a previous measurement will certainly return the same result as the first measurement Statements like this are what make understanding quantum physics so difficultIt's actually quite easy to imagine - the single particle cannot restore all the information carried out with particle, which leaved the system observed - but the entangled state of two or more has sufficient inertia for doing it. If we would carry out the same experiment with larger number of particles, such an outcome would appear quite natural for you.
it is possible to reverse a measurement with the aid of a quantum error correction protocolUnfortunately the very same redundancy, which will make the quantum protocol prone against environmental noise and errors would enable to compromise it (with undetectable listening, which wouldn't destroy information transmitted). It's tic-for-tac situation: if you make the quantum system classical in some way, you should consider the consequences of classical systems.
One of them is the fact that measurements on a quantum system are in general non-deterministic.
This means that even if the state of the system is completely known, it is impossible to determine the outcome of a single measurement.Bullshit! If your measuring apparatus can ONLY measure a single state you will know exactly beforehand what the result of the measurement will be!
Furthermore, the measurement alters the system's stateThis also happens on a macro-scale: So what!? The amount of alteration is determined by the measuring apparatus: It can be negligibly small or massively large, and is not just privy on the quantum scale!
If your measuring apparatus can only give one result, the outcome will be deterministic.LOL, such a system isn't "quantum" anymore...;-) The quantum system is indeterministic by its very definition. Or do you know about some example of deterministic quantum system, which doesn't follow Heisenberg uncertainty principle?
also that a previous measurement will certainly return the same result as the first measurement. Thus the system is irreversibly altered by a measurement.
If your measuring apparatus can only give one result, the outcome will be deterministic.LOL, such a system isn't "quantum" anymore...;-) The quantum system is indeterministic by its very definition.
Or do you know about some example of deterministic quantum system, which doesn't follow Heisenberg uncertainty principle?
Why do our modern-day theoretical physicist want to believe Voodoo instead of straightforward cause and effect?Actually it's possible to imagine the quantum phenomena like the consequence of deterministically moving wave function inside of them - but such an approach neglects the fact, that the wave function is unobservable by its definition, so such an approach isn't experimentally testable. I'm usually explaining it with attempt for detection of motion of water molecules inside of droplet of water from the undulations of surface of water droplet, which is the only observable object here. Because the motion/momentum of pairs of molecules colliding from opposite direction gets compensated there, high amount of information about intrinsic motion of molecules is always wasted and the deterministic interior of water droplet will remain cryptic for us for ever.
but such an approach neglects the fact, that the wave function is unobservable by its definition,Whose definition? Nature's definition or the definition by a autistic person who, although being a savant, is out of contact with reality?
(i) What is the speed of your aether wave relative to your aether? (ii) What is the speed of your diffraction slits relative to your aether? (ii) Relative to what is your aether stationary?Your problem is, you're wasting most of time just with questions, which are least defined, experimentally testable the less. Even your hypothetical waves are of the same category. You should focus to the predictions instead of interpretations of reality. We have lotta interpretations already...
Nature's definition or the definition by a autistic person who, although being a savant, is out of contact with reality?I'm using aether model for explanation of existing opinions, theories and paradigms, like the particle-wave duality. I'm not denying the reality and I've no needs to do it. I've absolutely no problem with existing quantum mechanics in its present state in the same way, like with relativity. I just recognize, what these theories can do for us and what they cannot do. That's all.
Your problem is, you're wasting most of time just with questions,
which are least defined, experimentally testable the less.
Even your hypothetical waves are of the same category.Since when are EM-waves hypothetical? I can see, I can hear radio, so what is causing this if EM-waves are hypothetical? Please enlighten me oh "holy one".
You should focus to the predictions instead of interpretations of reality.
I'm using aether model for explanation of existing opinions, theories and paradigms, like the particle-wave duality.
I'm not denying the reality and I've no needs to do it. I've absolutely no problem with existing quantum mechanics in its present state
in the same way, like with relativity.
