Dinosaur, Yes, there absolutely is a lot of misunderstanding in this thread. In the beginning, French rather annoyed me, and I even made the comment that I felt my responses were falling on deaf ears. Since then, I have come to appreciate French as a very inquisitive and strongly opinionated person -- for better or worse -- yet one who has demonstrated the capability to actually be a patient student when things suit him. I feel French has listened to me, and perhaps even learned something from me -- and that's all I ask. I enjoy helping others understand the things that once took me great effort to understand. I do not intend to treat French as a fool so long as he will hear me out and let me explain to him the things I can immediately recognize that he does not yet understand. French, Since you responded directly to Dinosaur, I'm going to let him respond to most of things you said in your post, though I believe he and I will respond in virtually the same way. I do, however, want to make one semi-phisophical statement about one thing you said. The following may be my personal opinion -- not some deduction from mathematics, or even experiment -- just my gut feeling. Right now, the physics community believes that electrons are truly fundamental -- they contain no deeper physics or structure. We have also verified billions of times through experiment that electrons emit photons at random moments. Experiments also verify that the electron does not contain any watchworks which control the photon emission. If there were some inner workings, we would be able to observe them to determine when the electron will emit a photon. Instead, we believe the photon emission takes place at a fundamentally indetermine (random) time. We believe there literally is no way to figure out when it's going to happen. You balk at this concept, French -- but, in fact, it's the only way I can see the universe working. Consider the alternative: say the electron actually does have a deeper mechanism that would explain photon emission in a deterministic fashion. What would happen to our understanding of the universe? There are three possibilities: 1) The universe in infinitely complex. The deeper you look, the more structure you see -- ad infinitum. 2) The universe is finitely complex. There is a layer of maximal complexity, and it is probabilistic. 3) The universe is finitely complex. There is a layer of maximal complexity, and it is deterministic. What if we lived in Universe (1)? Well, it would imply that the inner workings themselves have inner workings. We can dissect a watch to see gears and levers -- but it's obvious that's not the whole story. We can then investigate the gears and levers, and discover the secrets about the structure and properties of metals and atoms. We can then go deeper and investigate the properties of nuclei -- and so on, to deeper and deeper complexity, forever. But don't you agree that in a sensible universe, there HAS to be some fundamental layer, which is not subject to still deeper physics? Doesn't our investigation have to end at some level of complexity in a rational universe? Could a universe with infinitely deep complexity even exist? Would such a universe be capable of producing behaviors that resemble the randomness of radioactive nuclei or photon emission from free electrons without the axioms provided by some definite level of maximal complexity? I am philosophically inclined to believe that the Universe does not possess infinitely deep complexity -- we live in either (2) or (3). It seems experimentally that the deepest level of complexity is that of quarks and leptons. These particles have no inner watchworks -- they just happen to obey statistics, rather than determinism. Now, you seem to have the opinion that determinism is somehow superior to probabilism -- probably because you have been cultured to think of the Universe as deterministic, as many people are. To you, it seems absurd to think that the Universe is probabilistic. But why? What makes probabilism inferior to determinism? To me, the two are peers -- they're equally valid ways that something can behave. One is not preferrable over the other. If the maximally complex layer was deterministic rather than probabilistic (i.e. we live in Universe (3)), there could be no random behavior at any larger scale, like that of the decay of radioactive nuclei. In a similar fashion, a computer, which is incapable of indeterminate operations, is not capable of ever producing true random numbers. Indeterminism cannot sprout from determinism. So I see no other way for the universe to work -- the universe displays clearly random behavior at scales at least as large as radioactive nuclei. If there is some deepest layer of physics, it MUST be probabilistic, or else there could be no randomness in the higher layers. I believe the universe MUST have a finite complexity, and therefore MUST be probabilistic at that deepest layer. There simply is no other way to make our experiments operate as they do. Even if we do find a deeper layer of complexity beyond that of quarks and leptons, it's going to have to look the same way -- probabilistic. - Warren
