[McQueen]

Michael

I am in emphatic  agreement. It wouldn’t do for you to get overly involved in anything non-conformist right now. On the other hand it is always a good thing  to keep an eye on new ideas .  As for the next installment this would be a good  place to start  , namely the juncture at which Classical Physics fails and Quantum Mechanics  steps in to fill the gap . It is this step over from one discipline into another which , I feel , is the most controversial . Classical Physics experienced a complete failure in its ability to explain the existence of atoms , according to Classical Physics a charged body in motion , should radiate away all of its energy , ( in t = 10 ^^- 10 secs. ) and spiral into the nucleus.  Classical Physics had no explanation for how atoms could exist ! Quantum Mechanics filled the gap with its theory of wave – particle duality. They took as the starting point the newly discovered properties of the photon , which was observed to posses the properties of both a particle and a wave. Thus the photon is considered by Quantum Mechanics to be the absolute personification of wave – particle duality , it not only possesses the properties of a wave and a particle but actually is a wave or a particle depending on the conditions under which it is observed , but  can never possess both properties simultaneously. It is either a particle or a wave. This position was seemingly strengthened by the discovery of Prince Louis De Broglie of  matter waves , a theory which he extrapolated from Einstein’s equations of matter / energy equivalence.  As far as I can see there are two things which are basically wrong with De Broglie’s theory , the first is that  there is no doubt that matter/energy equivalence does exist , but even at the sub-atomic level it takes enormous , ( as we have seen from experiments with particle accelerators ) energy to effect this transformation. Yet according to Broglie this property is inherent in all matter even under normal circumstances and without the input of extra energy.  Secondly is the fact that De Broglie was never able to explain what “matter waves “ were. One thing that is sure is that they are not ordinary waves. When pressed all he could say was that they are ‘waves associated with matter’ , more than this he refused to comment , and to this day no-one knows what matter waves actually are. Thus all matter from elephants to sub-atomic particles have their associated matter waves. At the macro size they are insignificant but at the sub-atomic level they take on significance. This , surely , is merely an example   of inverse proportion and should not be given the importance it has been given. It is after all  merely a mathematical abstraction. As I said earlier on there is nothing wrong per se with wave- particle duality. It is after all a theory , what is unacceptable is the raising of this theory into an inviolable tenet. As if to say this is our interpretation and no other interpretation can or should exist.  It was this intractability against which Einstein was so vehemently opposed. Take for instance the premise that because the photon manifests the properties of both a wave and a particle that all sub-atomic particles should have the same property. This is like saying my cat is white therefore all cats are white. I have shown earlier on in this thread that an alternative interpretation of the wave-particle properties manifested by the photon is available and that it is capable of being subject to a different interpretation , one which fulfils all the properties of the photon , while in no way fixating these properties on other sub-atomic particles. The theory at the same time also explains how electrons can maintain their stability in the atom through self interaction.

[McQueen]

I have been giving this more thought. Let’s clear the air first. De Broglie’s equations were based on the equations of Max Planck and Einstein namely ; E = h/v and e = mc ^^2 so De Broglies equation is  (where w stands for wave-length) w = h/mv  , which states that the wave-length of an object is dependent on its momentum. For a car weighing 1000 Kg and traveling at 10 Km/hr this would give a  De Broglie wave-length of  approx. 2.4 x 10 ^^ -36m. Isn’t this mind boggling , string theorists have spent the last fifty or so years trying to get the guts to quote figures like this for their strings. But what if we were talking about the Brooklyn bridge ,the Empire State Building or let’s take the  sun itself , the figure would be something like 10 ^^ -73m . Do comparisons like this even exist in the Universe ? With typical élan , the QM physicist states simply that The wave character of the car is so immensely smaller than the car itself, that there is no experiments we can perform that can probe its wave character. Hence, we never observe cars diffracting off each other in a collision - they just smash up. Duh ! Am I hearing things ?  OK , right many , I will say most ( without exaggeration ) of you are still not convinced.  Let us turn to the experiment which won for De Broglie and Davisson the joint Nobel Prize , namely that showing electron diffraction. The principle of diffraction has been studied since Classical times and is well known.  However it might be more easily understood by  a rather unusual definition of diffraction. Imagine that there are two states A and B , A is a state of low pressure and B is one of high pressure , the two are separated by a partition which has a small aperture in it. The aperture in effect functions like a venturi , compressing the matter moving from the high pressure state in B to the low pressure state in A , naturally  matter from B immediately on exiting the aperture , expands into the low pressure state in A. This in essence is diffraction and it applies equally to molecules of water , dust etc., There is no way that the stream of electrons , used in the Davisson experiment and manifesting diffraction , shows that electrons possess wave properties , the idea is patently absurd. If the experiment had shown diffraction using a single electron , the case would have been different. Then it could have positively been stated , that yes a single electron is undergoing diffraction hence electrons must possess wave properties. The experiment as it stands is meaningless and does not prove anything , least of all the wave properties of electrons.

