Re: Virtual Particles and Light Duality principle

From: Emwizsoon (emwizsoon_at_yahoo.com)
Date: 01/02/05 

Date: 2 Jan 2005 02:15:04 -0800

mmeron@cars3.uchicago.edu wrote:

> So, lets elaborate. *Classically* we recognize entities which we
call
> "particles". What characterizes them is that they're localized (your

> "point"). First, whenever they interact with something, they
interact
> in a specific point in space and moment in time. Second, in between
> interactions they propagate in localized fashion. Now, the first of
> these features is quite clear, as for the second, a purist may object

> that we don't actually know what they do between interactions since
> the only way to check this would be through an interaction. This is
> true, but we've at our disposal a dynamic theory (Newton's) which
> allows us, based on a set of observations (i.e. interactions) on the
> particle at some place and time, predict where it'll be at some other

> time *assuming* it propagates as a localized entity, and said
> predicitons agree with actual measurements (i.e. interactions)
> performed at said other time. We can't ask for more than this.
>
> *Classically*, we also recognize other entities which we call
"waves".
> Unlike classical particles, classical waves are delocalized. They
> exist, in any given moment, over extended regions of space, they
> propagate in delocalized fashin and they (that's important) interact
> in delocalized fashion. Same wave can interact at various locations,

> at the same time. In fact, a wave can be split into parts that
> continue propagating as independent waves.
>
> Now, in the quantum realm we encounter entities which are, strictly
> speaking, *neither* waves *nor* particles, in the classical sense.
> Yes, they do share some features with both. They do interact in
> localized fashin, the way classical particles do. But they also
> propagate in delocalized fashion, the way classical waves do. This
> *does not* mean that they're "sometimes waves and sometimes
> particles", the way cheap popularizations and poor teachers present
> it, just that they are a different type of entity of both "classical
> wave" and "classical particle".
> >
> Mati Meron | "When you argue with a fool,
> meron@cars.uchicago.edu | chances are he is doing just the
same"

Ok. I understood what you mean. But if there is a model that can
described them more intuitively... like particles are standing
waves of somekind as described in great detail in the following:

http://www.blazelabs.com/f-p-intro.asp

Can't one take the simpler explanation. Today sunday if you have time,
pls. kind take a good look above and let me know what you think
(use the red button at the bottom to move to succeeding pages with
more than a hundred of illustrations like how waves form nucleus.
Use a resolution of 1024x768 too so all menus will pop out right).

Well. I can accomodate the more accepted quantum explanations but just
find to hard to imagine the wavicles turning into partiwave at point
of contact in the phosphor especially in the photoelectric effect
where particles are only one that can affect the nucleus. The
above site offers a more intuitive explanation in that the wave
just affects the standing wave in the nucleus (because all are
standing wave, pls check it out).

I'm just looking for one good reason that can put the web site
hypothesis to trash (so it won't bother me in the future).
Many thanks.

Emwi

Quantcast