onsdag 26 oktober 2011

Science Collapse from Wave-Particle Duality


Physics books generally propagate a concept of wave-particle duality expressing that matter and light on atomic scales can exhibit both wave and particle properties. In particular, the old wave-particle controversy on the nature of light going back to Huygens-Newton, which was revived with the introduction of quantum mechanics, is presented as a Solomonic compromise that light is both particle and wave.

Newton's particle theory of light was replaced by a wave theory expressed by Maxwell's equations in the late 19th century, but particles were reintroduced in the early 20th century by Planck to explain blackbody radiation and by Einstein to explain the photoelectric effect. Light was here seen as a stream of light particles later named photons.

Wave-particle duality was then in the hands of Bohr and his Copenhagen interpretation described as wave-function collapse expressing that Schrödinger's distributed continuous wave function "collapsed" into a singular point/delta function upon observation.

But to be both particle and wave is a logical contradiction like being both square and circular at the same time, and logical contradictions in science are catastrophic. From a contradiction anything can follow and the crisis of physics of today can be seen as a result of this contradiction. The fiction of "wave-function collapse" of Bohr designed to handle the contradiction prepared for the real collapse of physics of today. Wave-particle duality is double-speak and double-speak in science is catastrophical.

Is there then any way of avoiding the collapse? Is it possible to throw out particles once and for all and be happy with only waves in a consistent wave theory? A number of physicists say yes, see Are There Any Photons at All? and Collective Electrodynamics by Carver Mead. It is further possible to describe both blackbody radiation and the photoelectric effect using wave theory.

The evidence for waves is massive while the evidence for particles is almost nil. In particular, wave theory has a mathematical expression in the form of Maxwell's equations and Schrödinger's wave equation as compact general descriptions of electro-magnetics and quantum mechanics. Particle theory has a trivial mathematical expression as straight lines traced by rays of photons. Particle theory is bogged down by infinities from singularities of
point/delta functions.

A physical theory with a non-trivial mathematical expression is very useful. This is wave theory.

A physical theory with a trivial mathematical dress is not useful. This is particle theory.

Recall the late Einstein did not believe in the light quanta or photons he had happened to let in to the inner room of science, as he confessed shortly before his death (1954):
  • All these fifty years of conscious brooding have brought me no nearer to the answer to the question, 'What are light quanta?' Nowadays every Tom, Dick and Harry thinks he knows it, but he is mistaken.
Particle theory is behind the idea of DLR/backradition playing a key role in CO2 climate alarmism expressing a collapse of climate science.

What do physicists of today say about the collapse from wave-particle duality? Nothing it seems. Because physics has collapsed?

28 kommentarer:

  1. You are apparently unaware of the fact that wave-particle duality has been observed both with photons, which are waves in the old classical models, and with molecules, which are particles in classical models.

    http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/2952

    SvaraRadera
  2. It seems that wave interference was observed, confirming wave theory.

    SvaraRadera
  3. Claes wrote:
    But to be both particle and wave is a logical contradiction like being both square and circular at the same time, and logical contradictions in science are catastrophic.

    Now you fall into a logical fallacy. You demand that the "entity" in question is something and this results in a duality. And that you do this isn't strange since the usage in that sence sloppily is (no pun intended) thrown around.

    My own experience is that no one of the professors etc I interacted with (both from the theoretical and the applied side) actually claim that matter and light are "this and that". Matter and light have particle and wave qualities depending on the forcing of the surrounding.

    Do you see your own logical fallacy here?

    If not I suggest that you think really hard on the subject. Personally I don't see it as that strange. Particle-wave duality is an extremely unfortunate choice of words that for some (really mysterious) reason has stuck. But I repeat, as it was taught to me and my fellow students, the wave-particle duality isn't about the nature of matter and light, it's about the possible qualities of matter and light.

    Sincerely,
    Dol

    SvaraRadera
  4. "It seems that wave interference was observed, confirming wave theory. "

    So you think C60 molecules are waves, not particles?

    SvaraRadera
  5. You have been fooled by your professors into believing that contradictions
    in physics are ok, but they are not. At least not according to Schrödinger who could not accept the contradiction of wave-particle duality and felt obliged to leave physics in disgust. To make a virtue of confusion is not so admirable. I suggest you ask your professors about DLR and backradiation
    and the proof of Planck's radiation law.

    SvaraRadera
  6. A typical Claes Johnson response - miss the point, say something vacuous and foolish, never engage in actual discussion. You're intellectually very immature. So are you saying that particles don't exist now, only waves, or did you misunderstand the article?

    SvaraRadera
  7. Everything is waves, according to Schrödinger.

    SvaraRadera
  8. You are right, there are no particles. A particle is a contradictory concept from physical point of view as consisting of something without extension.

    SvaraRadera
  9. Claes wrote:
    You have been fooled by your professors into believing that contradictions
    in physics are ok, but they are not.