I just recognize, what these theories can do for us and what they cannot do. That's all
If you were happy with "quantum mechanics" in its present state, why are you adding your silly Voodoo duck and "wake-wave" into the arena of quantum mechanics?
There is NOT single system in our universe that follows Heisenberg's interpretation of "uncertainty" in position and momentum. His so-called uncertainty in these parameters are nothing else than the average size of a wave within three-dimensional space and the average size of the same wave within reciprocal space. When such a wave passes by it follows a definite path with NO uncertainty in position and no uncertainty in momentum of the wave's center of mass whatsoever.
If your measuring apparatus can ONLY measure a single state you will know exactly beforehand what the result of the measurement will be
The wave-function of a quantum system (more than one particle or entity if you prefer)),.... does not evolve in "three-dimensional space" as you say,
so cannot be thought of as a physical wave.
The amplitudes combine destructively and constructively in a potentially infinit Hilbert space formulation. There is NO way to represent what occurs in three-dimensional space! Give it up already.Bullshit! We know very well how an electromagnetic-wave acts in 3D space: So why is there no way "to represent what occurs in three-dimensional space". Radio engineers do this every day for a living!
What do you mean? Say If you measure for a specific spin axis, it can give a yes or no result, which is indeterminate before hand.
If your measuring apparatus can ONLY measure a single state you will know exactly beforehand what the result of the measurement will be
What do you mean? Say If you measure for a specific spin axis, it can give a yes or no result, which is indeterminate before hand.
In the case of spin, you can create this situation: First measure the spin on an ensemble of electrons.
Then use the [resultant] electrons to measure the spin along the same direction. On such an ensemble you can only get one result for each of all the electrons when measuring their spins: Thus you know with certainty what the results will be beforehand. Thus, these wave-functions cannot be probabilities at all!
Humans are too stupid to "define" nature. Nature defines itself.
That is true only along one axis though.
If you subsequently sort along another axis, you will lose predictability along your first axis, as indicated in the 3rd diagram
Humans are too stupid to "define" nature. Nature defines itself.You have finally stumbled upon a deep truth*.
But why then are you fighting against the probability interpretation of the 'wave-function', when even Schrödinger demonstrated his 'waves' were effectively equivalent to Heisenberg's matrices?
Einstein; '[Nature] does not play dice'Which is the correct viewpoint since Bohr had and still has no incontrovertible experimental proof that nature does.
Bohr; 'Einstein, stop telling [Nature] what to do'It is really Bohr who is telling nature what it is doing: How arrogant! Bohr was well-known for his brazen, pompous arrogance!
When where and how?It does not prove uncertainty nor "wave-particle duality". - JVon Neumann was on the brink of removing both.
QET is waiting for you. Where do you feel short changed by the theory?A theory that requires fudging called renormalization is bullshit. Even Dirac, THE mathematical fudger of mathematics rejected QED (is this what you meant by QET?) as untenable for this reason. Even this fudge, which he called "doctoring up a number" was too much for him to swallow!
,.... continued,....Which is generally true no matter how large the objects are.
Heisenberg's analogy that we can't help but to disturb the system by virtue of looking at it, ....was just that, an analogy.
The truth is far more profound; The very act of acquiring knowledge of reality in conceptualizing it, disturbs it from what it 'was' to what is observable in principal.What is so "profound" about this! Only a fool will consider the fact that your measurement can change "what is out there" into something else after the measurement, is "profound". This can happen on all scales: Not just on the quantum scale.
The form, i.e. particle or wave, is not what physics is after. Invarients, symmetries, and conservation laws, formless truths, is what modern physics is after."Formless truths": The best definition for Voodoo I have ever heard! No wonder the physicists are hunting for a Higg's boson that cannot exist since it is a "formless truth".
The 'collapse of the wave-function' is a collapse into concepts,.... by the necessity and 'disturbing conceptual effects' of observation and theoretical verification.Gobbledegook bullshit that can only be formulated by a Voodoo-shamaan.
