Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

Understanding Light.


  • Please log in to reply
42 replies to this topic

#18 exchemist

exchemist

    Creating

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2808 posts

Posted 21 April 2017 - 12:09 PM

What exactly causes the wave nature of light to collapses into the particle nature of light considering that the particle model can apply even if the photons are released separately?

 

What is it exactly that collapses the wave function. QM just says it does,

True. But there is no inconsistency or incompatibility here, nor are there two conflicting models. There is one, fully consistent, model. 

 

In QM the square modulus of the state function is a probability density. That is a given. An explanation as to why is not offered, true enough. One operates on the state function in other ways to obtain various other physically observable properties, such as momentum, energy and so forth. Those also are givens.

 

However this model reflects what we observe, without any conflicts.  The question of why it works seems to me a bit like asking why mass bends spacetime in relativity, surely. It is what the maths says it does, i.e. it is the best model we have.

 

I have the feeling that perhaps you are asking more of science that it actually seeks to offer. Science offers predictive models of physical phenomena that we think approximate physical reality increasingly closely as the centuries roll by. But you can always ask further "why" questions that do not have an answer in science.  



#19 quickquestion

quickquestion

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 55 posts

Posted 21 April 2017 - 12:12 PM

No it doesn't work like that in science. 

 

It is the person making the claim that needs to show evidence for it. What is your evidence?

 

Regarding light affecting magnets, how do you think a radio antenna works? And how do you think absorption of visible light by atoms and molecules occurs?

Einstein had no evidence for his theory of Relativity when he originally invented it. When the experts asked him for evidence, he replied "Then I would have felt sorry for the dear Lord. The theory is correct."

 

Einstein, like me, was a top-down thinker and a rebel. Did you know he did not believe in Quantum Physics or Big Bang?

 

Einstein actually proves my aether. Spaceship pancaking is a phenomenon related to the propogation rate of matter and aether.

 

I am currently thinking of multiple thought experiments which will disprove Einstein's relativity.

One is called the Grandma Problem.

Einstein is finally defeated by the Grandma Problem. The Grandma Problem is a thought experiment that says this; "If a grandma is watching an astronaut take off at 99% c, and then she goes and walks to her suburban house with her binoculars...The astronaut will see himself at Mars but the grandma still on the beach."

 

This can be further demonstrated by the fact that light is not instantaneous to observers, but has a speed, c. If a particle of light was conscious, it would create a paradox for the universe, because when it observed, time would be standing still, and it would still be at the early stage of the universe, passing planets which do not yet exist for it...but to other observers, it would be moving through space, and passing planets freely. Thus any conscious observer who moves at c creates a paradox. (But also any conscious observer who moves subluminal would also create a paradox of divergent realities.) Thus we know that Einstein's relativity is false, because it claims Time stops if it travels at c...which is demonstrably false because light collides with objects located in the present location, and not the location they had when the light was first emitted.

 

 

Armand Fizeau experiment proves light is not a constant. But Relativists tried to explain it away using complex mental gymnastics.

 

I have been reading a book called "Phenomenal Physics" by Isaac McPhee. The author states that the speed of light is proven to be a constant because of the Michelson Morley experiment and the Armand Fizeau experiment. This is a mind-numbing fallacy because the Michelson Morley experiment did not prove light is not relative. Thus I am left with faith to assume the Armand Fizeau proves it (Very little faith, since the author committed a fallacy and so why should I believe his mention of Armand is not also a fallacy.) Morley does not prove light is not relative. First of all the experiment was too crude to even report the effects of gravity on light. We can all agree that light is effected by gravity. If Morley's interferometer lacked the precision to notice a change via gravity then it lacks the needed precision to make light calculations. Fundamentally it is mind-numbing to say that Morley's interferomenter proves light is a constant. Imagine if I am in a zero-gravity chamber, and I shoot pingpongs in a ping-pong type interferometer. Both ping pongs will ping at the same time. This does not imply ping-pongs are a constant that disobeys relative velocity properites. The Morley simply proved that lumineferous ether wind does not exist. And I agree that luminiferous wind does not exist. My version of aether, is affected by mass particles. It is ridiculous to suggest that Morley's crude apparatus proves anything else.

