Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> I think it's Occam's Razor here. Why postulate a quantum being a wave if (1) 
> no observation is capable of ever seeing it as a wave

  I suppose that means that all phenomena caused by electromagnetic waves
(which light is) has to be explained by non-wave means, such as for example
electromagnetic radiation having a frequency and amplitude, as well as
exhibiting wave-like behavior such as polarization (how can you polarize
a particle given that polarization is by definition a property of waves
that describes the orientation of their oscillations?) and the effect
electromagnetic waves have on electric conductors (which is what radio and
TV broadcasts, among many other things. are based on).

  The effect on eletric conductors is interesting: Electromagnetic waves
cause electrons to move at the same frequency than the frequency of the
incoming radiation, which clearly demonstrates that it does have a
frequency. The amount of movement is proportional to the amplitude of
the incoming radiation, which demonstrates that it does have an amplitude.
The amount of movement is also proportional to the direction of oscillation
of the incoming radiation (something which is also demonstrated by
polarization).

  The double-slit experiment also demonstrates wave-like quality.

  If it looks like a wave, feels like a wave, smells like a wave, what is it?
Not a wave, it seems. It just fakes being one quite well.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message