Frencheneesz: Not sure I have the time nor the patience to deal with all of your objections, so I will pick and choose a bit rather than proceeding in order. Furthermore, I am sure this post will be too long without addressing all of your remarks. This is difficult subject matter and most of your glib comments cannot be answered with terse glib retorts unless you want to reduce this to ad hominem arguments and wise cracks. The following is an example of a superficially valid objection to what I posted. Yet, when analyzed, my post is still basically correct. You seem to be claiming that in 10<sup>23</sup> plays the expected results would not happen. This is an absurd claim. Probability theory is often called The Law of Large Numbers because the more you play the closer the data comes to the expected results. This has been supported by mathematical logic for over 200 years. It has also been supported by many experiments dealing with random processes. Your post indicates that you have naive views based on opinion rather than knowledge of probability or logical analysis. Do you have any background in probability and statistics? BTW: It is best to avoid introducing infinity in a thread not directly addressing it. There are too many invalid common notions and too many traps for the unwary. Physics tries to deal in experiments which can be conducted in finite time, but let us analyze your claim about an infinite number of gamblers. As the number of gamblers grows without bound, the number who win approaches zero and the number who lose at the expected rate approaches 100%. Think about playing at unfavorable casino odds. What would you expect the ratio of winners to losers to be as the number of plays grows without bound? You state that out of an infinite number of gamblers at least one (and mathematically, an infinite number) would win 10<sup>23</sup> Times. How long do you think you would have to wait for a single gambler to show a net gain of any amount in a run of 10<sup>23</sup> plays at unfavorable odds? How many would lose at the expected rate while you were waiting for the first lucky one? Consider how many would get the expected losing results (a number approaching 100%), and how many would win anything (a number approaching zero%). If you return to the real world which does not permit us to work with infinitely many gamblers, probabilistic processes involving 10<sup>23</sup> plays behave like deterministic processes. There is ample experimental evidence and mathematical logic supporting this claim. Consider flipping a coin an unbounded number of times. The absolute difference between the number of heads and tails grows without bound, the percentage of heads approaches 50%, and the probability of exactly the same number of heads and tails approaches zero. For 10, 100, & 1000 tosses, the probability of exactly half heads and half tails is .246094, .079589, & .025225 respectively and approaches zero as the number of tosses increase. Yet the percentage approaches 50%. Just consider flipping a coin 10<sup>23</sup> times. If there is an excess of one million heads (perhaps not unlikely in that many tosses), the percentage of heads is 50% to about 17 decimal places. An excess of one billion gives 50% to about 14 decimal places. Quantum processes obeying probabilistic laws deal with that many events, and can result in extremely predictable behavior. The geniuses of modern times (Bohr, Einstein, Feynman, Hawking, Penrose, to name a few) claim to be unable to visualize, explain, or understand what goes on at the Quantum level, even though they are very knowledgeable about the discipline. That is proof enough for me. What do you want for proof? Perhaps something like a simple proof of the Pythagorean Theorem? Try reading some of the literature about Quantum Mechanics, and see if you can visualize what goes on at that level. While you are at it, visualize a 5D hypercube or a 5D hypersphere. Both of these objects have well defined dimensions and geometry. Mathematically, they are well described objects. Can you visualize either one? When Bohr said something like the following, he was serious. I happen to be an atheist. I wonder what made you think I was a believer in religion. Oddly enough, it has been my experience that believers in determinism are likely to be religious. It is more consistent with their belief in a universe designed by a creator. The Quantum world displays statistical behavior. As mentioned in previous post, radioactive decay is obviously modeled by probability, not deterministic mathematics. No matter how much more we learn about the nucleus, the nature of the data will not change. It will always be Poisson distribution data. A deeper understanding (if any exists) can only indicate that the probabilistic behavior originates at a deeper level of reality than we can currently measure. If the accurately known observable data is statistical in nature, why should you expect a deterministic explanation at some time in the future? I can only imagine that it is an article of faith rather than due to a logical appraisal of experimental data. Statistics are not laws: Why not? Because of your very strong belief? Are we talking about faith or science here? There was a time when people had a very strong belief that god was the