[Bored chemist]

And tell me again pls, what is the wave function for a proton.

Why don't you just read the thread again?
I guess it's Christmas so, here it is.

Eqn 58 here
http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1367-2630/9/11/414

No, tell me why it may be a problem and define problem in this instance.

Because equations (in this use of the word) are part of maths.
So you can't have an equation, but not maths.

This definition will probably do.
problem
/ˈprɒbləm/
noun
1.
a matter or situation regarded as unwelcome or harmful and needing to be dealt with and overcome.
"they have financial problems"

[mxplxxx (OP)]

Why don't you just read the thread again?
I guess it's Christmas so, here it is

A wave function is an equation.I just want to know what this equation is for a photon. If, as I suspect, it is not known then how can the conclusion be arrived that the results of the double slit experiment are due to a photon existing as both a wave and a particle.

[Bored chemist]

If, as I suspect, it is not known

Which part of this reference

Eqn 58 here
http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1367-2630/9/11/414

do you not understand.
The 58th (numbered) equation in that paper is the wavefunction of a photon.

How have you come to the conclusion that it is unknown- are you just trolling?

[Bored chemist]

how can the conclusion be arrived that the results of the double slit experiment are due to a photon existing as both a wave and a particle.

From logic.
In the video you can see that an interference pattern is created- that clearly requires wave behaviour.
You can also see that the same pattern is generated when you count photons (as a function of position).
To get single photons (where only 1 is present in the apparatus at a time) and an interference pattern, requires the light to have both the properties of a wave and of  particle.

The wave function's not going to make that any clearer; especially not to someone who says

LIke Einstein, I don't need maths to understand the universe.

[mxplxxx (OP)]

Thank you Bored Chemist for clarifying Eq 58. It is pretty much incomprehensible to me. What are the concepts it embodies? What does it look like? How does it explain the results of the double slit experiment?

Despite this, the quantum wave function of a photon seems to remain a controversial proposition in physics.  https://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0508202 

The comparison with Einstein is unfortunate, to say the least . Apparently he had difficulty with the more complex maths involved in relativity. https://www.quora.com/What-type-of-Math-did-Einstein-use. Ditto me. I have university maths but struggle with stuff like eq 58. 

[Bored chemist]

The comparison with Einstein is unfortunate,

Well, next time, don't make it.

How does it explain the results of the double slit experiment?

Who said it did?

However the double slit experiment really does show  quantum duality.

It is pretty much incomprehensible to me.

I addressed that earlier.

If it turns out that you don't understand it, that just tells us there was no point in you looking for it.

[yor_on]

Maybe this one?

I know what you mean mxplxxx . You want to make it a part of you. But I would suggest that you start with the people that are here, then look around. We all get our own intuitions of how SpaceTime works, and mathematics do help. But if you're not a mathematician it should still be explainable. Another thing is trust. If you tell people that made it their field of science that they don't 'know' because they haven't found a way to make it work for you then you should stop trusting anyone :) Not good if I may so, the world runs on trust.

Another point is that science actually try to do away with trust, building a world from logic. But then you will need the mathematics to check if you agree.

[mxplxxx (OP)]

Maybe this one?

I know what you mean mxplxxx . You want to make it a part of you. But I would suggest that you start with the people that are here, then look around. We all get our own intuitions of how SpaceTime works, and mathematics do help. But if you're not a mathematician it should still be explainable. Another thing is trust. If you tell people that made it their field of science that they don't 'know' because they haven't found a way to make it work for you then you should stop trusting anyone Not good if I may so, the world runs on trust.

Another point is that science actually try to do away with trust, building a world from logic. But then you will need the mathematics to check if you agree.

Not sure if replying to your post is going to achieve anything but here goes. I am trying to understand reality. People seem to have an innate need to do this. I also try and use concepts from Physics to build better software. I have discovered that simulating a photon in software seems impossible because of the limitations of current physics theory. To get to this conclusion, I have had to do an enormous amount of research. It seems it is something the physics community don't want the rest of the world to know. I can understand this. People are very protective of their livelihoods/beliefs but trust suffers as a result.

[yor_on]

No, nobody is hiding anything. But nobody has a final answer, what is used is the 'standard theory', and it's not final either. Lights duality is one of the thing physics try to make sense of using concepts as wave packets. And it makes sense mathematically but the idea of a 'photon' being one irritates me too, if that's what you're thinking of? And no again, each field of mathematics has its own way to describe reality. Einstein didn't have problem as such with mathematics, he had problems with finding the correct description, and learning the mathematics used for it as I remember. If you look at field theory and the mathematics behind it's not the one used for strings, and it will take you decades to understand just one branch. Some people give a lifetime to solve a mathematical problem. It's not as easy as you think, it's work.

[yor_on]

Maybe you should tell us where your problem is when simulating a 'photon' in software? What is it the software get stuck on?

[mxplxxx (OP)]

Maybe you should tell us where your problem is when simulating a 'photon' in software? What is it the software get stuck on?

