Path: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!i2pn.org!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: Thu, 29 May 2025 21:40:40 +0000
Organization: novaBBS
Message-ID: <a18977a79cf92b54c28e3e65395ab113@www.novabbs.com>
References: <bee82c477b86c0caf1c30da405ed870f@www.novabbs.com> <10140pm$2huu3$1@dont-email.me> <211597acf09cc21af2125ea3c9fe12d4@www.novabbs.com> <101acbb$188t$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="2471860"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="HcQFdl4zp4UQRQ9N18ivMn6Fl9V8n4SPkK4oZHLgYdQ";
User-Agent: Rocksolid Light
X-Rslight-Site: $2y$10$1RlayNzoWEFRK94aY7uslukubtDmfwePUgnLncVGhonlJ5RCvzb7i
X-Rslight-Posting-User: a2f761a7401f13abeefca3440f16b2f27b708180
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
Bytes: 3452
Lines: 74

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
>
> The first few statements spoken in the video are:
>
> "Did we misunderstand the double slit experiment,
>   the most famous experiment in quantum physics?
>   We usually interpret it as proof that light is both
>   a particle and a wave, the essence of quantum physics.
>   Yet in a new paper, a group of physicist disagree.
>   It can all be explained by particles, they say."
>
> Repeat: "It can all be explained by particles."
>
> This is what you seem to believe was said in the video:
>
>>>>
>>>> Light is a wave and not a particle.
>
> That's was why I wrote:
>
>>>
>>> Got it upside down and inside out again, Laurence? :-D
>
>> You do not even attempt to be persuasive.
>
> I am not trying to convince you about anything.
>
>
> Your question to the AI:
>
>> "Why do Physicists talk about Wave Particle Duality?
>
> The AI answer:
>
>> The
>> truth is most professional physicists don’t talk about wave particle
>> duality, and it is a dying concept.
>   ..
>> In modern textbooks of quantum mechanics and quantum
>> field theory, talk of wave-particle duality is absent.
>
> According to the modern relativistic quantum field theory QED,
> light is a particle.
>
>
> This is how Laurence Clark Crossen has interpreted the video
> and the AI answer:
>
>> Wave particle duality is not real. It's been invalidated by experiments
>> so light must be a wave.
>
> Still got it backwards and upside down and inside out, Laurence? :-D
I disagree with the article. It's not what was said but what can be
intelligently understood from the evidence. Don't confuse the evidence
with the paper.

QED is clearly mistaken. Why would I take their word on it?

There is no evidence that light is a particle, and you have not
presented any. Neither has Quantum physics.

Light is either a wave or a particle.

You haven't convinced me of anything.