Waves don't exist. Convince me they do. Why do we conjecture on the existence of "waves" when the world is perfectly described by particles?

Yes I'm feeling a bit cheeky.:cool:

when the world is perfectly described by particles?

EH ERR

Come on Steve, you can do better.

Particles can't explain the dual slit findings when only one electron is fired at a time.

Waves don't exist. Convince me they do. Why do we conjecture on the existence of "waves" when the world is perfectly described by particles?

Yes I'm feeling a bit cheeky.:cool:

http://sxmprivateeye.com/files/images/waves.thumbnail_0.jpg

There..

Steve, if only wave-like paths were available to the particles then bands would indeed show on the screen.

Enmos, that's a pretty picture! (made of particles)

Enmos's post illustrates waves traversing a particulate medium, right? So in that case, waves are things that emerge from the interactions of particles.
But, I guess you're asking whether waves exist more fundamentally - in their own right, so to speak, independently of underlying particles?

I have two points:

1. Wavefunctions (such as Schrodinger's) have no physicality and are only useful in estimating measurements. Note this includes EM waves! I claim they do not exist! It is photons, and not EM waves, that are causing you that sunburn...

2. Ocean waves are a mental construct to explain energy transfer. At what point does water's movement "constitute" a wave? A billion water molecules moving together? 100? A single molecule? The answer is subjective.

If waves were truly a "thing" then I could break the speed of light by moving a (very powerful) laser pointer back and forth quickly from Earth upon the surface of the moon...

If waves don't exist, WTF is harmonic motion?

Does a swinging pendulum have a wavelike motion?

Vkothii, a pendulum's movement is the same as an ocean wave; it's a mental construct to explain energy transfer. Where does that harmonic motion "go" if it's pivot breaks? It doesn't go anywhere because it did not exist. The wave itself is nothing, and this is true for all scales of physics.

Hi RJBeery!

1. Wavefunctions (such as Schrodinger's) have no physicality and are only useful in estimating measurements. Note this includes EM waves! I claim they do not exist! It is photons, and not EM waves, that are causing you that sunburn...
We can agree that photons exist... but what are photons? Particles?
Are they even things in their own right, or are they something that emerges from some more fundamental like strings? Does it matter?

2. Ocean waves are a mental construct to explain energy transfer. At what point does water's movement "constitute" a wave? A billion water molecules moving together? 100? A single molecule? The answer is subjective.
Fundamentally, you could bring it down to two adjacent molecules. Movement in one induces movement in the next... that's a wave.
But, that misses the point of an emergent entity - it does not need to have a clear starting point. How many trees make a forest?

If waves were truly a "thing" then I could break the speed of light by moving a (very powerful) laser pointer back and forth quickly from Earth upon the surface of the moon...
Your argument is not clear.
- The "wave" you describe is an unusual example. Concluding that it is not a thing does not necessarily have any bearing on whether other waves are things.
- The wave in question is traveling from Earth to Moon at light speed, not faster.
- The transverse motion of the wave get larger and faster as the wave travels, and does indeed exceed light speed... but you need to explain why this is a problem. "You" haven't broken the speed of light in any meaningful way.

Steve, if only wave-like paths were available to the particles then bands would indeed show on the screen.

Enmos, that's a pretty picture! (made of particles)

I think you can't have a particle without a wave or a wave without a particle. Without both working as a unit, what would we have?

ZILCH

I have two points:

1. Wavefunctions (such as Schrodinger's) have no physicality and are only useful in estimating measurements. Note this includes EM waves! I claim they do not exist! It is photons, and not EM waves, that are causing you that sunburn...

2. Ocean waves are a mental construct to explain energy transfer. At what point does water's movement "constitute" a wave? A billion water molecules moving together? 100? A single molecule? The answer is subjective.

If waves were truly a "thing" then I could break the speed of light by moving a (very powerful) laser pointer back and forth quickly from Earth upon the surface of the moon...

Let's say big cube of a jello-like substance.

x = v_x
y = \omega_y
z = 0

X has a straight line trajectory where Y has an oscillating trajectory: 0\le \omega \le 2\pi

Take the integral to find the position.

\int x = \frac{{v^2}_x}{2}
\int y = \frac{{\omega^2}_y}{2}
\int z = 0

F(x,\omega) = (\frac{1}{2})[v^2 i + \omega^2 j]

Now you have your position. Plug in for different positions consecutively by intervals of h. In this case you can simply do it by saying something like...

