Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

Threat Perception Vs Frequency 👁️


  • Please log in to reply
19 replies to this topic

#18 Flummoxed

Flummoxed

    Explaining

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 738 posts

Posted 21 August 2019 - 08:22 AM

According to my book on QFT in the section on QED a photon is represented as a pair of virtual particles pulled from the vacuum, ie a pair of eigenvectors labelled creator and destroyer. 

 

An electromagnetic wave is described as a polarized field of virtual particles. 

 

All EM fields can be described as quantum fluctuations how they are polarized and how they interact with other particles are not the same. A radio wave spreads out through space and is attenuated as it travels. A photon does not disperse its energy, it is localized. How that interaction occurs as it passes close by another object, does not necessarily indicate it travels as a wave distributed to infinity and back. It could just as easily be described by a pilot wave interacting with objects close to or in its path. 

 

The double slit experiment can be explained via using pilot waves :)  I will see if I can find a good link.

 

This fella gives an unbiased version of pilot wave theory with the pros and cons, cons mostly it is not relativistic YET 



#19 ralfcis

ralfcis

    Explaining

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 945 posts

Posted 21 August 2019 - 10:16 AM

That's pretty good but it shows 1 photon out of an entire stream of waves. The debroglie wavelength explains why all fundamental particles are all the same without any warts or growths. The particle has a relationship to the discrete wavelength. Is a ray of light like a string of pearls? I personally think not so I'm against the pilot wave theory because photons don't travel. Is a stationary electron the same thing as an atomic shell or is an atomic shell a pure wave? Quantum theory invents a lot of stuff to say it isn't. There are 9.5 angels dancing on the head of the average pin. These discussions are useless philosophy.



#20 Flummoxed

Flummoxed

    Explaining

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 738 posts

Posted 23 August 2019 - 03:50 AM

Seeing is believing.

 

In reality; No one would suggest the world is made up open or closed vibrating strings, but increasing it seems many things can be modelled in such away in the various competing string theories. The maths is horrendous. 

 

In fourier analysis I can model a switched square wave as a series of sine waves. Whilst mathematically it is valid and gives the correct answers, a description of a square wave using either words graphs or laplace transforms gives a clearer picture of the square wave. 

 

In quantum theory a quantum fluctuation/particle does not have a hard edge and defined limits, it is more of fog with a centre. Particles/photons interact through absorbtion/emission defelction etc, amusing QCD models these interactions almost like fluctuating jellys. 

 

Wave particle duality with photons having frequencies whilst mathematically correct, MIGHT not portray a true picture of a photon