mechanism behind lightening, gravity, volcanos, et cetera. Until the early part of the twentieth century, scientists (with good reason) believed in a deterministic universe. When the evidence went against that belief, they accepted statistical laws. The statistical laws of Quantum Mechanics have made some remarkably accurate predictions later verified by experimental evidence. Is this not what science is about? Develop a theory and an accompanying mathematical model which corresponds closely to experimental data. Then use the model to predict the results of a future experiment. When the proposed experiment is performed and the results match the prediction, it is taken as evidence that the theory is a good one. The statistical laws of Quantum Theory have been verified many times. Do you have any evidence for your strong beliefs about determinism, which is no longer considered valid by modern physicists? If I do not mention it now, I suspect that you will talk about some dumb beliefs held in the past and now known to be wrong. This is often used as a argument for revolutionary advances in future knowledge. This is a fallacious argument. I would like to point out that science over the past 200-400 years has been improving in an evolutionary manner, getting ever closer to some ultimate truths about how the universe works. Cosmology, psychology, economic theory, and biology are poorly understood now and there is a lot of possibility for vast leaps of understanding in those fields. Physics is certainly not a complete science, nor is mathematics, but these disciplines are pushing the limits of human knowledge. There is so much accurately known experimental data which conforms to current theories that advances of the magnitude of General Relativity and Quantum Theory no longer seem possible. Even if we learn how to harness Quintessence or vacuum energy (a far out cosmological concept), it will be an evolutionary development of an idea conceived by Dirac 60 or more years ago. Remarkable advances in technology are still possible (and perhaps likely), but it will be surprising if leaps of understanding can occur at a fundamental theoretical level. Even if they do occur (which I doubt), they will not result in deterministic laws to replace statistical laws. Statistical data is statistical data. No advance in knowledge will change the nature of that data.
"Since then, I have come to appreciate French as a very inquisitive and strongly opinionated person " Damnit, my ego needs no more infaltion, its going to explode! Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! "1) The universe in infinitely complex. The deeper you look, the more structure you see -- ad infinitum. 2) The universe is finitely complex. There is a layer of maximal complexity, and it is probabilistic. 3) The universe is finitely complex. There is a layer of maximal complexity, and it is deterministic. " There is absolutely no proof that holds one of these above another, yet I do have the "gut feeling" that it is number 3. The human mind can't comprehend infinite anything very easily. The idea that time goes on forever in both directions is bad enough. I think having infinitely more inner workings is too much for my simple mind to handle, I have to disagree with it (meaning number three). "But don't you agree that in a sensible universe, there HAS to be some fundamental layer" Its that nagging gut feeling. "It seems experimentally that the deepest level of complexity is that of quarks and leptons. " The greeks had the gut feeling that atoms were the smallest particle. During the 20th century, we found out that atoms are a building block of a kind, but then found that they too have inner workings. It would be a bit short sited of us to say we have found the last layer of complexity, don't you think? You know, seeing as though we've only had a couple decades to think about it. "To you, it seems absurd to think that the Universe is probabilistic. But why? " Well of course my education implys it, but then it also implys that humans have free will, something that cannot exist in a deterministic world. BUT, I dismiss fundemental probability for the reason that there are many "choices" that a fundemental particle could have. In a deterministic world, there is only one "choice" and so everything happens according to precise mechanics. Of course, thats just my opinion. "What makes probabilism inferior to determinism? " Inferior may not be the correct word. As I said, probability implys a "choice" rather than a deterministic precision. My problem with the "choice" thing, is that if you take each particle by itself, they have no "knowledge" of other particles. "If the maximally complex layer was deterministic rather than probabilistic (i.e. we live in Universe (3)), there could be no random behavior at any larger scale" This is true if you mean truely random. Yet true randomness could not be distinguished from sheer lack of information for prediction. The particles down at that level move very quickly and interact in a very tangled web of force. Isn't it logical that it would be, to say the least, hard to predict whats going on? "the universe displays clearly random behavior at scales at least as large as radioactive nuclei. " Like i have hinted at before, there are two possibilities I can accept for seeing "randomness", three if you take what you believe: 1. There is some underlying structure of particles that make prediction much harder. 