This is why you (johanfprins) need to drop your crusade against the "particle",... it's just a useful conceptual form.
The quantum realm is affected by whatever energy we use to probe it...is that not so?Not just the quantum realm: I wish people will start to realize that there is a single realm, not a classical one AND a separate Voodoo quantum one: Quantum mechanics dovetails with classical mechanics without any need for Voodoo!
So what is predictable is that our attempt will disturb the system in some way but the trick would be to know how the QM system would react.Not just QM!
Simply put, the less energy of my probe provides less feedback and more energy will disturb the system more so I get a bigger false result of the QM original state. Is that not so?Very well stated! But again this is not just so in the "quantum realm". It is true for ALL measurements.
No one knows which atom will decay nor when, we just know the half life. When one atom has decayed, one must start over with a new deterministic charade starting point.
But you do not lose the predictability that the spin will appear along your newly selected axis. - J
You assert this and who else?
johanfprins... what they try to tell you,
is that you only establish your questions in human historic concepts like "determinism", "non-determinism", etc. This concepts was born from the genesis of our language based in intuitive perceptions of our macroscopic world.A very stupid simplification of the "genesis of language" and physics. If you cannot post anything more cogent and intelligent it would be better for all if you refrain from posting.
the possibility that your words and language dicotomies (after that considered "logical dicotomies") for questioning and describing the world, are not the only way to "know" it and how nature could work.You see how patronizing you are? Posting the obvious as if I do not know this is an insult to my intelligence! Really!
Yes, you can spend all your life discussing between if quantum mecanics is deterministic or undeterministic... but perhaps nature is less simple than that. (continue)Perhaps, but all experimntal evidence so far shows that it is not. The only "un-determinism" is exactly the same as you find in classical mechanics when, for example. an atom diffuses through a solid. There is no extra un-determinism in quantum mechanics: So why assume that you cannot discuss quantum mechanics using the same language that you use for classical mechanics? This is insane!
Quantum Mechanics show us, that now we cannot asume that parts explain completelly the whole thing, but maybe the whole thing could explain the parts..The first non-patronizing sentence you have posted: And yes, this is what QM does; but not just QM, Maxwell's wave equations describes the same. Therefore, QM does not require a new abortion of language combined with Voodoo to understand!
Yes, maybe is for crying: now Science reveals as not "that perfect way of knowledge that Newton imagined". He thought that with a basic group of laws and theories, some day we could understand and predict everything.
But maybe time has come (Modern Physics) to discover that our attempts are not possible.A real physicist must always keep this possibility open: It goes without saying and is another illustration of your pompous patronizing attitude.
You can cry, you can get angry, you can deny it, you can do what you want... but think twice and consider it.As a competent physicist this is demanded of one: You see again how patronizing and insulting you are! You make me sick!
That wouldn't be a defeat for human knowledge and science task, but a new knowledge itself:I agree, but when it is not necessary, as it is not necessary yet, why embrace such a non-existent situation as if it is real? To do so is insanity!
Like David Bohm said: "actually, the best that a philosopher can do is study Modern Physics, and the best that a scientist can do is study Philosophy".I always thought they go hand in hand: It is insane to make a distinction.
This are the challenges that presents what we "see" in Modern Physics. Human language, dicotomies, and it's derived "logic", perhaps is not always the absolute way of managing those questions. That's why physics prefer refering to numbers, statistics, maths and visual representation of its experiments, than trying to explain it in common words (dualist and dicotomist language).If you cannot explain your mathematics in simple words you do not know what the hell you are doing.
Yes, you know YOUR physics (maybe that "MY" reveals quite good your mentality). Yoy CAN open to other perspectives,I ALWAYS am: That is why after teaching my students the same Voodoo interpretation of QM being posted by others on this forum, for 40 years, I could change my perspective after a simple experiment proved that "wave-particle duality" is not tenable (See http://www.cathod...tion.pdf}.
