Waves vs Particles
 

-------------


I sometimes wonder if other species exist elsewhere that can
experience, through their own sensory receptors, what
quanta/quantum phenomenon really and truly are? Think of the
advantage they would have, assuming they had at least equal
intelligence to the human species.

Ed, NM2K



Sometimes I wonder if there is any intelligent life on earth. Some of the
discussions in this news group are an example. The good news is its worse
in other news groups.


John W3JXP

Waves vs Particles
 

K7ITM wrote:
I was asked for references. I would suggest as a starting point
Richard P. Feynman's lecture of April 3, 1962, which was an
introduction to quantum behavior. I think the whole of the lecture is
worthwhile, but especially the following paragraph:

In Feynman's introductory lecture number 1, he
says: "I want to emphasize that light comes in
this form - *particles*." Also: "... light is
made of *particles*." emphasis mine

Feynman's lecture number 2 is titled
"Photons" *Particles* of Light" He says:
"Quantum electrodynamics 'resolves' this wave-
particle duality by saying that light is made
of *particles*, ..." emphasis mine

If I understand it correctly, a cornerstone
concept of QED is that nothing exists except
particles.
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

Waves vs Particles
 

Cecil Moore wrote:
K7ITM wrote:
I was asked for references. I would suggest as a starting point
Richard P. Feynman's lecture of April 3, 1962, which was an
introduction to quantum behavior. I think the whole of the lecture is
worthwhile, but especially the following paragraph:

In Feynman's introductory lecture number 1, he
says: "I want to emphasize that light comes in
this form - *particles*." Also: "... light is
made of *particles*." emphasis mine

Feynman's lecture number 2 is titled
"Photons" *Particles* of Light" He says:
"Quantum electrodynamics 'resolves' this wave-
particle duality by saying that light is made
of *particles*, ..." emphasis mine

If I understand it correctly, a cornerstone
concept of QED is that nothing exists except
particles.

Cecil, get Feynman's _Lectures on Physics_ Volume I, and
read the entirety of Chapter 38, "The Relation of Wave and
Particle Viewpoints." Quantum mechanics is a very successful attempt,
using statistical methods, to explain the behavior of very small things.
In order to do that, it has to look at those things in very strange
ways. If you want to read about the philosophical underpinnings
you should read chapter 8 of _Quantum Theory_
by David Bohm (a Dover reprint).
73,
Tom Donaly, KA6RUH

Waves vs Particles
 

Tom Donaly wrote:
Cecil, get Feynman's _Lectures on Physics_ Volume I, and
read the entirety of Chapter 38, "The Relation of Wave and
Particle Viewpoints." Quantum mechanics is a very successful attempt,
using statistical methods, to explain the behavior of very small things.
In order to do that, it has to look at those things in very strange
ways. If you want to read about the philosophical underpinnings
you should read chapter 8 of _Quantum Theory_
by David Bohm (a Dover reprint).

Thanks Tom, I will do that as time permits.
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

Waves vs Particles
 

Cecil Moore wrote:
Tom Donaly wrote:

Cecil, get Feynman's _Lectures on Physics_ Volume I, and
read the entirety of Chapter 38, "The Relation of Wave and
Particle Viewpoints." Quantum mechanics is a very successful attempt,
using statistical methods, to explain the behavior of very small things.
In order to do that, it has to look at those things in very strange
ways. If you want to read about the philosophical underpinnings
you should read chapter 8 of _Quantum Theory_
by David Bohm (a Dover reprint).


Thanks Tom, I will do that as time permits.
Now consider this! When a quantum of energy, of any wavelength is
emitted from an atom or a nucleus then time and space ceases to exist
for that "wave packet" until it is absorbed again, or passes through a
medium where the velocity of light is less than c (glass for example, or
coaxial cable!!!). Since it is always travelling at c in "space" then
time ceases to pass for the quantum and/or the universe appears to be a
single point from the quantum's point of view.
A possible corrollary of this might perhaps be that there is only one
"real" quantum of a particular energy in the universe at a time!!!
This is pretty well where Relativity leaves Quantum Mechanics I reckon.
Now this may be philosophy but what is the answer that both quantum
mechanics and relativity have for this apparent absurdity?
If it perhaps not so absurd, perhaps this explains some of the results
of the famous single quantum slit experiment?
BTW surely FTL communication only destroys causality if the speed of
information is infinite. Just faster than light by say 1,000 times would
simply mean that it got there faster not before it was transmitted?
Cliff Wright ZL1BDA.

