On 12/02/09 19:06, Darren New wrote:
>> 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.

	Throughout this thread (which I admit I did not read all of), you've 
stated stuff a bit too definitively for my taste, as if all the top 
physicists agree on this.

	I can only abuse David Mermin's quote: "Shut up and calculate!"

	I'm guessing that the actual mathematical formalism that we have for QM 
addresses all that is _needed_, in that it always works, and we know of 
no phenomenon (except perhaps gravity) that our mathematical formalism 
fails at. Given that, having an argument about whether it's a wave or a 
particle is philosophy of the pointless kind. The theory will remain 
unchanged.

	I'm truly baffled as to why y'all are arguing so much about this.

	*Knowing* that it's a particle or a wave is not (as far as anyone 
knows) going to change physics, or its rules, or even give better 
results, or allow you to do better calculations. I'm not even sure if 
any of you has bothered to *define* what a particle is or what a wave 
is. Without doing so, the argument becomes even more amusing - 
especially considering that what an electron/photon is may truly not fit 
either one.

	Which is likely the view I favor: Notions of particles and waves for 
things like photons and electrons are somewhat meaningless Heck, a wave 
was "meaningless" for light even before QM was known - what is it waving 
in? I'm sure some of your (Darren's) arguments against viewing it as a 
wave were as applicable in the 1800's, before QM came around.

	Particles/waves, to me, are macroscopic phenomena. Photons and 
electrons are described accurately by the mathematical rules in QM. 
That's all there is. There's really nothing more to know about it. We 
know as much as there is to know about QM as we did classical mechanics. 
Ultimately, the latter was also properly described by a mathematical 
formalism. We had an illusion that we understood that better merely 
because we were used to it in our daily lives. But that's just an illusion.

	(OK, I may be exaggerating a tiny bit in the last paragraph, but the 
main point is that just because it seems "weird" doesn't mean it's any 
weirder than classical mechanics).

>> 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.

	In general, are you sure polarization cannot be described just by 
waves? If you have waves in 3-D materials? FYI, the standard model for 
sound waves in solids (i.e. phonons) assumes they have a polarization.

> 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.

	I haven't read the book, but my physics professor said that it's THE 
book to read (QED) if you want to get an understanding of light/EM 
phenomenon.

-- 
Even if you win the rat race, you are still a rat.

Post a reply to this message