Warp wrote:
> 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)

I think it's not considered to be an electromagnetic wave any more.

> has to be explained by non-wave means, such as for example
> electromagnetic radiation having a frequency and amplitude, 

Yep. Explained.

> 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?)

Not in QM. I don't know too much about polarization, but it's not purely 
based on "wave" stuff.

> and the effect
> electromagnetic waves have on electric conductors (which is what radio and
> TV broadcasts, among many other things. are based on).

Sure. Particles of light hitting the metal of the antenna and knocking 
electrons around causes radio reception, for example.

>   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 change in quantum-amplitude has a frequency, because you're changing it 
in a regular pattern at the transmitter.

> The amount of movement is proportional to the amplitude of
> the incoming radiation, 

It's proportional to the number of photons arriving. If by "amplitude" you 
mean "strength", then yes. If by "amplitude" you mean what people who talk 
about QED mean, then no.

 > 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.

As I said, the probability of finding a particle in a particular place is 
based on multiplying complex numbers. But since you never actually find a 
wave, but only interference patterns (so to speak), it's probably not a 
wave.  The "wave" properties don't explain *all* the different kinds of 
interference, but only the kinds that interfere like waves do. There's also 
interference patterns that are the opposite of what you'd get with waves 
(lasing vs exclusion principle) that is *also* explained by the theory in 
which everything is a particle.

You really should watch the lectures (or read the book) I pointed you to. 
They do a very nice job of explaining it. Both the video and the book are 
Feynman, who got a nobel prize for figuring out how to explain to other 
quantum physicists how to figure out wtf is going on with quantum mechanics, 
so it's really quite interesting.

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   Human nature dictates that toothpaste tubes spend
   much longer being almost empty than almost full.

Post a reply to this message