0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
But us being created out of 'standing waves' is more than a little strange? How does those waves keep its energy, and why do we need any energy at all if we now are created out of it, amongst other questions? There is definitely a strong mathematical relation between matter and light but they are very different 'states' to me. You can accelerate matter (to lend the words from another:) but can you accelerate waves?
That as single electrons fired one at a second or slower into two slits still will create a 'wave pattern'.
Vern - how would that fit in with electron scattering such as in the Rutherford (I think) experiment?
But think of those 'photographing' electrons, knowing the lights frequency and what atom they are looking at, shouldn't it be possible to get some inkling towards the possible 'size' depending on how many electrons there are seen as 'orbiting'?
Let me say at the outset, that in this discourse, I am opposing not a few special statements of quantum physics held today (1950s), I am opposing as it were the whole of it, I am opposing its basic views that have been shaped 25 years ago, when Max Born put forward his probability interpretation, which was accepted by almost everybody. (Schrödinger E, The Interpretation of Quantum Physics. Ox Bow Press, Woodbridge, CN, 1995).I don't like it, and I'm sorry I ever had anything to do with it.(Erwin Schrodinger talking about Quantum Physics)
" They're waves, which means we can think about them using the mathematical tools of waves, but they don't have the same physical meaning as classical electromagnetic waves."Jp, do you have any good links about this?What is seen as the differences between 'classical EM waves' and QM:s 'standing waves'?
Every time I try to look it up it's seems to get mentioned only in passing, like we all should know how he thought about it? And then comes an argument why it it should be seen as this way or that way... Well, I don't even know how and why he would differ(ok, I might guess, but I don't know:), so if there is a good link/thread (historical?) about it I'm still interested.
I have always thought that Lorentz contraction was a solution for relativity to do with movement. Now you say it is something outside of GR?
Interesting, so when you think of Louis de Broglie's 'matter waves' you see them as a 'probability weave' then (using my poetic 'right of way' here:) Jp?
Reading your analogy with a guitar string again, do you see it as going back to string theory Jp?
Any time an electron's resonance is broken, as in introducing it to it's oppositely charged partner, it abandons its electron state of matter and zips off in a straight line at the speed of light.
There seems to be some confusion here.An electron is an electron - it doesn't go anywhere at the speed of light. It changes its energy state and a photon ('speed of light') is released / captured. If the electron goes away it can be at any speed - according to the energy it is given - it could be a few m/s.
If an electron does not move what moves in an electrical circuit?.Cheersjustaskin
Yes; I know; maybe I should have said; abandons its electron state, becomes a photon, and zips ...
QuoteYes; I know; maybe I should have said; abandons its electron state, becomes a photon, and zips ...When does this happen, Vern? That is my confusion. Are you talking of some Gamma Ray interaction?
Give us your electron or the gopher gets it.Cheersjustaskin