanley A. KLEIN <skl...@berkeley.edu> wrote:
>Jo, I'm not clear about your comment on how waves and
>particles are working together.
>That connection is central to modern physics.
.
[S.P.] Do I correctly understand that the idea of wave-particle
duality is already abolished by "modern physics"? Are we now being
suggested to consider the waves and particles as TWO separately and
objectively existing entities which somehow and (maybe, just out of
boredom) interact with each other?
.
Let me recollect that the idea of wave-particle duality does not
operate with such concepts as "wave" and "particle" (in the classical
meaning of these terms). It operates with a concept of some previously
unknown objectively existing SINGLE entity which (1)
behaves-as-a-particle (while being emitted and absorbed) and which (2)
behaves-as-a-wave (while propagating). "To be" and "to behave-as" (or
"to show-the-properties-of") are two different faculties.
.
The idea of wave-particle duality is about the duality of properties
of a single entity, but not about the duality, or connection, or
interaction between the separate entities.
Serge
<#DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2>
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Scientific Basis of Consciousness Forum" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to sboc-forum+...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/sboc-forum/CA%2B72zf5Q0rDZos0krBFb-SH8AKjQGn0hKbEAKzns1BU89POWLg%40mail.gmail.com.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Scientific Basis of Consciousness Forum" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to sboc-forum+...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/sboc-forum/1321996256.384977.1678236200097%40mail.yahoo.com.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Scientific Basis of Consciousness Forum" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to sboc-forum+...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/sboc-forum/BY3PR08MB7028B1CEB63D1C8EA37C19ABC7B49%40BY3PR08MB7028.namprd08.prod.outlook.com.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Scientific Basis of Consciousness Forum" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to sboc-forum+...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/sboc-forum/CAEKJmQ0pg_6eLY92eJfLapotQ4_q4WG2zJOAFb9aSY79V5Orhw%40mail.gmail.com.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Scientific Basis of Consciousness Forum" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to sboc-forum+...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/sboc-forum/ADA135B8-AAC4-481A-B90A-0C3677690D01%40gmail.com.--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Scientific Basis of Consciousness Forum" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to sboc-forum+...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/sboc-forum/AM6PR01MB41330F67E5DEC8BE86D9116BC5B49%40AM6PR01MB4133.eurprd01.prod.exchangelabs.com.--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Scientific Basis of Consciousness Forum" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to sboc-forum+...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/sboc-forum/BY3PR08MB70287C1EA146A6FCA0E411C0C7B49%40BY3PR08MB7028.namprd08.prod.outlook.com.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Biological Physics and Meaning" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to Biological-Physics-an...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web, visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Biological-Physics-and-Meaning/BY3PR08MB7028AA628DBF24699B29EBBEC7B49%40BY3PR08MB7028.namprd08.prod.outlook.com.
--
Sungchul Ji, Ph.D.
Associate Professor of Pharmacology and Toxicology
Department of Pharmacology and Toxicology
Ernest Mario School of Pharmacy
Rutgers University
Piscataway, N.J. 08855
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Biological Physics and Meaning" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to Biological-Physics-an...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web, visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Biological-Physics-and-Meaning/CA%2B9VsvM0uEUxaLYPF1%2Bk5_uBbpP6swnkp9vHdSq%3Dsq_hr9T5jg%40mail.gmail.com.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Scientific Basis of Consciousness Forum" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to sboc-forum+...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/sboc-forum/BY3PR08MB70283F94E2251DADBE538929C7BA9%40BY3PR08MB7028.namprd08.prod.outlook.com.--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Scientific Basis of Consciousness Forum" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to sboc-forum+...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/sboc-forum/AM6PR01MB4133311485AA139BAFBC85ACC5BA9%40AM6PR01MB4133.eurprd01.prod.exchangelabs.com.--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Scientific Basis of Consciousness Forum" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to sboc-forum+...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/sboc-forum/BY3PR08MB70282BCAE09B7706DEFCBA9AC7BA9%40BY3PR08MB7028.namprd08.prod.outlook.com.--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Scientific Basis of Consciousness Forum" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to sboc-forum+...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/sboc-forum/AM6PR01MB4133D9F16088BE8D9C2FFC35C5BB9%40AM6PR01MB4133.eurprd01.prod.exchangelabs.com.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Biological Physics and Meaning" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to Biological-Physics-an...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web, visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Biological-Physics-and-Meaning/BY3PR08MB70284EA0D0EA40F8800119F5C7BB9%40BY3PR08MB7028.namprd08.prod.outlook.com.
--
Sungchul Ji, Ph.D.
Associate Professor of Pharmacology and Toxicology
Department of Pharmacology and Toxicology
Ernest Mario School of Pharmacy
Rutgers University
Piscataway, N.J. 08855
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Biological Physics and Meaning" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to Biological-Physics-an...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web, visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Biological-Physics-and-Meaning/CA%2B9VsvN0AthJ-OEoJfYnbi%3DZRV1LQ_MYM1UpQfbGjnhxOcgpqQ%40mail.gmail.com.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Scientific Basis of Consciousness Forum" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to sboc-forum+...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/sboc-forum/BY3PR08MB7028102192E4F366E147D4DAC7BB9%40BY3PR08MB7028.namprd08.prod.outlook.com.--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Scientific Basis of Consciousness Forum" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to sboc-forum+...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/sboc-forum/CY5PR11MB6437E74023A16FBDCB703653A2BB9%40CY5PR11MB6437.namprd11.prod.outlook.com.--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Scientific Basis of Consciousness Forum" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to sboc-forum+...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/sboc-forum/480933DC-084F-4E63-91E6-06FFD808CD20%40gmail.com.--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Scientific Basis of Consciousness Forum" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to sboc-forum+...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/sboc-forum/CY5PR11MB6437616B932F47D263E9FDE4A2B89%40CY5PR11MB6437.namprd11.prod.outlook.com.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Scientific Basis of Consciousness Forum" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to
sboc-forum+...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/sboc-forum/61CEE5DE-F9F2-4569-997D-FA32ACA59121%40gmail.com.