Waves vs Particles
 

On Sun, 10 Feb 2008 11:41:22 +1300, cliff wright
wrote:

Now consider this! When a quantum of energy, of any wavelength is
emitted from an atom or a nucleus then time and space ceases to exist
for that "wave packet" until it is absorbed again, or passes through a
medium where the velocity of light is less than c (glass for example, or
coaxial cable!!!). Since it is always travelling at c in "space" then
time ceases to pass for the quantum and/or the universe appears to be a
single point from the quantum's point of view.
A possible corrollary of this might perhaps be that there is only one
"real" quantum of a particular energy in the universe at a time!!!

Hi Cliff,

You have contradicted yourself. Your second sentence above has the
premise there is no time. Your last sentence ends with time
explicitly allowed.

This is pretty well where Relativity leaves Quantum Mechanics I reckon.

How so?

Now this may be philosophy but what is the answer that both quantum
mechanics and relativity have for this apparent absurdity?

The contradiction offered.

If it perhaps not so absurd, perhaps this explains some of the results
of the famous single quantum slit experiment?

Dismissing absurdities, the single slit experiment has its own
explanation.

BTW surely FTL communication only destroys causality if the speed of
information is infinite.

As the lawyers would say "FTL communication" is a fact not shown in
the evidence offered here; so the rest of the statement does not
logically follow.

Just faster than light by say 1,000 times would
simply mean that it got there faster not before it was transmitted?

It would be more meaningful to demonstrate it got there 1.00000000001
times faster. If you cannot establish this mark, 1000 time faster
isn't on the horizon.

As one other poster was abashed to discover, you probably could
witness that first demonstration if you were a fish. A fish swimming
in the cooling pond of a nuclear reactor would be hit by a neutron
(one bit of information) before the radiation (light, the other same
bit of information) that catapulted it from the pile. Now, getting
that neutron up to 1000 times faster (in terms of information flow) is
unlikely; but if you were to choose to inhabit a pool of somewhat
greater density (1000 times more so?) - then perhaps arguably so. I
don't think we need hold our breaths and wait for AT&T stock to mature
into Billion$ on that idea.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Waves vs Particles
 

On Sun, 10 Feb 2008 00:04:42 -0500, "AI4QJ" wrote:

What happens in the cooling pond is that the neutrons only move faster than
light can move in the medium (water). If "c" is the speed on light in a
vacuum, then even light moves slower than "c" in water. What does not happen
is the neutrons moving in the cooling pond water faster than "c" in a
vacuum. The equations that present causality dilemmas all involve "c" being
the speed of light in a vacuum, which NOTHING can exceed.

Hi Don,

This has been pointed out by me in my own quote - so nothing new here.
However, the distinction of faster than light is simply that, and it
has been demonstrated. Instead, what you are arguing is NO-THING
travels faster than 299,792,458 meters per second. I will leave that
to others.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Waves vs Particles
 

On Sun, 10 Feb 2008 11:58:31 -0500, "AI4QJ" wrote:


"Richard Clark" wrote in message

(cut)
Instead, what you are arguing is NO-THING
travels faster than 299,792,458 meters per second. I will leave that
to others.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Correct. However, why don't you just leave it to Einstein who has confirmed
this, rather than leaving it to others, particularly a bunch of ham radio
operators who sometimes have their own 'theories' ;-)


Do you have some reference for Einstein's personal confirmation?
Something distinct from his having presented a theory? The truth of
the matter is for Einstein's, "light" went slower than "the speed of
light" which historically, and following his major work, was 299,796
kilometers per second. This too, illustrates a speed at which
NO-THING travels faster than (not even light).