This would not be possible without an understanding of my Hierarchical Abstraction Framework (HAF) software that I am hoping will be able to simulate the universe. In this software, a photon is a particular type of event (all bosons are events) that changes the state of objects (fermions) that it interacts with in the framework.

As far as I can see no software source is available that simulates a single photon double slit experiment. This website demonstrates the difficulty most non-physicists have in trying to understand this experiment.

https://www.researchgate.net/post/Data_for_double_slit_experiment

 FYI I adhere to the school of thought that believes the universe is a type of computer. I think sometime in the next 100 years years we will be able to develop our own universes.

[Bored chemist]

To get to this conclusion, I have had to do an enormous amount of research. It seems it is something the physics community don't want the rest of the world to know.

If you have done "an enormous amount of research", how come it took you three attempts to find a (numbered) equation in a paper?

Also, given the "publish or perish" attitude of most academic organisations, how would it be possible that "the physics community don't want the rest of the world to know"?

Essentially all of their knowledge is published.

[jeffreyH]

The photon behaves like a particle and a wave. It doesn't need anyone's permission to do that. The pioneers of QM were simply trying to describe what they observed. They themselves were uncomfortable with the implications. This doesn't affect the photon in the slightest. It is simply that the universe works in ways we don't fully understand yet.

[yor_on]

It depends. One way of looking at it would be to say that the experimental setup defines the outcome. But if you want a definition allowing you to know the outcome every time in every experimental setup, beforehand, it becomes more difficult I think. That's what statistics is for, and probability. I don't really think you will be able to create it actually, if you could you would be ahead of current physics :) And possibly close to some theory of everything.
=

As for Carmen she struck me as being rather arrogant and high handed. She failed to define what she wanted and when people misunderstood her she got mad :) instead of trying to clear the misunderstanding. Normal people would tell her to f* off I suspect, if it happened in the street. Those guys didn't.

[mxplxxx (OP)]

As for Carmen she struck me as being rather arrogant and high handed. She failed to define what she wanted and when people misunderstood her she got mad instead of trying to clear the misunderstanding. Normal people would tell her to f* off I suspect, if it happened in the street. Those guys didn't.

Too true! Both sides communicated appallingly though. It illustrates the problem I have found most prevalent in forums where people veer away from answering the questions.

[mxplxxx (OP)]

From logic.
In the video you can see that an interference pattern is created- that clearly requires wave behaviour.
You can also see that the same pattern is generated when you count photons (as a function of position).
To get single photons (where only 1 is present in the apparatus at a time) and an interference pattern, requires the light to have both the properties of a wave and of  particle.

So, a whole branch of physics was started based on an educated guess and 100 years later noone can prove whether the guess was correct or not:).

[Bored chemist]

100 years ago, nobody could count photons.
But they came up with a theory.
That theory said that, if QM is real then, even if you reduce the power to the point where only 1 photon goes through the kit at a time, you will still get an interference pattern because photons are both particles and waves.

Many years later, when equipment had improved, we were able to count photons.
And the prediction was shown to be correct.
So have thousands of other things- from obscure experiments, to the workings of the computer you are using.

That's how science works. Nobody can ever prove that it's true- but, so far, nobody has shown that it's wrong.

Did you consider finding out how science works before trying to tell everyone that it's wrong?

[Bored chemist]

As for Carmen she struck me as being rather arrogant and high handed. She failed to define what she wanted and when people misunderstood her she got mad instead of trying to clear the misunderstanding. Normal people would tell her to f* off I suspect, if it happened in the street. Those guys didn't.

I think Carmen's biggest problem is saying "I need real data from a real experiment because I think the pattern is not as coincidental as QM states. "
How absurd is it to imagine that people wouldn't notice?
It is obviously ridiculous to assume that the experts in the field didn't set up the experiment properly, and get accurate measurements.

[mxplxxx (OP)]

Did you consider finding out how science works before trying to tell everyone that it's wrong?

Not wrong. Not right. Just unproven:).

[yor_on]

" So, a whole branch of physics was started based on an educated guess and 100 years later noone can prove whether the guess was correct or not:)."

It's not like that, one way of looking at it might be from a point of trial and error. With that comes new ideas and definitions. You find a experiment to give you some really weird results, that starts you thinking, and you search for a way to make it make sense. Later experiments may be constructed to test that idea. That's one of the most important things you need to do, to find that experiment testing your new thoughts. That way everything builds, there's a lot of new definitions today, that wouldn't have made sense to people a hundred and fifty years ago. You follow the way nature presents itself and then you search for how to explain it. It lead us to probabilities, lights duality, superpositions, relativity, conservation laws, etc etc.  You can't ignore nature.
=

Everything is a educated guess, isn't it? From you stepping out your door, expecting yourself to exist tomorrow too, to getting an idea of a new way to do something. There are no certainties in life, and modern physics is built to accommodate this.