Path: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: "Paul.B.Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity
Subject: Re: Wave particle duality has been disproven for photons also.
Date: Fri, 30 May 2025 21:42:54 +0200
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 69
Message-ID: <101d1bq$l2jh$1@dont-email.me>
References: <bee82c477b86c0caf1c30da405ed870f@www.novabbs.com>
 <10140pm$2huu3$1@dont-email.me>
 <211597acf09cc21af2125ea3c9fe12d4@www.novabbs.com>
 <101acbb$188t$1@dont-email.me>
 <6b363c8aae8b6e67b880da6bf1c94d27@www.novabbs.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Date: Fri, 30 May 2025 21:36:26 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="073f7e53d7e9cac697f887be5c4174c3";
	logging-data="690801"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX182ndPqH7VEP8inCouMSMaA"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:fK5Q2ayS+OugT91x+Zzy+Ry5MgY=
In-Reply-To: <6b363c8aae8b6e67b880da6bf1c94d27@www.novabbs.com>
Content-Language: en-GB
Bytes: 3447

Den 30.05.2025 00:08, skrev LaurenceClarkCrossen:
> On Thu, 29 May 2025 19:31:57 +0000, Paul.B.Andersen wrote:
> 
>> Den 27.05.2025 17:49, skrev LaurenceClarkCrossen:
>>> On Tue, 27 May 2025 9:37:57 +0000, Paul.B.Andersen wrote:
>>>
>>>> Den 27.05.2025 05:27, skrev LaurenceClarkCrossen:
>>>>> Particle wave duality is no longer accepted as it has been
>>>>> experimentally disproven.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> "Did We Get the Double Slit Experiment All Wrong?"
>>>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DpMcC-E5l5c
>>>>>
>>>>> Light is a wave and not a particle.


> 
> She disagreed with the article, saying the dark photons have no energy,
> unlike particles.

This is what "she" in the video said about the new theory:

"Honestly when I read the headline, I thought this is bullshit.
  But having read the paper I think it's a matter of framing.
  This is a genuinely interesting new way to think about an old
  experiment. But I don't think that talking about dark states
  of light is going to make quantum physics any less confusing."

This means that she accept the "new theory" as a possibly
valid alternative theory to QED.

That may be so, but if it is valid, it would have to predict
the same as QED for any experiment.

I think the world will stick to QED.

In either case, in quantum field theories, light is a particle.

------------------

But remember that a theory of physics is a mathematical model
of Nature, it is not the Nature.

In QED light is a particle.

In Maxwell's theory, light is a wave.

There is no duality in either of the theories.

QED has a broader field of applicability than Maxwell,
it predicts some phenomena Maxwell doesn't.
(e.g. photon-electron interactions)

But the telecommunication we now are using to communicate
is made possible because of Maxwell.
So it is OK to consider light to be a wave according to Maxwell
in some cases. So if you are designing a radio link, Maxwell
is the theory to use,

But there is no way a wave can excite an electron to a higher
energy level, only particles can do that.
QED can predict that a LED will emit light.
Maxwell can't.

-- 
Paul

https://paulba.no/