2. The particles interact at such high speeds that prediction is blurred. 3. Things are actually fundementally random. I can accept 1 and 2, you can accept 3. "If there were some inner workings, we would be able to observe them to determine when the electron will emit a photon" We don't know if there is inner workings of an electron. But isn't it possible that forces outside the electron jar it into emmitting a photon? I'm pretty fuzzy on how photons work (and what they are) and how an electron emits one. As far as I can tell, photons make up electromagnetic waves, yet I have yet to be told by anyone how many photons may make a light wave or anything like that. When an electron jumps "down" in "energy", it emits a photon. In many books, they make this process appear like the electron is actually lowering in orbit. If that's true, it has to be a very small change. B T
ummm.... one photon may make a wave, but these are not the same type of waves, so chroot are you giving poor analogies to frenchy just so he can strain his noodle harder?
"This is an absurd claim. Probability theory is often called The Law of Large Numbers because the more you play the closer the data comes to the expected results. " On average. The universe does not work "on average" however. If one person rolls dice, there is an expected percent for each number he will get. BUT if you have billions of people rolling dice, the will definately not all get the same percentages, unless you are talking on average. "Do you have any background in probability and statistics? " I don't see how steriotyping me by my credentials will help the discussion in any way. "It is best to avoid introducing infinity in a thread not directly addressing it. " When you talk about real life percentages, they only come true at infinity. "the number who win approaches zero and the number who lose at the expected rate approaches 100%. " I agree (meaning im not going to nitpick about definitions, I know what you mean). BUT, IN one of those times, one person may get a very improbable set of numbers and win it by far, or lose by far. "How long do you think you would have to wait for a single gambler to show a net gain of any amount in a run of 1023 plays at unfavorable odds? " A very large amount of time, somewhat "close", as I have said, to infinite. I could calculate the asronomically large probability, but whats the use. "The geniuses of modern times (Bohr, Einstein, Feynman, Hawking, Penrose, to name a few) claim to be unable to visualize, explain, or understand what goes on at the Quantum level, even though they are very knowledgeable about the discipline. That is proof enough for me." First of all, Einstein did not believe in quantum theory, nor did he dismiss visual representation. I don't know how many others of those are inaccurate, but I don't want to waste my time looking it up. You way that is proof enough for you? Well, what if I told you that geniouses' opinions are not proof at all? "While you are at it, visualize a 5D hypercube or a 5D hypersphere. Both of these objects have well defined dimensions and geometry. Mathematically, they are well described objects. Can you visualize either one? " A couple years ago, I, in fact, made a 5D tesseract. When I say visualize, it does not mean as a whole picture. It means that I can visualize each peice. In a 100D structure, I can imaging 3 sides to it at once, doing that around 33.3 times I get 100! Description is what needs to be done, not visualization. "As mentioned in previous post, radioactive decay is obviously modeled by probability, not deterministic mathematics. " Do you think we would RATHER use a supercomputer every time we needed a prediction? It turns out that using the probabilities is much simpler than using the unfound deterministic laws, and gets the job done. It is like a shortcut. "As mentioned in previous post, radioactive decay is obviously modeled by probability, not deterministic mathematics. " We are talking about faith. Now, I am in no way religious, but it seem to me that you think you have found the best theory possible. I think that the theory could be improved upon, but the math to make predictions would be much much more complex and the data needed for input would be almost impossible to get. "Do you have any evidence for your strong beliefs about determinism, which is no longer considered valid by modern physicists?" I am no phisicist, but Michio Kaku is. Read his book "Hyperspace". It is definiately not a crackpot book and even explains relativity and quantum theory. But he calls quantum theory the "theory of wood". If you like credentials so much, Kaku is definately one with a few. I am in no way "alone" in my "beliefs". "Statistical data is statistical data. No advance in knowledge will change the nature of that data." ya. Its data, not law. It COULD be law, but that would just be whacked out, in my opinion. Also in my opinion, it would be much more justified to explain the statistics with a deterministic theory.
