Jump to content

Particle wave duality


Recommended Posts

I made mistakes and posted nonsense? Where? Which part? Can you quote them specifically? Do you want to have a healthy debate or continue making my arguments look weak by making personal attacks? People can see what you're doing here.

 

I don't go by books, I prefer scientific papers and if this interpretation was so popular and so much accepted I find it hard to believe that there is hardly not a single paper about it. Can you cite papers for your interpretation so that I can understand your arguments better without any confusion.

 

There is a lot of difference between quoting anonymous users and quoting words from respected physicists and scientists. Can't you see that?

 

No, the CERN website doesn't give us the definition of the particle which you're using. Do you care to give us your defintion of the quantum particle?

 

Doing bad philosophy == Doing pseudoscience.

 

Only crackpots prefer such terms like "myth" for such important concepts which is spread among all the literature of QM.

 

1) When someone points your mistakes and nonsenses (s)he is not "making personal attacks".

 

2) Personal attacks is when you call others "crackpots", "liars", "charlatans"... including to people who is not here for defending himself.

 

3) You have been given references: papers, books... Avoiding yourself from reading them and repeating the same nonsense forever is not going to change anything about physics.

 

4) Nobody said that the CERN website link gives the definition of particle used in physics. Once again you do not read.

 

5) Doing good philosophy is not a requirement for doing science.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 209
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

! Moderator Note pmb, Please stop derailing the thread. If you wish to discuss it, you know what to do.

! Moderator Note pmb,   You were not ignored. Your reports were received and are being discussed. We don't immediately act on all reports for a number of reasons:   1. We're not all here all t

"Wave-particle duality" is often a misleading name. Electrons and photons are quantum mechanical particles. They do not behave in the same way that classical particles do, and indeed can't really be e

Posted Images

Nobody said "just". You are who again put in other words that never said. Very typical. Moreover, you also said that the wave function was real and physical, which is also completely wrong.

 

you are the one who said ''pmb and aethelwulf''.

 

Start admitting when you are wrong before it looks like you are blatantly lying.

Link to post
Share on other sites

!

Moderator Note

pmb and juan,

 

Seriously, the personal snipes have to stop. Staff are getting a bit tired of having to babysit the threads you two participate in together and having to warn you both about making personal remarks. Tip: if you can't address the content of the posts without making it in some way personal, might I suggest that you simply don't respond. If you can't do this, you will be facing disciplinary action.

 

Also, Aethwulf, the same goes for you.

I haven't insulted juan and I never said anything rude. I also haven't stated something that wasn't true, e.g. that I never said a particle is a wave. The worst thing I did was to point out that juan was using a personal attack on immortal and is inccesant false accusations claiming I said something which I'd never say to anybody. It really bothers me to see people insult/attack others. But in order to take on a new state of politeness and civilness I have deleted those remarks.

 

What are we supposed to do when people make false accusations? You give off the impression that it I say that someone is usig a falsehood that I'd get into trouble for pointing it out, regardless of how I go about it. What are we supposed to do we do in those cases?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Here is a section from Shankar's QM text (graduate level). From Principles of Quantum mechanics - 2nd Ed. by R. Shankar (graduate level quantum mechanics text), page 113

 

Shankar is a beginners' text, which gives an introduction to QM. More advanced texts correct the "flaws" and "nonsense" in books as that.

 

You're wrong. I already told you that and you simply ignored it. That is not how a cogent argument progresses.

 

Prove me wrong. Reference a post where I said a particle is a wave. Until then stop putting words into my mouth.

 

You said that a particle is a wave.

 

A pair of minutes before you said that your "very first post in this thread" was #16.

 

Both statements are untrue.

Link to post
Share on other sites

1) When someone points your mistakes and nonsenses (s)he is not "making personal attacks".

 

Without quoting where I have made mistakes and posted nonsense and without backing this statement with scientific papers to prove that I have made a mistake and just blindly stating it is a personal attack.

 

2) Personal attacks is when you call others "crackpots", "liars", "charlatans"... including to people who is not here for defending himself.

 

Please go and read my first post in this thread whether I have called you as a crackpot or whether I called your ideas as crackpottery. Please go read it. I didn't called anonymous users as liars and when you quote such anonymous users to justify your statements who themselves don't back up their claims with scientific papers from reputed journals then I have to inevitably dub their claims as crackpottery.

 

3) You have been given references: papers, books... Avoiding yourself from reading them and repeating the same nonsense forever is not going to change anything about physics.

 

No, please go and read the paper which you cited, it has been falsified. All I requested you to cite a paper to support your claims and instead of doing that you took this discussion into an ugly turn. The problem is not just that, its the way you say "I am right, you're wrong" attitude that you show on a topic where there is no accepted consensus is my main problem.

 

 

4) Nobody said that the CERN website link gives the definition of particle used in physics. Once again you do not read.

 

If you just quote it I am not blind to just read it. You said what it is not and not what it is, understand?

 

5) Doing good philosophy is not a requirement for doing science.

 

There is no field in science where scientists don't take help from philosophers and both work hand in hand.

 


 

I can give one small piece of advice to guests who visit this thread, this is a topic where the scientific community does not have an accepted consensus and it is very customary to call people coming from different schools of thought as crackpots among each other and we should just allow the physicists to work it out rather than taking anyone's claims for granted or as a fact.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Shankar is a beginners' text, which gives an introduction to QM. More advanced texts correct the "flaws" and "nonsense" in books as that.

Comments such as this on the graduate level text I quoted you, and which you failed to shoot down, doesn't speak well for the quality of your opinion. There simply doesn't exist a text or a peer reviewed physics journal article which says the the wave-particle duality is a myth. Many of us, such as myself, know quantum mechanics very well (graduate level) and know what you've been claiming is total nonsense. Don't you understand that?

 

!

Moderator Note

pmb,

 

Please stop derailing the thread. If you wish to discuss it, you know what to do.

My appologies. I was simply commenting on the tact that I'm taking here.

Link to post
Share on other sites

You said that a particle is a wave.

 

A pair of minutes before you said that your "very first post in this thread" was #16.

 

Both statements are untrue.

 

 

Thanks Juangra.

But is electron present as a standing wave or as a particle in the atom??

I have read in some book, that it is still a mystery and we can't figure out what goes inside the atom..

 

The thing about quantum mechanics is that you can't talk about what a system is doing until you make a measurement. Asking about an electron is doing when it hasn't been observed is a meaningless question in QM. There are states in the atom which stationary states. Once you measure owhat state its in then you can make a statement about it.

 

Why can't you be honest with yourself, juan?

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.