Path: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.quux.org!news.nk.ca!rocksolid2!i2pn2.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: clzb93ynxj@att.net (LaurenceClarkCrossen)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity
Subject: Re: Wave particle duality has been disproven for photons also.
Date: Sat, 31 May 2025 20:50:13 +0000
Organization: novaBBS
Message-ID: <5467c1ecc25733a80b8464dba416487d@www.novabbs.com>
References: <bee82c477b86c0caf1c30da405ed870f@www.novabbs.com> <68361DFD.1876@ix.netcom.com> <m9nmvgFj62pU3@mid.individual.net> <f7d7c8d83a051fa5d9e1c62a35f8033e@www.novabbs.com> <m9te5jFgfttU6@mid.individual.net> <ec6212a04ed745da00b0b98f9206a9c4@www.novabbs.com> <m9vo4tFs3i3U4@mid.individual.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="2740223"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="HcQFdl4zp4UQRQ9N18ivMn6Fl9V8n4SPkK4oZHLgYdQ";
User-Agent: Rocksolid Light
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
X-Rslight-Site: $2y$10$btsuvwbmc0AMwInGwTxDZurzrbF4JTmyndo1cNVEREXj3Mj.R3VqW
X-Rslight-Posting-User: a2f761a7401f13abeefca3440f16b2f27b708180
Bytes: 5918
Lines: 129

On Sat, 31 May 2025 7:09:04 +0000, Thomas Heger wrote:

> Am Freitag000030, 30.05.2025 um 21:08 schrieb LaurenceClarkCrossen:
>> On Fri, 30 May 2025 10:06:28 +0000, Thomas Heger wrote:
>>
>>> Am Mittwoch000028, 28.05.2025 um 20:56 schrieb LaurenceClarkCrossen:
>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Particle wave duality is no longer accepted as it has been
>>>>>>> experimentally disproven.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The question regarding photons is still disputed.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "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.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> There is no "duality" of a wave and a particle, but it is a particle
>>>>>> wave.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> No
>>>>>
>>>>> Particles are actually 'timelike stable patterns', while waves are not
>>>>> stable, hence move through space.
>>>>>
>>>>> But stability is a question of the perspective.
>>>>>
>>>>> E.g. you could 'adjust the own velocity' (theoretically) and fly
>>>>> parallel to the wave.
>>>>>
>>>>> IoW: you fly with the speed of light and look backwards, to a -say-
>>>>> laser beam, which stems from your home station.
>>>>>
>>>>> Now the ray from home gets red-shifted, the more the faster you fly.
>>>>>
>>>>> Once you reach c, the ray had frequency zero and you could regard the
>>>>> wave as a particle.
>>>>>
>>>>> Or you could try to 'catch' a wave and keep it in your realm.
>>>>>
>>>>> This would also make a particle out of the wave, too, because in that
>>>>> case the wave does not move through space anymore.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> TH
>>>> I don't think relative motion can make a particle out of a wave or that
>>>> what light is is a matter of perspective.
>>>
>>>
>>> It makes actually some sense, if we would give up the so called
>>> 'particle concept' altogether.
>>>
>>> Actually we need a continuum, which could be both: particle and vacuum
>>> (depending on the perspective).
>>>
>>> But since 'materialism' is hard wired into our brains, we cannot even
>>> think about this possibility.
>>>
>>> But I would guess, that the idea of real, lasting, material particles is
>>> plain wrong.
>>>
>>> I have actually developed an alternative approach called 'structured
>>> spacetime', which works quite well.
>>>
>>> The reason is, that some aspects of reality fit to current quantum
>>> mechanics, but some aspects contradict simple logic and cosmological
>>> necessities.
>>>
>>> Since a good concept needs to match all known facts, we had to think
>>> 'beyond our limits' and about higher dimensions, from which we perceive
>>> only a certain subset.
>>>
>>> The tricky part is now, to estimate the structure of these higher
>>> dimension from the behavior of objects in our own realm.
>>>
>>> This is very similar to the popular picture of 'flatlanders, who cannot
>>> see, that they are flat and a world exists, which is not flat.
>>>
>>> But 'flatlanders' can actually assume, that such an invisible world
>>> would exist and calculate, how that could eventually look like by simply
>>> observing their flat world and extrapolating that to three dimensions.
>>>
>>> Same can we, but with a few more dimensions.
>>>
>>> TH
>> There are no higher spatial dimensions, and spacetime is a reification
>> fallacy or merely a diagram.
>
> Apaprently you want to decide what is and what is not.
>
> But what gives you authority to decide about the existence of something?
>
>
> I used the 'real-spacetime-hypothesis' to connect GR and QM.
>
> The concept is actually quite simple and goes like this:
>
> If you want to connect two distinct but established theories, you need
> to find a 'path' between them, since if both are valid, there should be
> a connection.
>
> Now you could take either side as starting position and cut your way
> through the jungle, until you arrive at the other side.
>
> I had chosen to use 'GR-side' as start and had to assume, that spacetime
> of GR is real.
>
> Now my aim was to build the entities of QM out of spacetime.
>
> Once that is done, that connection would be established.
>
> Therefore, my aim was to build particles out of spacetime and possibly
> fields.
>
> That was in fact possible, though not that easy.
>
> But I have written a 'book' about this idea, which you can find here:
>
>
> https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1Ur3_giuk2l439fxUa8QHX4wTDxBEaM6lOlgVUa0cFU4/edit?usp=sharing
>
>
> TH
GR and QM are horrible theories that ought to be thrown out altogether.
Spacetime of GR is a diagram because time is not a spatial dimension.