"ummm.... one photon may make a wave, but these are not the same type of waves," Ya, I understand the concept, but the details I don't have down. Could you explain this a bit more in depth? How MAY a photon make up a wave, but others have more than one photon? Someone told me that number of photons is the amplitude, and photon energy is the frequency. So then is there a non "just so" explanation for what determines electron energy?
well heres somthing to think about 2 photons in phase with each other(with one negative, one positive) will cancel out ( meaning when one photon is at its, peak, the other its at its trough)
holy smokes!! (ahem...no pun intended) but, there are just waaay too many variables involved to be able to tell you the exact speed of a specific fire. don't get me wrong...it wouldn't be impossible to predict the speed of any give fire, but, you would need to fill in all the variables, such as, wind speed, temp. time, etc.
Its super excellent that you ignored my whole post, but whatever.... "2 photons in phase with each other(with one negative, one positive) will cancel out ( meaning when one photon is at its, peak, the other its at its trough)" Um... I don't think photons are waves, yo. Photons do not have a "peak". Photons are the electro-magnetic carriers and so only have one "charge" (if you say the carrier has a charge). opposite charges will combine to create a more neutral charge (meaning a (-2) photon and a (+1) photon will collide to make a (-1) spot. I don't know if they can go through eachother or how that works, but I do know that photons are not waves.
This gets into the fundamental definitions of QM and wave-particle duality. That is, a particle can be treated as a wave (a probability wave as people are trying to explain) and a wave (of light) as particles. Imagine a single Hydrogen atom with a single electron in its lowest posiible energy level. That electron can actually have two energy states, spin up and spin down. It randomly flips between the two giving off a single photon each time. That photon is an EM wave of a specific frequency. This has the result that even H and He in the interstellar/intergalactic medium will emit some radiation. A fact used by Cosmologists to successfuly probe large structure by 'Walking the Lyman Alpha Forest'. The charge of the atoms nucleus creates a potential well around the nucleus. If you treat an electron as a wave and then solve the wave equation as constrained in that potential well you find that only discrete energies are allowed. This is quantisation and the allowed energies correspond to the electron orbital shells you are familiar with in the Bohr model. This very accurately predicts the observed spectra from elements. What happens is the electron can gain energy from some outside source, heat say or a collision with another photon, and 'jump' to a higher energy state. Which state the electron goes to is determined by the allowed energy levels in that atom and Pauli Exclusion Principle, that is, no two 'fermions' in a closed system can have the same energy levels. Electrons are fermions. At some point in time an electron will emit a photon, loose energy and drop to alower energy state or orbital. The energy of photon again depends on what energy states other electrons have and Pauli Exclusion. As we know the energy of a photon is related to its frequency η by E=hη where h is plancks constant. So indeed the photons energy determines the wavelength of the light emitted. This model of electrons as waves very powefully predicted things like hyperfine splitting (moving between spin states) and even 'forbidden' spectral lines. If you have a free electron, not bound in a nucleus, something else may occur. If the electron exists near a strong magnetic field (near a black hole say) the electron will be accelerated by the field. As it's accelerated it gains energy. It can then release that energy as a photon. The amount of energy gained and lost depends strongly on the magetic field strength. This is Synchrotron Radiation. But also note that the 'wave' I mention above is taken to be a wave of probability for a specific property of the particle. I.E. The probability that that property will have a given value.