 

Thus, I challenge that light is even a constant. I accuse that 100 years ago, people misinterpreted the results of the Armand Fizeau experiment. Light should have never been declared a constant. I am saying Einstein wasted his time by chasing a false herring. I am saying go back to the beginning...if light was never declared a constant then Einstein would have never made his theory. If you can prove light is a constant, I will delete this paragraph. If not, this paragraph remains.



#20 exchemist

exchemist

    Creating

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2808 posts

Posted 21 April 2017 - 12:35 PM

Einstein had no evidence for his theory of Relativity when he originally invented it. When the experts asked him for evidence, he replied "Then I would have felt sorry for the dear Lord. The theory is correct."

 

Einstein, like me, was a top-down thinker and a rebel. Did you know he did not believe in Quantum Physics or Big Bang?

 

Einstein actually proves my aether. Spaceship pancaking is a phenomenon related to the propogation rate of matter and aether.

 

I am currently thinking of multiple thought experiments which will disprove Einstein's relativity.

One is called the Grandma Problem.

Einstein is finally defeated by the Grandma Problem. The Grandma Problem is a thought experiment that says this; "If a grandma is watching an astronaut take off at 99% c, and then she goes and walks to her suburban house with her binoculars...The astronaut will see himself at Mars but the grandma still on the beach."

 

This can be further demonstrated by the fact that light is not instantaneous to observers, but has a speed, c. If a particle of light was conscious, it would create a paradox for the universe, because when it observed, time would be standing still, and it would still be at the early stage of the universe, passing planets which do not yet exist for it...but to other observers, it would be moving through space, and passing planets freely. Thus any conscious observer who moves at c creates a paradox. (But also any conscious observer who moves subluminal would also create a paradox of divergent realities.) Thus we know that Einstein's relativity is false, because it claims Time stops if it travels at c...which is demonstrably false because light collides with objects located in the present location, and not the location they had when the light was first emitted.

 

 

Armand Fizeau experiment proves light is not a constant. But Relativists tried to explain it away using complex mental gymnastics.

 

I have been reading a book called "Phenomenal Physics" by Isaac McPhee. The author states that the speed of light is proven to be a constant because of the Michelson Morley experiment and the Armand Fizeau experiment. This is a mind-numbing fallacy because the Michelson Morley experiment did not prove light is not relative. Thus I am left with faith to assume the Armand Fizeau proves it (Very little faith, since the author committed a fallacy and so why should I believe his mention of Armand is not also a fallacy.) Morley does not prove light is not relative. First of all the experiment was too crude to even report the effects of gravity on light. We can all agree that light is effected by gravity. If Morley's interferometer lacked the precision to notice a change via gravity then it lacks the needed precision to make light calculations. Fundamentally it is mind-numbing to say that Morley's interferomenter proves light is a constant. Imagine if I am in a zero-gravity chamber, and I shoot pingpongs in a ping-pong type interferometer. Both ping pongs will ping at the same time. This does not imply ping-pongs are a constant that disobeys relative velocity properites. The Morley simply proved that lumineferous ether wind does not exist. And I agree that luminiferous wind does not exist. My version of aether, is affected by mass particles. It is ridiculous to suggest that Morley's crude apparatus proves anything else.

 

Thus, I challenge that light is even a constant. I accuse that 100 years ago, people misinterpreted the results of the Armand Fizeau experiment. Light should have never been declared a constant. I am saying Einstein wasted his time by chasing a false herring. I am saying go back to the beginning...if light was never declared a constant then Einstein would have never made his theory. If you can prove light is a constant, I will delete this paragraph. If not, this paragraph remains.