No doubt you have some reference to Einstein's later lab work (new
theory?) that eclipsed the accuracy of measurements by Michelson in
1926. Cherenkov's observation in the late 30s would further move the
goal post.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Waves vs Particles
 

AI4QJ wrote:
"Richard Clark" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 10 Feb 2008 11:58:31 -0500, "AI4QJ" wrote:

"Richard Clark" wrote in message
(cut)
Instead, what you are arguing is NO-THING
travels faster than 299,792,458 meters per second. I will leave that
to others.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC
Correct. However, why don't you just leave it to Einstein who has
confirmed
this, rather than leaving it to others, particularly a bunch of ham radio
operators who sometimes have their own 'theories' ;-)

Do you have some reference for Einstein's personal confirmation?
Something distinct from his having presented a theory? The truth of
the matter is for Einstein's, "light" went slower than "the speed of
light" which historically, and following his major work, was 299,796
kilometers per second. This too, illustrates a speed at which
NO-THING travels faster than (not even light).

No doubt you have some reference to Einstein's later lab work (new
theory?) that eclipsed the accuracy of measurements by Michelson in
1926. Cherenkov's observation in the late 30s would further move the
goal post.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Richard, all you have to do is look ar the lorentz transformation, SQRT(1 -
v**2/c**2). The lorentz transformation is the basic for the special theory
of relativity. This "theory" has been confirmed by many experiments of which
I definitely could give many examples. I hope you are not challenging the
scientific credence of this "theory" which is really thought of as fact. If
I give you one example, then will you require two, then three and so on
(similar to the 'prove a negative' technique)? I don't think so. I think you
really do believe that the special theory is in fact, a fact accomplii.

Now, if I am to assume that you give high credibility to the special theory
of relativity, then you give credibility to the loretz transformation that
forms its basis (and which Michelson used himself). So let me take a big
leap and assume that you believe the lorentz transfromation has a high
probability of defining time dilation. If we can get that far, then by
simple examination, velocities greater than "c" cause the nummerical value
under the square root radical to become a negative number. As you know, this
is an impossibility because the square of any number must be a positive, in
the real world.

One experiment I will mention is an easy one, conducted at MIT. It was well
known that cosmic rays were mu mesons that have a defined decay rate when
resting still in a laboratory setting. When traveling they should have the
same decay rate.Therefore, if you know the velocity of the mu mesons and you
measure the density at the top of a high mountain, you should know how long
it takes them to reach the bottom of a mountain and by knowing the time it
takes, you should know the density (a smaller number) that you should
measure at the bottom. However, the measurements of the mu meson densities
at the bottom were nearly the same as at the top. When perhaps 40% less
should have been measured as decayed, only a very small percentage had
decayed, EXACTLY in accordance with the lorentz transformation as described
above.

By virtue of the impossibility of having a real situation of the square root
of a negative number, or time multiplied by "j" (SQRT -1), it is impossible
for v to exceed c in the real world. I will admit that it could "true" in
the "imaginary" world of "j". which is the same world as power that is not
dissipated etc. etc.. Nobody in the business really believes in tacghyons or
other such particles that allegedly exceed "c"....that is all X-files stuff
and to be dismissed by real world scientists.

AI4QJ


"...a fact accomplii." Look that one up in the dictionary.

"As you know, this
is an impossibility because the square of any number must be a positive,
in the real world." (O + j1)^2 is -1. (0 + j1) is part of the set of
complex numbers.

Anyone who won't use complex numbers in physical analysis is
going to have a hard time understanding physics texts, or, for that
matter, simple network theory.

73,
Tom Donaly, KA6RUH

Waves vs Particles
 

On Sun, 10 Feb 2008 17:45:25 -0500, "AI4QJ" wrote:

Correct. However, why don't you just leave it to Einstein who has
confirmed
this

By virtue of the impossibility of having a real situation of the square root
of a negative number, or time multiplied by "j" (SQRT -1), it is impossible
for v to exceed c in the real world.

Hi Dan,

Well, this is not confirmation merely exposition - and not even unique
to Einstein. It is demonstrated that v can exceed c (you have
replicated my observations there, so that cannot be in dispute), but
it cannot exceed 299,792,458 meters per second (which bares scant
relationship to complex numbers). This is not a remarkable
observation because neither can v exceed 300,000,000 meters per
second, nor 300,000,001 meters per second and so on.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC