On May 1, 11:20*am, maxwell wrote:
On Apr 23, 6:17*am, PD wrote:
On Apr 23, 6:23*am, John Kennaugh
wrote:
PD wrote:
On Apr 22, 9:00*am, John Kennaugh
wrote:
One cannot prove it is a wave only show evidence that it might be.
Similarly you cannot prove it is particles. What is critical is evidence
that it isn't a wave or evidence that it isn't a particle.
It cannot be both.
Why not?
One has to either explain how a wave can give an
impeccable impression of being a particle, or explain how particles can
give rise to very convincing wavelike properties. To me the former is
impossible the latter exceedingly difficult. You may see it differently.
A US quarter exhibits the properties of a US president. It also
exhibits the properties of a carnivorous bird.
A US quarter is incapable of starting an unnecessary war without having
even the vaguest plan as to what to do after it had been 'won' neither
is it capable of eating flesh so a US quarter exhibits neither the
properties of a president nor of a carnivorous bird.
Well, the electron is incapable of always being localizable, and so it
also fails at exhibiting the properties of a particle. And an electron
is incapable of delivering its momentum in continuous fashion, and so
it also fails at exhibiting the properties of a wave. To Tom's point,
this indicates that an electron is neither a particle or a wave in
this sense, though it exhibits properties of both.
The blame doesn't rest on the electron, of course. The problem is our
assumption that physical entities can be exhaustively and mutually
exclusively characterized as particles or as waves. That assumption
now appears to be poor.
The problem has been our lack of imagination. *Newton's particle was a
little bit too simple a model for the electron but it was OK for
mathematizing gravity. *Maxwell & all his followers recognized that
waves are the property of something real - not an existent in their
own right, as this supposition could not explain interference etc.
These phenomena need the possibility of negative & positive values
that can add to zero: this is not a property of existence, which can
be modeled by the simple integer numbers 1 and 0; hence the rational
belief in the aether in the 19th Century.
So, Gentlemen, back to the drawing boards & sharpen your imagination!- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Dear Maxwell: Lorentz's explanation for the nil result of the M-M
experiment "allowed that" objects will contract due to velocity
(sic). His equation, that forms the diviser under E = mc^2,
disregards the need for an EXPANSION of each object through the 180
degrees of the apparatus's rotation in a horizontal plane. That is
like your conundrum with the " 1 and 0", but without a -1. Lorentz
thought that was just fine, because he was biased to believe that
since 'c' is the maximum velocity (sic), objects would only need to
contract (sic).
Interferometers are part of my niche. Because waves have both
"crests" and "valleys" they indeed have 1s, 0s, and minus1s. But the
sine curve variation of the true "photon" based light is due to
angular variation in going to the point of view on the target, not due
to the varying longitudinal vibrations of the "waves". — NoEinstein —
Where Angels Fear to Fall
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.p...8737b3de57d9e6
Cleaning Away Einstein’s Mishmash
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.p...9aef0aee462d26
Dropping Einstein Like a Stone
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.p...967db2b?hl=en#