Einstein built on evidence such as we have been discussing, viz, that there is no aether.  

 

If you have no evidence to support your theory, then you should be able to make a prediction that can be tested, which distinguishes your theory from the current one.  Give us one. 

 

It is also ballocks to say Einstein did not believe in quantum physics. What do you think he got his Nobel Prize for? And have you ever heard of Bose-Einstein statistics?  Or Einstein probability coefficients? One can barely do any quantum physics without tripping over Einstein's contributions to it. 

 

One feature you and Einstein do not have in common is this: Einstein took the trouble (and had the intellect) to understand current models of physics before starting to develop his own


  • JMJones0424 likes this

#21 Farming guy

Farming guy

    Explaining

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 961 posts

Posted 21 April 2017 - 04:45 PM

 Science offers predictive models of physical phenomena that we think approximate physical reality increasingly closely as the centuries roll by. But you can always ask further "why" questions that do not have an answer in science.  

I agree, except I would add "yet".



#22 A-wal

A-wal

    Creating

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1316 posts

Posted 21 April 2017 - 06:30 PM

True. But there is no inconsistency or incompatibility here, nor are there two conflicting models. There is one, fully consistent, model. 

 

In QM the square modulus of the state function is a probability density. That is a given. An explanation as to why is not offered, true enough. One operates on the state function in other ways to obtain various other physically observable properties, such as momentum, energy and so forth. Those also are givens.

 

However this model reflects what we observe, without any conflicts.  The question of why it works seems to me a bit like asking why mass bends spacetime in relativity, surely. It is what the maths says it does, i.e. it is the best model we have.

 

I have the feeling that perhaps you are asking more of science that it actually seeks to offer. Science offers predictive models of physical phenomena that we think approximate physical reality increasingly closely as the centuries roll by. But you can always ask further "why" questions that do not have an answer in science.  

The particle and wave duality of light is certainly not "one, fully consistent, model". QM describes in very loose terms how one model transitions into the other but they are entirely separate models of light that are in no way compatible with each other. You're taking the description of when to replace one with the other and that it's a self-consistent model in its own right. It isn't.

 

Yes you can always keep asking why but in your example of why does mass cause a curvature of spacetime, that's outside the scope of the model. There's one model that attempts to describe the behaviour of gravity, not two separate models, although I'd argue that it uses contradictory coordinate systems that do constitute two separate models.

 

If there's two different models needed to explain all the behaviour of something then neither is entirely accurate.



#23 JMJones0424

JMJones0424

    412.63 ppm

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1241 posts

Posted 21 April 2017 - 11:27 PM



The Michelson Morley experiment is Irrelevant to me because the aether I believe in is not lumineferous ether wind.

 

My aether, Adagio Aether is what I call it, moves with the earth's rotation and is affected by matter.

If you have an experiment which disproves such aether then please show it to me.

 

If light is a ElectroMagnetic field, then why does strong light have no effect on magnets? If light was magnetic, then wouldn't a strong laser push or pull a magnet (without touching the magnet.) Hint: Strong lasers have no effect on magnets, therefore I challenge Maxwell. If you prove me otherwise, then I will X out this paragraph.

I frankly don't care what aether you believe in.  I do care when you spout nonsense on a science forum.  The experiment I previously linked and those that have followed that agree with the null findings contradict your fantastical claim.  If an interplanetary medium existed that light travels through, and especially if such a medium were dragged with the rotation of the Earth, then the Michelson-Morley experiment could not have returned the data it did.  To be clear, the experiment showed that there was no discernible difference in the speed of light when this speed was measured at different points along the Earth's orbit about the Sun.  If your Adagio Aether hypothesis were correct, then we should expect to be able to measure differences in the speed of light depending on if the measurement is made with the rotation of the Earth or contrary to the rotation of the Earth.  In fact, we note no such discrepancy.  The original experiment refutes your claim, but if you are yet unsatisfied, I think a brief examination of how GPS works should be enough to convince you that Adagio Aether is an inadequate description of reality.