Frencheneesz: You have posted nothing other than your opinion that there are deterministic laws working at some as yet undetectable level of reality. I have described in detail strong evidence of a probabilistic basis for the laws of physics, namely radioactive decay. This is obviously a random process displaying Poisson statistics. You have provided nothing but references to your strong beliefs and gut feelings. That is the language of religious faith, not science. To keep each post shorter, I will make more than one post in reply to your recent opinions. Perhaps in smaller chunks, some understanding of Quantum randomness might get through to you. Your following reply indicates the problem you have in understanding Quantum randomness. You are correct, data are data, not physical laws. However, the nature of experimental data indicates the nature of the mathematical models required to describe the physical processes which produced the data. This is a fundamental concept, which you do not seem to accept. BTW: Data is a plural word, but it seems strange when used as a plural. Astronomers prior to Kepler & Newton had some mystical love for circles, like a religious faith. Even though they knew about ellipses and had elliptical data available, they wanted to believe in circular planetary orbits. Hence, they came up with the concept of small circles with centers on larger circles to explain the observed data. It was the last version of the system devised by Ptolemy. Similarly you have a mystical love for determinism, also like a religious faith. Deterministic processes are characterized by smooth trajectories and objects with continuous properties. Quantum objects have discrete properties. Charge at the atomic level comes in units corresponding the charge on an electron or proton. At the Quark level it comes in units of 1/3 & 2/3 of the charge on an electron. Energy, mass, spin, et cetera at the quantum level are discrete, not continuous, properties of quantum objects.When the atom is described using the model of electrons orbiting the nucleus, continuous trajectories result in a model which does not fit the experimental data. The discrete nature of Quantum objects results in probabilistic data indicating behavior poorly modeled by deterministic mathematics, but accurately modeled by statistical mathematics. Suppose you heard the following argument. Electricity comes only in multiples of the charge on an electron. You cannot have other values of electric charge. At the classical level, you can approximate it with a real variable because the electron charge is so small compared to the amount of electricity used by a 200 horse power electric motor, but at the quantum level, it is a discrete variable. I have a gut feeling about electric charge. In my opinion, it is a continuous property. When more is learned about the electron, we will discover that charge can have any value. Even if we discover structure at a lower level, it will not change the current data which shows that electricity comes in units of the charge on a single electron. Data is data, not law. In my opinion, it would be much more justified to explain electricity with mathematics using continuous real variables. Would you side with the believer in electricity as a continuous property of some physical process? His arguments are similar to yours on Quantum randomness and determinism.
Frencheneesz: You quoted Kaku as an authority on physics and implied that you had read and understood his book. If he believes in determinism, why did you not provide a quote by him on the subject? I never heard of him, but did a quick search on his name. He seems to be a knowledgeable physicist. However, the manner of your reference is an obvious fallacious argument. It implies that if I read his book, I would realize that he agrees with you, but you only includes a cryptic quote which does not seem pertinent to the discussion we are having. To use a technical term from one of your posts: Bulls**t! If you read his book and understood it, you would not be making some of the posts I have seen. If you really read his book and he agrees with your belief in determinism, you would have provided a quote or a paraphrase of his opinion on the subject. In the context of this thread, it is a copout to say Read his book. How do you expect me to react to that advice? Do you expect me to go a library or book store, obtain a copy of his book, read it, and then make my next post to this thread? A post of mine and your reply. I agree: The opinion of a genius is not a proof. However, when you know very little about a subject, it is worthwhile to pay attention to what some genius says. I happen to know little about Quantum theory, while you apparently know even less. I value the opinion of Einstein, Bohr, Feynman, Hawking, et cetera far more than I value your opinion. Einstein did not believe in quantum theory. I assume that you know hardly anything about the history of modern physics in addition to being naive in your understanding of it. Otherwise, I would have to accuse you of an out right lie. It is true that Einstein disagreed with many of the later developments in quantum theory. He argued in favor of deterministic explanations and