No, I'm not patronizing: do you take care of details? I said: "The POSSIBILITY that your words and language dicotomies (after that considered "logical dicotomies") for questioning and describing the world, are not the only way to "know" it and how nature COULD workIt is patronizing to assume that I have never contemplated these obvious possibilities which you think that you have been called upon to tell me about!
Do you know where I go? Dicotomies. You can believe in determinism everytime that physics Laws, science theories, and even your sense common, corresponds to your experience in the real world (including scientific experiments). But what happens when at subatomic sizes, energy performs without sense of cause and effect?
Will you think it's our deficience in the knowledge of the hidden factors?
Why do you always start from the point of determinism?
"Demented minds" haha think you have a personal problem with undeterminism hypotesis, not an intelectual question. Control your emotions ;-)
Maybe, the determinism that you see in macro world, is only an impression of trillion of hiden factors that you only see as a global result.Maybe: It might be trillions of angels playing a game with us mere mortals. But there is no reason to assume such silly hypotheses since all QM experimental results can be simply explained in terms of the known behavior of Maxwell's equations.
Would you feel a terrible sensation when knowing that basically, everything that forms our material world starts form undeterminism (aparition and desaparition of fundamental particles, conversions, etc. without cause?
Any measuring device must at least be capable of measuring two states. If it can't then it isn't doing any measuring and thereby contradicting the initial presumption that you have a measuring device.Nonsense! If you have only one detector for a photon-wave, it can only measure the detected photon-state which is a single state!
it has long been known and demonstrated that quantum measurement can be erased.
dx*dp >= hbar/2
"Since so far there has been no experiment that proved otherwise except those experiments which have been incorrectly interpreted by demented minds!" - Juhanfprins
So where is your deterministic God Now?
Remormalization. Well, that what the macro-observables are there for - a scale to demonstrate QM weirdnessThere is NO qunatum weirdness that requires an inbuilt indeterminism into the laws of nature.
I will be the last to chide Johan when he asserts I am nothing. Except a waving wave, waving.A wave is not NOTHING! It is a continuous energy-field filling a region in space and time.
Maybe because universe cannot work like a watch (so destiny would be absolutelly programmed from past to future: absurd),You see you again post in a condescending patronizing manner by assuming that what I am saying is that the "universe can be programmed like a watch". I have NEVER cl;aimed that: But to salve your rigid dogmatic thinking you conclude that this is what I claim and start to argue about something that is irrelevant to the discussion.
but that subatomics events are impredictable because are affected by all the universe in the end. So Science has nothing to do with that.It is not just subatomic events: You also have this with a roulette wheel which is not subatomic.
We cannot predict that "collapses", as we cannot predict a lighting or weather at long term,Exactly! So you agree it is not just a property of the subatomic world! And is thus not determined by a "probability-wave" which is "guiding" a non-existent "particle".
I do not have any personal problem with ANY hypothesis, but it remains a hypothesis until it is supported by experiment. There is NO experiment EVER that in any manner supports this "undeterminism hypothesis"
It's not a question of experiments. The thing is that it seems that you don't understand profoundly the Falsation Principle or Karl Popper. Popper did not say that "You cannot afirm a Law, but only false it" for free...
This is the base of Science actually. No experiment can take in consideration ALL THE FACTORS present in a system, even the unknowed ones (unless you thing that science knowledge is perfect yet... really? :O) So "determinism" is a word from the past. Science experiments and it's conclusions are never determinist: only falsable. Now we are not discussing if Quantum Mechanics is undeterminist versus determinist: that's not the question, because determinism concept is a fake by nature. And that's what you are persecuting.. like a carrot for a rabbit, sorry.
If you cannot explain your mathematics in simple words you do not know what the hell you are doing.
It's not a question of experiments. The thing is that it seems that you don't understand profoundly the Falsation Principle or Karl Popper. Popper did not say that "You cannot afirm a Law, but only false it" for free...
