Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> Warp wrote:
> >   It looks like a wave, it behaves like a wave, it produces all the effects
> > that a wave would produce, but it's not a wave.

> No, it doesn't. It has the same math as a wave, *if* there's only one. If 
> there's more than one, the behavior isn't like waves.

> What function of waves produces lasing? Polarization?

  Your logic seems to be that since photons do *more* than waves do, in
other words, photons seems to be a superset of pure waves, then they are
not waves at all.

  Why not apply the same logic in reverse? Since photons seem to do more
than pure particles would be expected to do, then they are not particles
either.

  It feels a bit like saying that a seaplane is not a plane because normal
planes can't land on water but a seaplane can.

> >>> "OK, so why do I still get the exact same patterns if there's only one 
> >>> photon there?"
> > 
> >> Because there are no waves.
> > 
> >   You get a wave interference pattern *because* (not "even though") there's
> > no wave. That makes sense.

> No, you get the exact same patterns when there's only one photon there, 
> because it's not caused by interference between photons.

  I find it rather amusing that QM doesn't seem to have any problem in
accepting phenomena which feel completely supernatural and counterintuitive,
such as the state of one particle instantly determining the state of another
particle which is light-years away, when the state of the particle is
"observed" (whatever that might mean), but the idea of a photon passing
through two slits at the same time and interfering with itself seems too
hard to swallow.

  (I'm not saying that's what's happening. I'm saying that the way you write
makes it sound like that.)

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message