 

What do you mean by strong light?  Please don't delete this paragraph.  I'm not sure that I understand your confusion, but there's a good chance that you aren't the first to make it.  Perhaps, we can help others to understand as well.  My understanding in this area is not ideal, and better answers than I can give would be beneficial to me.

 

Many experiments have shown that electricity and magnetism are linked.  Every electric motor shows this to be obvious.  It is difficult, for me at least, to comprehend how light came into the fold.  Rather than arguing from ignorance, I would ask you to address your ignorance.  As I understand it, Maxwell was the first to show a link between the energy that we call light and electro-magnetism.

 

I will admit that I am over my head, though, and will readily accept correction if anything in this post is incorrect. 


Edited by JMJones0424, 21 April 2017 - 11:38 PM.


#24 exchemist

exchemist

    Creating

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2808 posts

Posted 22 April 2017 - 07:34 AM

The particle and wave duality of light is certainly not "one, fully consistent, model". QM describes in very loose terms how one model transitions into the other but they are entirely separate models of light that are in no way compatible with each other. You're taking the description of when to replace one with the other and that it's a self-consistent model in its own right. It isn't.

 

Yes you can always keep asking why but in your example of why does mass cause a curvature of spacetime, that's outside the scope of the model. There's one model that attempts to describe the behaviour of gravity, not two separate models, although I'd argue that it uses contradictory coordinate systems that do constitute two separate models.

 

If there's two different models needed to explain all the behaviour of something then neither is entirely accurate.

OK, I am sure now that you say the things you say because you have little understanding of quantum theory. 

 

To repeat something I said earlier, QM does not rely on one, or two, or any, mechanical models to explain things. It relies on its own, completely self-consistent mathematics. The wave-like (though not really classical waves - the general form of Schroedinger's "wave" equation is strictly a diffusion equation) and particle-like (though not classical particles) behaviour falls out of this, given the basic assumptions that QM makes. There is nothing "loose" about the mathematics of QM, I assure you. It is pretty rigorous and exact. Even the degree to which systems cannot be defined, in the various manifestations of the uncertainty principle that pop up everywhere, is described exactly. 

 

When people try to create physical pictures of what QM says, which they do in order to help those unfamiliar with QM to grasp how nature seems to behave,  yes, they resort to mechanical models of waves and particles, neither of which is capable of representing exactly what the mathematics says.

 

The limitations of these partial analogies should not be confused with supposed contradictions in the theory. 

 

To give one famous example, the uncertainty principle says you cannot know the momentum and position of a QM entity at once. This is because in QM momentum is proportional to the frequency of the "wave", while a defined position demands a "wave" amplitude that is restricted to a small region of space. If the momentum is well-defined therefore, the QM entity must have a single frequency. But a sine wave of a defined frequency has equal amplitude throughout space - which means the position of the QM entity is undefined: it could be anywhere. Conversely, for the amplitude to be confined to a small region of space requires a superposition of many different frequency waves, such that constructive interference between them all occurs only at one central region. So then the position is defined.....but the momentum is not defined due to the contribution of numerous different frequencies.

 

So you can have wavelike or particle-like behaviour, but the more of one you have the less you have of the other. And this is described quantitatively in the mathematics. 

 

And so on. It is a big and enthralling subject and I have to admit I have forgotten a lot of the maths now - it is 40 years since I studied it at university. 



#25 Darky

Darky

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 83 posts

Posted 22 April 2017 - 11:11 AM

Hi,

Let me go into detail for you.

Let's start with one of your questions - What is light?