talked about the possibility of hidden variables behind what he called Spooky Quantum behavior. However, he considered this to be an open question, and never claimed that his belief in determinism would ultimately be justified. Oddly enough, Einstein was the first Quantum physicist. He was the first to interpret the Planck conclusions about Black Body radiation as indicative of quantized energy. His first paper on the subject was rejected by almost every major physicist in the world, and made him the subject of outright ridicule. He wrote several papers defending his view. When the controversy was over, he was vindicated and Quantum theory was born. Some of his friends who respected him were very embarrassed when he turned out to be right. They had asked that he be excused for his one flight of fantasy relating to quantized energy in consideration of his other contributions to physics. He spent the next 10-12 years developing General Relativity, while others pursued Quantum theory. He returned to Quantum Theory and arguments about it when he started his unsuccessful attempt to discover a Unified Field theory including both QT & GR. If he did not believe in Quantum Theory, he would not have thought it necessary to find a unified field theory to merge QT & GR into one theory. Most modern physicists believe that Einstein would have given up on determinism if he had lived long enough to see some of the experiments performed in the last 50 years, although he would probably still argue against spooky action at a distance, a still controversial Quantum phenomenon. It is interesting that Einstein never received a Noble prize for his work in Relativity, one of the truly great achievements in physics. It is believed that the Noble committee had a subtle reason for this. They knew that he would always have great respect and stature as a genius of physics for his work on General Relativity (published in 1915 & verified in 1919). They felt (it is said) that he did not need a Noble prize to further honor him for that achievement. However, they felt he was owed an apology for the ridicule endured between 1901 & 1905 for his belief in Quantized energy, which had more effect on the development of Quantum theory than Planck’s paper. Planck’s paper was very narrow in scope and talked about mechanical-like oscillators within atoms as the basis for his formulae. He had missed the essential implications of Black Body radiation and the lack of an Ultra-Violet Catastrophe, while Einstein saw the deep significance of the Planck Paper. The Noble committee gave Einstein his Nobel prize (in 1921) for a 1905 paper on some aspect of Quantum theory (I think it was a paper on the photo-electric effect, which is due to quantum phenomena). That prize was an apology to Einstein and an acknowledgment of his great early contributions to Quantum Theory.
french "Photons do not have a "peak". " travelling in waves, the photon is at a peak or trough at its absolute magnitude. let me rephrase my previous statement : photons in phase but out of step will cancel. photons in step add to the percieved intensity of light. i did not say the photn is a wave (although you could think that way) but simply implied that they travel in a wave mation. so the photons peak is the peak of the wavemotion the photon travels by. the interference pattern of the waves is how holograms are produced. how would you explain holograms id photons didn't travel in waves? Also, need i point out that, the DeBroglie wavelength equation can be used to show that all matter travels in waves, even in big clusters of matter. The bigger the cluster of matter, the smaller the wavelength it travels in.
On Radioactive Waves: A book I read recently put forth the notion that photons & other Quantum particles travel as waves, but depart and arrive as particles. The notion made the two-slit experiment seem a little less strange to me. BTW: This Thread has certainly strayed far from the original topic.
yeah, i know its strayed off topic. but since QT and SR came up in how fire travels, i figured we might as well bring up all this other stuff as well. but chroot and french pretty much took over this thread.....
"but chroot and french pretty much took over this thread....." SORRY! Truely. Now, who wants to discuss fire?
"Of course they are. How else do you explain interference?" Ok, well, it is complicated juggling my fundemental ideas and real scientific ideas and wrong ideas. As has been said, everything travels in waves, soooo .... IF one photon IS a light-wave and I have been explained the concept correctly, then it is because of its energy that it has a certain frequency, not because it actually posseses troughs and peaks of electromagnetic charge. I am still not fully clear on the whole light concept. If you mean by interference the double-slit experiment, I have come up with two possible crapckpot alternatives for the results: 1. the light simply bounced off the sides of the slit 2. the light actually travels back and forth in space (very hard to belive) Could you explain what exact phisical properties "wave" when you talk about a light "wave"? This might help a lot. Do waves actually travel through space with a back and forth motion?
