Path: news.eternal-september.org!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: Fri, 30 May 2025 21:12:29 +0000
Organization: novaBBS
Message-ID: <56f0c92f9cf0e888c90a8ad83e57b9f4@www.novabbs.com>
References: <bee82c477b86c0caf1c30da405ed870f@www.novabbs.com> <10140pm$2huu3$1@dont-email.me> <211597acf09cc21af2125ea3c9fe12d4@www.novabbs.com> <101acbb$188t$1@dont-email.me> <6b363c8aae8b6e67b880da6bf1c94d27@www.novabbs.com> <101d1bq$l2jh$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="2604950"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="HcQFdl4zp4UQRQ9N18ivMn6Fl9V8n4SPkK4oZHLgYdQ";
User-Agent: Rocksolid Light
X-Rslight-Posting-User: a2f761a7401f13abeefca3440f16b2f27b708180
X-Rslight-Site: $2y$10$ueTe1NbUQGrs5rAMSpMI4OR59FC7BDaGR2HTnIgsauB9XAKQvg1r2
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0

On Fri, 30 May 2025 19:42:54 +0000, Paul.B.Andersen wrote:

> 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.
Well, no. Because frequency is a property of waves and it is differences
in frequencies (involving differences in energy levels) that result in
the photoelectric effect it is waves that produce this effect. It does
not require light to be a particle at all.