Consider light to be a connection (like your Bluetooth or WiFi connection at home), but through light we can see distant stars and look back to the beginning of the universe itself.. however, this still doesn't answer the question (What is light?). Generally, light is the smallest source of energy that can be transported made up of a photon (a particle without a real shape/size) which can't be split, only created or destroyed. Light also has a wave particle duality (being kind of a particle and wave at the same time) - however, personally I consider this as a lie. When you say light, you mean visible light. Visible light is a tiny part of the electro-magnetic spectrum (includes Gamma Rays, X-Rays, Ultra-Violet, Visible Light, Infrared, Radar, FM, TV, AM). Gamma Rays having the smallest wave lenght since they're the highest energy photons. However, most Gamma Rays' waves are approximately under 10 picometer long, which is way smaller than a hydrogen atom. Visible light is in the middle of the spectrum having a wave lenght of approximately 400-700 nanometer (the size of a bacteria). On the other side of the spectrum are low frequency radio waves which can be up to 100KM long in diameter. The biggest waves we know of are low frequency waves which can span from 10,000 KM to 100,000 KM approximately the size of the dwarf of star Sirius B. From a physics point of view, all these waves have a wave lenght and all of them travel at 'c' (speed of light), just at different frequency. Then you ask, what makes visible light so special? The answer is, nothing! Yes, nothing! We just happen to have special eyes able to register only this part of the electro-magnetic spectrum. This isn't a complete coincidence; because visible light is the only part of the electro-magnetic spectrum that propagates when in water - where the first eyes were evolved.

Now I'll answer the second question : Why is light so fast and the fastest thing in the universe traveling at 'c'?

The answer to that is it isn't the only thing. Electro-magnetic radiation just happens to move as fast as 'c'. It is said that any particle that has no mass travels at 'c', without any acceleration or deceleration. The light of a bulb doesn't start at 0 m/s and slowly make it up to 'c', it instead starts at 'c'. Why is it finite then? Nobody knows! It's like a dividing by 0 error.

There you go.

#26 quickquestion

quickquestion

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 55 posts

Posted 22 April 2017 - 11:49 AM

Einstein built on evidence such as we have been discussing, viz, that there is no aether.  

 

If you have no evidence to support your theory, then you should be able to make a prediction that can be tested, which distinguishes your theory from the current one.  Give us one. 

 

It is also ballocks to say Einstein did not believe in quantum physics. What do you think he got his Nobel Prize for? And have you ever heard of Bose-Einstein statistics?  Or Einstein probability coefficients? One can barely do any quantum physics without tripping over Einstein's contributions to it. 

 

One feature you and Einstein do not have in common is this: Einstein took the trouble (and had the intellect) to understand current models of physics before starting to develop his own

Incorrect. Einstein payed minimal analysis to many older theories and research. I would recommending reading more books about Einstein. Did you know his professor called him a "lazy dog" at math?

Einstein for many years of his life challenged quantum physics and did not believe it.

I have evidence of aether from the Fizeau experiment. But einstein and his supporters use mental gymnastics to try and disprove the obvious conclusion: that aether is real.

An example of Mental Gynmastics would be if I leave a cornflake on the ground, and I leave the room and I see my dog walk by. When I return to the room, I see the cornflake gone. I blame it on the most complicated reason: UFOs.

This is what science does when it says "Pulsar steady pulse proves Einstein correct."

Why does it prove him correct.

Isn't the easier explanation to just say light goes at the max velocity C, and that is why pulsar emissions have non-relative speeds? SR and TD is not needed.

 

I frankly don't care what aether you believe in.  I do care when you spout nonsense on a science forum.  The experiment I previously linked and those that have followed that agree with the null findings contradict your fantastical claim.  If an interplanetary medium existed that light travels through, and especially if such a medium were dragged with the rotation of the Earth, then the Michelson-Morley experiment could not have returned the data it did.

 

I am disheartened that you keep mentioning the Michelson Morley. It is incredibly annoying. I really do not want to hear one more mention of it again.

