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.Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
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...
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! 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? 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? 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.
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
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 Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
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.
