Welcome to
Science a GoGo's
Discussion Forums
Please keep your postings on-topic or they will be moved to a galaxy far, far away.
Your use of this forum indicates your agreement to our terms of use.
So that we remain spam-free, please note that all posts by new users are moderated.


The Forums
General Science Talk        Not-Quite-Science        Climate Change Discussion        Physics Forum        Science Fiction

Who's Online Now
0 members (), 619 guests, and 1 robot.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Latest Posts
Top Posters(30 Days)
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 415
S
Senior Member
OP Offline
Senior Member
S
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 415
How a wave and particle can coexist?
==.
From Huygens / Newton’s time the light from the
one hand is wave and from the other hand is particle.
‘ But what is light really?
Is it a wave or a shower of photons? ‘
/ N. Bohr /
How to understand this coexistence?
#
The wave of air consists of air - particles.
The wave of water consists of water- particles.
The electric wave must consist of . . electrons.
The light wave must consist of light- particles.

So, to understand the wave phenomena we must
examine its single particle. What is a single
quantum of light? We don’t know.

Let us say that quantum of light is an abstract particle
and then put it into another abstraction ‘ Ideal gas’,
which has only one physical condition: T= 0K.

What is possible to say about this abstract picture?
=======.
S.
==========.
#
"The Copenhagen interpretation of quantum theory
starts from a paradox." / Heisenberg,
Physics and Philosophy, pg. 44./
#
http://www.upscale.utoronto.ca/GeneralInterest/Harrison/Complementarity/CompCopen.html

.
Joined: Dec 2010
Posts: 1,858
B
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
B
Joined: Dec 2010
Posts: 1,858
Originally Posted By: socratus
So, to understand the wave phenomena we must
examine its single particle. What is a single
quantum of light? We don’t know.


But we do know what the quantum of light is it is the photon and it has an energy e=hv, where e is the energy of the photon, h is Plancks constant, and v is actually the greek letter nu, but I don't know how to put that in here. It is the frequency of the photon when it is considered as a wave. So the quantum of light is well understood.

As far as understanding the wave/particle nature of the universe, well that is one of the mysteries of quantum theory (QT). Given enough training and math it is possible to work with QT and achieve very good results. But as I have said before, if you think you have figured it all out your doctor can give you some medication and you will be just fine after a nice rest.

Bill Gill


C is not the speed of light in a vacuum.
C is the universal speed limit.
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 415
S
Senior Member
OP Offline
Senior Member
S
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 415
Let us say that quantum of light is an abstract particle
and then put it into another abstraction ‘ Ideal gas’,
which has only one physical condition: T= 0K.

Now we will test it with Heisenberg’s Uncertainty
principle. What is possible to say about this picture?

We see that the abstract particle becomes real alive particle.
The dead person was reborn again.
Is it mysticism?
I don’t know.
I only know that according to Heisenberg’s Uncertainty
Principle and the ‘ method of renormalization‘ the Universe
begin to show itself.
==========.
Israel Socratus

Joined: Dec 2010
Posts: 1,858
B
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
B
Joined: Dec 2010
Posts: 1,858
Socratus, I have no idea what you are talking about. Above I explained that the quantum of light is not abstract. Plus the 'ideal gas' is not a quantum thing. It is a classical concept, and therefore doesn't work well with QT.

Bill Gill


C is not the speed of light in a vacuum.
C is the universal speed limit.
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 415
S
Senior Member
OP Offline
Senior Member
S
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 415
Originally Posted By: Bill
Socratus, I have no idea what you are talking about.
Above I explained that the quantum of light is not abstract.
Plus the 'ideal gas' is not a quantum thing.
It is a classical concept, and therefore doesn't work well with QT.

Bill Gill

Where are the First Laws of Existence?
=====.
#
Bill Gill expressed the common opinion that :
Light is not abstract.
The 'ideal gas' is not a quantum thing. It is a classical
concept, and therefore doesn't work well with QT.
#
My dilettanti opinion.