I already stated that Michelson Morley disproved lumineferous aether wind. And I already stated my aether is different. And that interferometers do not disprove my aether. I really do not want to keep repeating things that I've already made clear multiple times.

 

Many experiments have shown that electricity and magnetism are linked.  Every electric motor shows this to be obvious.  It is difficult, for me at least, to comprehend how light came into the fold.  Rather than arguing from ignorance, I would ask you to address your ignorance.  As I understand it, Maxwell was the first to show a link between the energy that we call light and electro-magnetism.

 

 

This I can accept. The proof engines is undeniable and shows coils can create magnets using electricity. However what I question is why did Maxwell call light an electromagnetic field. An electromagnetic field should have some kind of magnetic effect. But if I put a strong laser full of photons near a magnet, it has no magnetic effect on the magnet.
 

 

The answer to that is it isn't the only thing. Electro-magnetic radiation just happens to move as fast as 'c'. It is said that any particle that has no mass travels at 'c', without any acceleration or deceleration. The light of a bulb doesn't start at 0 m/s and slowly make it up to 'c', it instead starts at 'c'. Why is it finite then? Nobody knows! It's like a dividing by 0 error.

 

Now I am very curious about this. Have we made sure that light has no acceleration of any kind? It does not disprove or prove my theory, I am just asking from a curiousity standpoint. Have we measured within femtoseconds that light has no acceleration period, that it just instantly jumps from 0 to C?


Edited by quickquestion, 22 April 2017 - 11:50 AM.

  • Darky likes this

#27 Darky

Darky

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 83 posts

Posted 22 April 2017 - 11:52 AM

Now I am very curious about this. Have we made sure that light has no acceleration of any kind? It does not disprove or prove my theory, I am just asking from a curiousity standpoint. Have we measured within femtoseconds that light has no acceleration period, that it just instantly jumps from 0 to C?


Hi,

Yes, it has been proven. Many times actually.
  • JMJones0424 likes this

#28 exchemist

exchemist

    Creating

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2808 posts

Posted 22 April 2017 - 12:12 PM

Incorrect. Einstein payed minimal analysis to many older theories and research. I would recommending reading more books about Einstein. Did you know his professor called him a "lazy dog" at math?

Einstein for many years of his life challenged quantum physics and did not believe it.

I have evidence of aether from the Fizeau experiment. But einstein and his supporters use mental gymnastics to try and disprove the obvious conclusion: that aether is real.

An example of Mental Gynmastics would be if I leave a cornflake on the ground, and I leave the room and I see my dog walk by. When I return to the room, I see the cornflake gone. I blame it on the most complicated reason: UFOs.

This is what science does when it says "Pulsar steady pulse proves Einstein correct."

Why does it prove him correct.

Isn't the easier explanation to just say light goes at the max velocity C, and that is why pulsar emissions have non-relative speeds? SR and TD is not needed.

 

I am disheartened that you keep mentioning the Michelson Morley. It is incredibly annoying. I really do not want to hear one more mention of it again.

I already stated that Michelson Morley disproved lumineferous aether wind. And I already stated my aether is different. And that interferometers do not disprove my aether. I really do not want to keep repeating things that I've already made clear multiple times.

 

This I can accept. The proof engines is undeniable and shows coils can create magnets using electricity. However what I question is why did Maxwell call light an electromagnetic field. An electromagnetic field should have some kind of magnetic effect. But if I put a strong laser full of photons near a magnet, it has no magnetic effect on the magnet.
 

Now I am very curious about this. Have we made sure that light has no acceleration of any kind? It does not disprove or prove my theory, I am just asking from a curiousity standpoint. Have we measured within femtoseconds that light has no acceleration period, that it just instantly jumps from 0 to C?

The trouble is that you are not the least bit interested in learning any physics. That is clear from your attitude and your questions. Your (absurd and easily refutable) denial of Einstein's intense involvement with quantum physics would appear to be an attempt to justify your own refusal to engage with it. 