So "determinism" is a word from the past. Science experiments and it's conclusions are never determinist: only falsable.This statement is utter nonsense! The correct interpretation is as follows: If all experiments confirm the theory, only a fool will believe that it is not possible to eventually do an experiment that can falsify a theory. And when you find such an experiment, you must accept that the theory is not correct.
So you think that spoken language has always an exact correlation with maths and numeric data... hummm, interesting :-/
and later we continue discussing if our language derived from our primitive past is totally enough to explain what nature does at a profound and complex level
I have not said that: Mathematics is also a language, so that we keep on creating new words within the spoken language that keep pace with the language of mathematics.
Tell me when Humanity has created "new words" since the discoveries of the Modern Physics and Quantum Mechanics from the start of XX century. REALLY NEW WORDS, I don't say compound words... ;-)If you are not a fool you will know them: diode, transistor, booting, algorithm, etc.
One thing more: read the comment guidelines, because you surpass all of them: silly, insane, bullshit... You perhaps teach QM for 40 years, but you seem a teenager talking.At least I am not stuck in kindergarten like you are! Who are changing your nappies?
If you are not a fool you will know them: diode, transistor, booting, algorithm, etc.
This doesn't mean, that these experiments support determinism in exact version of J.F.Prins.
But what you say when you see that even in MQ, we still say: "particle wave duality", "uncertainty principle", "semiconductor", "quantum", etc? Nobody has created a new and special words to say it
so probably language can't express all the subtilities of new subatomic discoveries.
But well, you always can be safe in you `confort zone´
If you want, Prins, we can accept that universe is determinist (under your point of view of what means "determinist"), because waves ARE THERE, and don't play ramdomly. But the effects of that play, is uncertain.[/
If you want, Prins, we can accept that universe is determinist (under your point of view of what means "determinist"), because waves ARE THERE, and don't play ramdomly. But the effects of that play, is uncertain.Not in the manner assumed by Bohr etc. Waves interact when they resonate with one another, and we cannot predict when two waves getting near to one another will be in resonance or not. This has nothing to do with uncertainty in position and momentum of a "particle". If you claim that the spin of a penny or the roll of dice proves the universe is not deterministic: Be my guest! But it is foolish to do so.
Important SUBATOMIC world and MACROSCOPIC world (waves collapses).. energies like particles, quantum jumps, etc).
QM mechanics are not predictable, because you cannot explain or describe how and when a wave collapses.Oh yes you can: When a diffracted photon-wave or electron wave reaches a screen you can predict that it will collapse to be recorded by the first atomic detector in the screen that it resonates with. The only thing you do not know is with which detector it is going to resonate. It is the same as throwing a dice: You can predict that it will end up lying on one side but you cannot predict which side.
That wave is related continuously to the whole universe,
That's why you obtain aparitions and desaparitions without apparent cause.There is no experimental evidence that this might be possible.
But you cannot .... describe it's propierties like Newton Mechanic LawsOh yes you can: They are closely related as soon as you reject the undefined Voodoo "particle" concept.
The only thing you do not know is with which detector it is going to resonate.
That wave is related continuously to the whole universe
That's why you obtain aparitions...There is no experimental evidence that this might be possible
as you reject the undefined Voodoo "particle" concept".
Does that take care of your objection to renormalization, Johan?Why should it "take care" of it. Renormalization is math. hocus-pocus. Even Feynman knew this but was astute enough to know that if he pointed it out he will never win the Nobel Prize.
on Neumanm is your advocate.He is NOT. His assumption that you can linearly combine the allowed solutions for an operator so that the coefficients are probability amplitudes is physics-nonsense: In fact it violates the conservation of energy.
No one believes you are a devilPhysics is not "faith" in another person but objective analysis of the physics even if the person is the "devil".
So you are agree with Heisenberg Uncertaintity Principle: you know when, but not where (or viceversa).I do not agree that there is an "uncertainty" in the position and momentum of the center-of-mass of ANY entity, even when this entity is foolishly called a "particle". The rest of your post is just a regurgitation of ValeriaT claptrap; on which I am not willing to waste my time since I have proved time and again on this forum that it is garbage!