F(x,\omega) = (\frac{1}{2}) [10x^2 + cos(\omega^2)]

x_{n+1} = x_n + h
\omega_{n+1} = \omega_n + h

You get a planar wave in 2D completely dependent on whatever you set Z to equal.
For example if 1 \le z \le 3
You have a planar wave between those 2 Z-Axis lines.

Pete, the movement of the laser's dot on the moon's surface is considered a wavefront. My point was that if this wave was anything substantial then FTL velocities would be trivial.

Yes, photons are particles, and eliminating waves from the wave-particle duality is important if we are to establish an objectively real world.

Cheski, I don't know what your point is. Yes, math is great at approximating reality (sometimes), but your "planar wave" is still just a bowl of wobbling Jell-O.

Okay; in the future direct your questions to the philosophy section. Maybe they can give you an answer you like.

Well the thread got diverted to the physical (emergent) waves describing energy transfer. My original post referred to quantum wavefunctions. Care to comment on that?

First; more appropriately name your topics. Second, clarify your specific point. Third, give evidence.

Finally; I don't think people look at wave functions as definitive. It's simply a tool used to predict the state with the highest probability currently known. If they knew the minor details there would be no more research. There has to be some recurring events though, and the best way to calculate and predict those is through wave functions.

Cheski: Well actually the thread started as a (bit of a sarcastic) counter to sisyphus' thread entitled "help me please", where he asks the readers to convince him that particles (photons) exist. (You'd better let him know how rotten HIS topic title is!)

I'm not "giving" evidence; I'm asking for it from you and others to prove that matter is ever in the quasi-existent state of a wavefunction. I propose that the world is objectively real and that there is no "transitory state" of a giant question mark between measurements of a quantum system. Before you say that I have the burden of proof, I submit that:

A) Sacrificing Reality is what should require the burden of proof and
B) Given how long your Jell-O response was, I am sure that you would give me a counter-example if you had one.

Besides, I told you I was feeling cheeky ;)

Cheski: Well actually the thread started as a (bit of a sarcastic) counter to sisyphus' thread entitled "help me please", where he asks the readers to convince him that particles (photons) exist. (You'd better let him know how rotten HIS topic title is!)

I'm not "giving" evidence; I'm asking for it from you and others to prove that matter is ever in the quasi-existent state of a wavefunction. I propose that the world is objectively real and that there is no "transitory state" of a giant question mark between measurements of a quantum system. Before you say that I have the burden of proof, I submit that:

A) Sacrificing Reality is what should require the burden of proof and
B) Given how long your Jell-O response was, I am sure that you would give me a counter-example if you had one.

Besides, I told you I was feeling cheeky ;)

So despite the fact that I agreed with you, I have to give a counter argument?

Finally; I don't think people look at wave functions as definitive. It's simply a tool used to predict the state with the highest probability currently known. If they knew the minor details there would be no more research. There has to be some recurring events though, and the best way to calculate and predict those is through wave functions.

Nah, not really from you. I agree with what you said about the wavefunctions being a tool, but I am also pretty sure that there are plenty of people that do not think that way. I was hoping someone would take the bait.

Waves don't exist. Convince me they do.
http://www.sheilaomalley.com/archives/laird_hamilton_teahupoo.jpg

Arrgghh ya got me. :)

This is a pretty ridiculous post.

Maxwell's equations are wave equations. One can have a completely consistent theory of radiation without ever having to invoke "photons". For the uninitiated, this is how it was originally discovered.

EM radiation looks like a wave. (It satisfies the wave equations, just as water waves or waves on a string.) EM radiation walks like a wave. (See, for example, double slit scattering.) These properties cannot be captured by a particle.

Ben, EM radiation "looks like a wave" because that's the way you were taught to understand and remember it. What is actually traveling through space is a bunch of photons. The wave-like appearance is a relic of the photons being restricted to paths that are made available to them. By the way, if wave-like properties cannot be captured by particles then why did you mention water waves? :p

Particles is it?
And space would then be?
And 'spontaneous matter creation' from the same would be explained as?

And lights momentum should then be explained as?

You're sure about this???

RJBeery:
Waves don't exist. Convince me they do. Why do we conjecture on the existence of "waves" when the world is perfectly described by particles?

I totally agree with you but you must then have to describe how diffraction patterns happen for photons , electrons, protons and neutrons in terms of your models of the particles.

I have a complete theory about this. You can take a look at the site: http://www.geocities.com/anewlightinphysics but I would like to know which are your theories about.