 

You really can't expect anybody to take your own ideas seriously when you display such determined ignorance of the theories you want to replace.


  • JMJones0424 likes this

#29 quickquestion

quickquestion

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 55 posts

Posted 22 April 2017 - 12:37 PM

The trouble is that you are not the least bit interested in learning any physics. That is clear from your attitude and your questions. Your (absurd and easily refutable) denial of Einstein's intense involvement with quantum physics would appear to be an attempt to justify your own refusal to engage with it. 

 

You really can't expect anybody to take your own ideas seriously when you display such determined ignorance of the theories you want to replace.

It is clear from your attitude and posting that you to want to post anything evidence supporting your claims.

 

I never said Einstein wasn't involved in QM. I just said he denied QM. So did Schrodinger. That is why they used Schrodinger Cat, to make fun of him.

I have read numerous textbooks that claimed Einstein disbelieved QM. So if those are all lies then perhaps you need an extreme restructure of the science community.

 

Furthermore, I gave examples and proof of why Einstein is wrong, so you are making things up when you say I don't engage Einstein.


Edited by quickquestion, 22 April 2017 - 12:39 PM.


#30 exchemist

exchemist

    Creating

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2808 posts

Posted 22 April 2017 - 03:09 PM

It is clear from your attitude and posting that you to want to post anything evidence supporting your claims.

 

I never said Einstein wasn't involved in QM. I just said he denied QM. So did Schrodinger. That is why they used Schrodinger Cat, to make fun of him.

I have read numerous textbooks that claimed Einstein disbelieved QM. So if those are all lies then perhaps you need an extreme restructure of the science community.

 

Furthermore, I gave examples and proof of why Einstein is wrong, so you are making things up when you say I don't engage Einstein.

Of course I want to post anything supporting my claims. That is what anybody should always do. I would like to see you post something that supports your claims, actually. For example can you post something that shows Schroedinger denied quantum mechanics?

 

As for Einstein, he certainly did at one point say "God does not play dice", but what that means is he felt - without evidence - that the universe should be deterministic, i.e. there should be further structure to theory, that removed the uncertainty inherent in QM. Various people have followed this path, in the development of the Hidden Variable theories and so forth, but all without any success up to now. For for now it appears that Einstein's feeling may have been wrong and that God does indeed play dice! 


  • JMJones0424 likes this

#31 A-wal

A-wal

    Creating

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1316 posts

Posted 22 April 2017 - 03:46 PM

OK, I am sure now that you say the things you say because you have little understanding of quantum theory.

Okay, you are now wrong then. I'm well aware of the basics of what QM describes such as the uncertainty principle thank you very much.

 

To repeat something I said earlier, QM does not rely on one, or two, or any, mechanical models to explain things. It relies on its own, completely self-consistent mathematics. The wave-like (though not really classical waves - the general form of Schroedinger's "wave" equation is strictly a diffusion equation) and particle-like (though not classical particles) behaviour falls out of this, given the basic assumptions that QM makes. There is nothing "loose" about the mathematics of QM, I assure you. It is pretty rigorous and exact. Even the degree to which systems cannot be defined, in the various manifestations of the uncertainty principle that pop up everywhere, is described exactly. 

 

When people try to create physical pictures of what QM says, which they do in order to help those unfamiliar with QM to grasp how nature seems to behave,  yes, they resort to mechanical models of waves and particles, neither of which is capable of representing exactly what the mathematics says.

 

The limitations of these partial analogies should not be confused with supposed contradictions in the theory. 

 

To give one famous example, the uncertainty principle says you cannot know the momentum and position of a QM entity at once. This is because in QM momentum is proportional to the frequency of the "wave", while a defined position demands a "wave" amplitude that is restricted to a small region of space. If the momentum is well-defined therefore, the QM entity must have a single frequency. But a sine wave of a defined frequency has equal amplitude throughout space - which means the position of the QM entity is undefined: it could be anywhere. Conversely, for the amplitude to be confined to a small region of space requires a superposition of many different frequency waves, such that constructive interference between them all occurs only at one central region. So then the position is defined.....but the momentum is not defined due to the contribution of numerous different frequencies.