The rest of your post a regurgitation of ValeriaT; on which I am not willing to waste my time..
OK, so that whole the classical quantum mechanics with its particle-wave duality, collapse of wave function etc. is just a piece of crap -Correct!
Can you predict something new or to calculate something which the classical quantum mechanics cannot?Not just predict but also prove experimentally that wave-particle duality is nonsense! See http://www.cathod...tion.pdf I have also written a book analyzing ALL these aspects in detail. Of course in your case the abilities to "read and comprehend" are non-existent.
You should provide the framework,I have done it and it is posted on my website.
which would help in occupation of another physicists - this is the principle of social success in contemporary physicsIf you do physics for this reason you are committing treason against everything physics stands for. You are following this treasonable path my punting "wave-particle" duality in a stupid manner.I
... and here is where the man didn't want to enter, because he personally don't want to accept that hipotesis (the EPR paradox, for example) which is experimentally proven.Patronizing and condescending again: What "hipotesis" (sic) do I not want to accept? What about the EPR paradox proves what about which "hipotesis". You are talking through your nose of things your little brain can never understand!
When you imagine or visualize those subatomic waveform functions... are you thinking an ordinary macroscopic wave (let's say, like a sea wave)?They are stationary EM-waves: You see what I mean? It is known since 1905 that EM-waves do not move in a medium! Thus only a moron will imagine an EM-wave as being "like a sea wave". Have you EVER heard of Maxwell's equations?
Are you sure that cooking your grandmother constitutes a valid experiment?
"I did an experiment that falsified these hypotheses:" - Johanfprins
A single particle is sent through a double slit and is in transit to the screen. Where is it?Where is what? First define what a single "particle" is before making such an unscientific statement. How about "A ghost is sent through a wall: Where is it". Only an insane mind will argue like this.
"I do not agree that there is an "uncertainty" in the position and momentum of the center-of-mass of ANY entity" - Johanfprins
"Why should it "take care" of it. Renormalization is math. hocus-pocus." - JuhanfprinsAfter Feynman won the Nobel Prize he also called it hocus-pocus.
Percentages are math, hocus-pocus
e is an abomination and just pi in disguize.
Complex numbers are an affront to God.
Lucifer resides in Hilbert Space.
How sad for you that the predictions made by what you reject are confirmed to the limit of experimental accuracy.Where! Why do you have blatantly lie in order to make a point!
"His assumption that you can linearly combine the allowed solutions for an operator so that the coefficients are probability amplitudes is physics-nonsense" - JohanfprinsCorrect. When you solve the SINGLE electron wave equation for a chosen Hamilton operator, you get all the POSSIBLE states that a SINGLE electron can be in: It cannot have any other energy than one of these energies: A linear combination of these allowed states does not have one of these allowed energies and can thus not be a state that a SINGLE electron can be in. Thus to give physical meaning to such a linear combination of allowed states, as if it can be a SINGLE electron, is insane madness!
It will resonate to some extent with a huge number of particles in the target of course, each to varying degrees, and non perfectly.
So which resonator is selected?The one with which it resonates first.
And what prevents two resonators from being selected at the same time?
How do you prevent the charge associated with an electron from being distributed between multiple equivalent resonators?It cannot be since each resonator cannot detect less energy than that of the electron-wave.
And how does an approximate resonance at one pointGive me experimental proof that an "approximate resonance" can occur.
or small region manage to instantly negate the wave at all other locations in space?If the wave resonates with a resonator that cannot detect less energy than the energy of the wave it obviously will only be detected by ONE of the resonators!
I would be happy to do so if you can provide an adequate alternative explanation for the quantization of rest mass, charge, energy, momentum, etc.
hmmm
The 'center of mass' of your photon-wave is not fictitious because it does not exist. The 'center of mass' of your photon-wave is fictitious because no (arbitrary) measure gives it location.