    I wonder if you really read what I wrote because it is obvious that you do not yet understand the nature of your logical fallacy.

    Let me ask you Claes, yes or no (no other answer is acceptable), have you stopped beating your wife?

    Sincerely,
    Dol

    SvaraRadera
  10. This is not a scientific question.

    SvaraRadera
  11. Claes wrote:
    This is not a scientific question.

    Well it kind of is, because it demonstrates the same kind of semantic fallacy that you get when demanding particle or wave.

    Try to think of why the question regarding the wife beating isn't a good one.

    Sincerely,
    Dol

    SvaraRadera
  12. Rephrase your question as a scientific question.

    SvaraRadera
  13. Claes wrote:
    Rephrase your question as a scientific question.

    Yes or no (no other answer is acceptable), is it a particle or a wave.

    Sincerely,
    Dol

    SvaraRadera
  14. I am sorry Dol, the discussion leads nowhere, and I will not respond any further.

    SvaraRadera
  15. I repeat: There are no particles. Only waves.

    SvaraRadera
  16. I'm sorry to hear that you don't take the discussion seriously. And it is disrespectful considering that I have put down quite some time into seriously trying to discuss the subject with you.

    Please don't forget that you are in a win-win situation.

    The people that scrutinize your arguments does a "stress test" to see if your ideas hold up. That's a big win.

    At the same time, if your ideas don't hold up, wouldn't you like to know that so that you can find better subjects to spend your time on? That's a big win to.

    Never the less

    Claes wrote:
    It is further possible to describe both blackbody radiation and the photoelectric effect using wave theory.

    Yes, that's perfectly true. But you can not explain antibunching using a classical wave theory.

    Sincerely,
    Dol

    SvaraRadera
  17. Claes, please try to engage in Dol's discussion! It is very illuminating. What is wrong with the question "is it a particle or a wave"?

    SvaraRadera
  18. Claes, I feel really sorry that you don't want to continue the discussion with Dol anymore. I think he really tries to bring clarity here.

    Can you please give your view of the thinking:
    "no one claim that matter and light are "this and that". Matter and light have particle and wave qualities depending on the forcing of the surrounding."

    SvaraRadera
  19. You really should contact someone who is working on nano-technology related research to discuss what the current experimental situation says about this matter. I then mean photon existence in general, and low frequency photons in particular.

    My spontaneous suggestion is Göran Johansson at Chalmers (http://mina4-49.mc2.chalmers.se/~gojo71/). If he is not up to the discussion I'm sure he can direct you to someone who is.

    Sincerely,
    Dol

    SvaraRadera
  20. Your choice of photo for this post is quite repugnant.

    SvaraRadera
  21. I think that what I was saying earlier is quite lucid in the light of the mathematical modelling of quantum mechanics.

    (For simplicity choose units so that h_bar = 1)

    There is the relation

    < p | x >= const. Exp[i (p x)]

    telling us that a totally localized particle in x-space is the reciprocal of a monochromatic wave in k-space. And this is not the only possibility, there are many kind of states in between...

    Sincerely,
    Dol

    SvaraRadera
  22. To clarify,

    in reality, with real detectors we never have a situation where the detector has perfect resolution and there will always be a spreading in x-space.

    Sincerely,
    Dol

    SvaraRadera
  23. I suggest a less fanciful reading of the heat radiation.
    Let’s consider the diagram of the heat engine performance given by the power N (Watt) vs the velocity of rotation n (rpm), e.g. the following figure "Heat Engine Performance".
    The power line is very similar to BB spectrum and that tells us the BB is really a heat engine which converts the heat to radiating power. There is a rpm n0 of cut on above which the engine in able to work, a rpm n2 where the power has a peak and a maximum rpm of cut of over that the engine cannot go. All that is due to the efficiency of the heat to mechanic power.
    The parallelism with the BB is so obvious than everybody can do it.
    Michele

    SvaraRadera
  24. Dol wrote:
    a totally localized particle in x-space is the reciprocal of a monochromatic wave in k-space.

    Typically I was thinking of two different, opposite cases, and managed to mix them both when I wrote this.

    Of course it should say that a totally localization in x-space is the reciprocal of a spreading over all k-space. (And the other case, that I mixed it with, is when the wave is monochromatic and totally spread over x-space).

    Sincerely,
    Dol

    SvaraRadera
  25. Please can you analysis and please visit my web site 'www.timeflow.org' .In addition You can find in my web site in http://www.chronos.msu.ru/rweblinks.html 'Personal Sites and Web-Pages' . Thanks.

    SvaraRadera
  26. I had almost expected some reaction from your side on this years Nobel prize by now.

    Are you preparing something?

    SvaraRadera
  27. Nice with a Nobel price in physics that is partly about experiments with microwave photons. :)

    SvaraRadera