 

So you can have wavelike or particle-like behaviour, but the more of one you have the less you have of the other. And this is described quantitatively in the mathematics. 

 

And so on. It is a big and enthralling subject and I have to admit I have forgotten a lot of the maths now - it is 40 years since I studied it at university. 

QM is the most successful scientific theory of all time, no doubt. But as a model it's an entirely useless and incoherent mess. The only way to turn into a working model is to incorporate consciousness and physicists hate that because it's non-materialistic but QM is just an abstract mathematical description without it, not a working model. The only actual models of light they use are the wave and particle models and they are entirely different but both are needed to fully explain the behaviour of light, meaning they don't have a working model for the behaviour of light!



#32 exchemist

exchemist

    Creating

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2808 posts

Posted 23 April 2017 - 05:59 AM

Okay, you are now wrong then. I'm well aware of the basics of what QM describes such as the uncertainty principle thank you very much.

 

QM is the most successful scientific theory of all time, no doubt. But as a model it's an entirely useless and incoherent mess. The only way to turn into a working model is to incorporate consciousness and physicists hate that because it's non-materialistic but QM is just an abstract mathematical description without it, not a working model. The only actual models of light they use are the wave and particle models and they are entirely different but both are needed to fully explain the behaviour of light, meaning they don't have a working model for the behaviour of light!

It is a sadly common misconception that consciousness has to be incorporated in QM. 


  • JMJones0424 likes this

#33 quickquestion

quickquestion

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 55 posts

Posted 23 April 2017 - 01:21 PM

Of course I want to post anything supporting my claims. That is what anybody should always do. I would like to see you post something that supports your claims, actually. For example can you post something that shows Schroedinger denied quantum mechanics?

 

As for Einstein, he certainly did at one point say "God does not play dice", but what that means is he felt - without evidence - that the universe should be deterministic, i.e. there should be further structure to theory, that removed the uncertainty inherent in QM. Various people have followed this path, in the development of the Hidden Variable theories and so forth, but all without any success up to now. For for now it appears that Einstein's feeling may have been wrong and that God does indeed play dice! 

According to Schrödinger, the Copenhagen interpretation implies that the cat remains both alive and dead until the state is observed. Schrödinger did not wish to promote the idea of dead-and-alive cats as a serious possibility; on the contrary, he intended the example to illustrate the absurdity of the existing view of quantum mechanics.

 

Thus, shrodinger, teaming up with Einstein, to challenge, ridicule and mock the Copenhagen idea of QM.

 

"Einstein pointed out that the state of an unstable keg of gunpowder will, after a while, contain a superposition of both exploded and unexploded states."



#34 exchemist

exchemist

    Creating

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2808 posts

Posted 23 April 2017 - 02:46 PM

According to Schrödinger, the Copenhagen interpretation implies that the cat remains both alive and dead until the state is observed. Schrödinger did not wish to promote the idea of dead-and-alive cats as a serious possibility; on the contrary, he intended the example to illustrate the absurdity of the existing view of quantum mechanics.

 

Thus, shrodinger, teaming up with Einstein, to challenge, ridicule and mock the Copenhagen idea of QM.

 

"Einstein pointed out that the state of an unstable keg of gunpowder will, after a while, contain a superposition of both exploded and unexploded states."

Sure but these are criticisms of the Copenhagen interpretation of QM, not of QM itself. Neither of these scientists thought that this invalidated the theory of QM, just that one interpretation could create apparent difficulties, when macroscopic scenarios are involved. The funny thing is that, since that time the EPR paradox has been resolved, in favour of the apparently far-fetched QM prediction.  


  • JMJones0424 likes this