RJBeery---

All phenomena in EM radiation can be understood as solutions to the wave equation, using appropriate boundary conditions. This wa understood in the 1800's.

Ben, the photoelectric effect and the Compton effect cannot be explained with wave equations, yet I can explain the dual slit with particles. Why introduce the concept of wave-particle duality if it isn't necessary?

IsThatSo, are you suggesting that space and "spontaneous matter creation" is composed of waves? I don't get your post.:bugeye:

Martillo, it looks that you've put a lot of effort into your theory, thanks for sharing. I'll have to read it all before I can comment.

Why introduce the concept of wave-particle duality if it isn't necessary?

It is necessary though, if everything was straight forwards and particle's, then you would have a completely causality driven system with no room for "err". Waveformation's to me imply reasoning into Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle which could not fully appreciated as just particle based.

Excellent, Ben, move the thread to Pseudoscience when you disagree with it or don't understand it. Very consistent with the spirit of Science and pursuit of knowledge! :(

Please explain then how the results of the dual slit experiment come about when only one electron is fired at a time.

Steve100:
Please explain then how the results of the dual slit experiment come about when only one electron is fired at a time.
The Feynman's double slit experiment fails in the assumption that only one particle is emitted at a time. If you analyze in deep the process by which the particles are emitted you will realize that there's no guarantee that individual particles are emitted in each discrete event. Actually a "burst" of parallel "trains" of particles are emitted and so two "trains" passes trough the slits interacting at the end producing the diffraction pattern in a way that is very compatible with the Huygen's principle although applied to "trains" of particles.

RJBeery:
Excellent, Ben, move the thread to Pseudoscience when you disagree with it or don't understand it. Very consistent with the spirit of Science and pursuit of knowledge!
Actually the thread should belong to a category that could be called "Alternative Theories" or "Independent Researchs" or "Skepticism" or something like that as other Forums have but this Forum does not have it...

Well, even "Philosophy" would be more appropriate than Pseudoscience. Ahh well, I wouldn't expect an "Actual Physicist" like Ben to be anything but indoctrinated. ;)

BenThe Man:
All phenomena in EM radiation can be understood as solutions to the wave equation, using appropriate boundary conditions. This wa understood in the 1800's.
All phenomena in "EM radiation" can be understood as emission/absorption of photons as "electromagnetic particles". This was understood in the 2000's.

Hello all

The "photon" is the energy contained in the EM wave. Hence experiments that look for energy will see energy and experiments that look for waves will see waves.

:)

Why do we conjecture on the existence of "waves" when the world is perfectly described by particles?

Because the world is NOT "perfectly described by particles". Google "double-slit experiment".

Letticia:
Because the world is NOT "perfectly described by particles".
NOT in current "Mainstream Physics", which get out of rails with Einstein and De Broglie theories (although their formulas are quite fine), but IT IS in the new theories presented at: http://www.geocities.com/anewlightinphysics
Much more complete than you could imagine.

Letticia, you are presuming that the only explanation for wave interference patterns is that the photons are themselves made of waves. If we arrange pieces of cheese in that same interference pattern shall we claim that the mice that congregate there are made of waves as well?

Explain why, with optics, a lens can have a focus at 'infinity'. An object with infinite optical distance is focused by the lens, which projects the distant object into a local focal 'point'.
Is it because EM radiation has a short enough wavelength at optical frequencies that it propagates more or less in nice straight lines (effective theory)? Radio frequency certainly doesn't do that if you try to focus it with a glass lens?

Vkothii:
Explain why, with optics, a lens can have a focus at 'infinity'. An object with infinite optical distance is focused by the lens, which projects the distant object into a local focal 'point'.

Optical lenses are based on the called "refraction" feature of light (which follows Snell's law) which is explained in my theories in terms of photons at Section 4.3. The focus point is achieved with an appropiated shape of the surfaces of the lens.

Radio frequency certainly doesn't do that if you try to focus it with a glass lens?
Interesting question. In the new theories radio-waves are carried by photons (Chapter Seven) and so they should be present the same properties but only if the refraction if the same for the kind of photons of the radio-waves. I mean, radio-wave photons are not visible, they have different frequency and energy, and it should be studied if they present the same refraction property while passing through glass.

Please explain then how the results of the dual slit experiment come about when only one electron is fired at a time.
This can be explained if a particle is considered to be a spinning helix shape. A quantum theory of gravity is needed to describe the permanent nature of the structure though :)