ABC introduction.
Every phenomena has its own reference frame.
Every particle has its own reference frame.
For example.
To study the behaviour of whale we need ocean.
To study the behaviour of elephant we need savanna.
To study a Higg's boson we need vacuum system.
Etc.
It is impossible to understand process without reference frame.
Research is impossible without reference frame
Physics without a reference frame is abstract and
paradoxical doctrine.
Questions:
1.
Why does Dirac’s sea ( as a reference frame) have not
physical parameters?
2
Why does Minkowski space (-4D as a reference frame)
have not physical parameters?
3.
QT and SRT are two fundamental theories in physics.
We don’t know their reference frame and we don’t trouble
very much.
========.
#
I say the ' Ideal gas' is reference frame for QT and SRT.
Why I say so?
1.
Minkowski space (-4D) is negative space and
' Ideal gas' has negative parameter: T=0K.
2.
Many negative particles exist in Dirac’s sea / vacuum.
It is possible if Dirac’s sea / vacuum itself is negative system.
Therefore the negative ' Ideal gas' belongs to QT too.
Therefore all laws of ' Ideal gas' belongs to QT, SRT and QED.

Task.
We have: Pseudo - Euclidian space with ' Ideal gas T=0K'
with ‘ ideal –virtual Dirac particles’ and with ‘ ideal laws’.

Needs to find:
The first laws of Existence.
===========================.
Israel Socratus.

Joined: Mar 2010
Posts: 1,100
K
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
K
Joined: Mar 2010
Posts: 1,100
Originally Posted By: socratus

' Ideal gas' has negative parameter: T=0K.

How is T=0K a negative parameter?


Quote:

Many negative particles exist in Dirac’s sea / vacuum.

What's a negative particle?

Quote:

It is possible if Dirac’s sea / vacuum itself is negative system.

What's a negative system?

Quote:

Therefore the negative ' Ideal gas' belongs to QT too.

How is an ideal gas negative?

Quote:

The first laws of Existence.

What's a law of existence?


What you said makes no sense at all. Either you're talking over my head or you're making up meaningless nonsense using word tricks and analogies to suggest something about nature. If it's the former, then could you please write in a way that typical physics graduates can understand?

Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 415
S
Senior Member
OP Offline
Senior Member
S
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 415
[quote=kallog
What you said makes no sense at all.
Either you're talking over my head or you're making up
meaningless nonsense using word tricks and analogies
to suggest something about nature. If it's the former,
then could you please write in a way that
typical physics graduates can understand?
[/quote]

The hint to ‘ kallog’ and to the ‘ typical physics graduates’
http://www.scienceagogo.com/forum/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=36451#Post36451

Israel Sadovnik Socratus.
===.

Joined: Mar 2010
Posts: 1,100
K
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
K
Joined: Mar 2010
Posts: 1,100
Hi Socratus

I only got half way through but it has some gigantic gaps in the logic:

Imagine a circle in 2D space with particles inside the circle. Notice that its volume is 0 and the density should be non-zero. Specify the temperature to be 0. ... Divide "some kind of background energy" by the mass of a particle and claim, without reason, that it gives c^2. Further, and again without explanation, state that the particle doesn't move and that it can be called a 'boson' or 'antiparticle'.

What's the point of all this? It's just meaningless words.

Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
B
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
B
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
Originally Posted By: socratus
Every phenomena has its own reference frame.
Every particle has its own reference frame.


You were using a photon as an example; how do you define a frame of reference for a photon?


There never was nothing.
Joined: Sep 2011
Posts: 2
S
Junior Member
Offline
Junior Member
S
Joined: Sep 2011
Posts: 2
But we do know what the quantum of light is it is the photon and it has an energy e=hv, where e is the energy of the photon, h is Plancks constant, and v is actually the greek letter nu, but I don't know how to put that in here. It is the frequency of the photon when it is considered as a wave. So the quantum of light is well understood.

Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
B
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
B
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
Hi, saroy123. I was non questioning the existence of the photon as the quantum of energy. The problem arises when you try to identify an inertial frame for a photon.


There never was nothing.

Link Copied to Clipboard
Newest Members
debbieevans, bkhj, jackk, Johnmattison, RacerGT
865 Registered Users
Sponsor

Science a GoGo's Home Page | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Contact UsokÂþ»­¾W
Features | News | Books | Physics | Space | Climate Change | Health | Technology | Natural World

Copyright © 1998 - 2016 Science a GoGo and its licensors. All rights reserved.

Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.5