[Solvay_1927]

McQueen,

single electrons, passed through a double-slit experiment one-at-a-time, show diffraction and interference patterns - the experiment has been done - the electrons hit the back wall detector one at a time in what appears to be a random pattern at first, but as the pattern builds up it shows the normal interference pattern.

The same has been done with individual photons, and also with large individual molecules.

Let me know if you want references (I can't come up with any just now - I'm at work).

[Rincewind]

Is it important to remember that a photon doesn't experience time according to relativity, or does one dismiss relativity whilst thinking in QM terms?  

A photon does have mass, just no rest mass.

For any other object, its kinetic energy is a function of its rest mass, yet a photon has no rest mass.  It is precisely for this reason that nothing other than a photon can reach light speed.

As a massive body approaches light speed, more and more of its net mass is made of Kinetic Energy, analogous to photonic mass.

Sorry, just thinking aloud:)

[ukmicky]

originally posted by Rincewind

Sorry, just thinking aloud:)
-______________________________________

Thats ok mate. no problems... just don't start talking to yourself[]

Michael                                      

[Rincewind]

In picture b, wouldn't they be facing alternate directions?  To make positive line up with negative and vice versa?

[McQueen]

quote:In picture b, wouldn't they be facing alternate directions? To make positive line up with negative and vice versa?

If you look at  image “a” , you will find that in this image the photons are aligned in the manner you suggest , positive to negative etc.,. The reason that the photons in Image “b” are lined up as depicted is because they form part of a composite wave. In order to make this clear , it is necessary to return to the question of how current flows across an open circuit ( i.e., a capacitor ) , since the existence of photons was not then known , Maxwell had postulated that the current across an open circuit was due to a ‘displacement’ current  formed by alternating electric and  magnetic fields. However , it is highly likely that in the event he had been aware of the existence of photons and of their role as mediators of energy between electrons, he would have stated that the current was carried across the gap by  photons. In the thread in this forum entitled :  On the propagation  of light ( in two parts )  , I had put forward the possibility  of the existence of a  “virtual photon field”  (“aether”) to explain the results of the Double Slit experiment with single electrons. These two circumstances , the conduction of electricity by photons and the existence of a “virtual photon field “ ,  taken together would explain all phenomenon to do with electricity , electric fields , magnetic fields , electromagnetic fields , light and gravity , in a single theory called the “Gestalt Theory”. Consider the situation if photons actually carried electrical energy , we know that the photon in question would have to  be of fairly low energy (about 1.3 eV. ) because it would have to be absorbed and emitted either by free electrons or by loosely bound valence electrons .  Normally the Pauli Exclusion Principle states that free electrons within a conductor are forbidden from emitting or absorbing photons because they would be unable to cope with the forces of recoil on the other hand the Heisenberg Uncertainty Relation states that if a reaction takes place fast enough , it is allowed by the Conservation Laws. Thus a free electron which emits a “conduction “ photon , is in need of immediately absorbing a photon of exactly the same energy it has emitted. In the same way the emitted photon needs to be absorbed by an electron missing exactly the same energy that it possesses . The nearest source of such electrons are within the conductor. Thus those conduction photons which are not absorbed ( i.e give up their energy )in the conduction process , circle back through the air ( at the speed of light )  by means of chains of linked virtual photons , which align themselves in the direction of propagation of the real photon. One real photon for each linked chain of  virtual photons.These linked chains of "virtual" Photons coprresspond to the lines of force we see around magnets and when a current flows through a conductor. If the connection is broken , the photons no longer have access to the electrons in the conductor , they re-orient themselves in the parallel formation ( image “b”)  and leave the conductor ( at the speed of light )  in closed loops. Thus the energy of the single real photon is shared between all the “virtual” photons forming the linked chain. Thus all wave-lengths above those of visible light are composite waves , made up of multiple photons. This explains how , the energy of such wave lengths varies and also how an electron can emit wave-lengths several kilometers long