You o.k. with that?
Probability will put you in a state to place a question mark behind the above statement.
So the statement '...to any degree of approximation, exactitude, preciseness, or accuracy' is a dynamically vacuous?I do not have a clue what you are trying to convey!
After this cheap psichoanalysisNot "cheap" but "moronic" and "demented"!
You try to treat QM waves as separate parts.
But they are continuous energy.Correct! This is what I have been saying all along.
The only discrete thing is the quantum energy
(when a wave has yet collapsed, forming what we call "particles", "atoms", "molecules", etc.)
But QM waves are continuous, and you cannot treat it individually, but related to all the system (universe).
you accept that there aren't particles. But you say they are "individual waves".
How can you tell where a tridimensional and asymetric "wave"
And if it changes dynamically?
An individual wave exists, or is your abstraction of it?No abstraction required: It is an experimental fact that a single photon diffracts: It can then be nothing else than a separate wave? Not a Voodoo duck paddling within a non-existent "aether"?
Schrödinger found that even the electron and all matter has "wave propierties"
How can you tell where a ... "wave" starts and finishes?
So if you aspire to construct a determinist QM, first fail is that you don't treat with individual physic objects: you only have a continuum,Not just a SINGLE one! Each wave is a continuum, but two separate waves are NOT a single continuum: They only form a SINGLE continuum when they are entangled.
that in some cases collapses and produces what we say "particles", or "the lowest energy" (as you said).A single wave can either "collapse" or "inflate" or "entangle with another wave": It still remains a wave which fills a volume in space continuously.
Can one talk about entropy in an all EM universe?
If so, what is the entropy of an all EM universe?
How can you tell where a ... "wave" starts and finishes?
It is determined by the source of the wave: Take a laser source which emits a sinusoidal wave along a single direction for a time T
It is determined by the source of the wave: Take a laser source which emits a sinusoidal wave along a single direction for a time THaha, of course... "take a laser source", but this is not natural (spontaneous) world.
So put the example that a laser can emit a "pure sinusoid", and that demonstrate the existence of a single, separate, and perfectlly delimitated wave in THREE DIMENSIONS is wrong).The existence of photons proves that it is not wrong: So does the existence of a single deBrolie frequency for any object with mass m passing by with speed v (also a meter stick) also proves that you are hallucinating.
Wrong again! The energy of a photon relates to a single well-defined frequencyWas I talking ONLY about photons? Photons (light) is the purest case you can find in the universe: that's why light is the fastest (or natural) way of transmission (they say constant), cause it lays in the lowest energy possible.
Was I talking ONLY about photons?
I'm not talking about the effects of a quantum wave collapse (an orbital jump, a photon). I'm talking about WHAT PRODUCES A COLLAPSE AND A PHOTON.
I'm not talking about when a quantum is done (photon), but the sustrate ......
Where do we start to access your physics? What branch of science or math is best equipped to describe the laws of boundaries according to the Johanian Wave equation a la Schrödinger?
My objection is posted there.What objection to what?
Maxwell's equations are not commensurate with QM.Why not?
Your derivative is not commensurate with QM.Which derivative are you talking about?
Electrons are photons?I have not said they are photons: A photon does not have rest mass; an electron has. An electron's rest-mass energy is stationary electromagnetic energy, similar to light energy trapped within a perfectly reflecting cavity: Furthermore when an electron moves it has a coherent EM wavelength given by de Broglie's "postulate". The latter can be derived directly from Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity, which, in turn, results directly from Maxwell's equations. Thus the de Broglie wavelength of an entity with rest mass (thus also an electron) is determined by Maxwell's equations. In turn, Schroedinger's equation is determined by the de Broglie wavelength and is therefore determined by Maxwell's equations.
The plate trick is the mathematical physics reason why particles in a four-dimensional spacetime are either fermions or bosons.
Welcome aboard, JP.
dan42day
Feb 16, 2013Statements like this are what make understanding quantum physics so difficult.