It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Thank you.

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

page: 118
80
share:

posted on May, 18 2015 @ 09:56 AM

(paraphrase) "the vertical separation between the black lines is a measure of the probability of finding the paricle ear that location"

That image is not attempting to depict how the photon exists at all;

It is exclaiming to depict a range, in which the photon might exist.

We are still waiting for a depiction of what and how the photon itself might be.

posted on May, 18 2015 @ 10:25 AM
I said it wasn't an accurate model of the photon, but I still find it useful.

Our experiments and observations tell us lots about photons, and QED is a good model of how photons and matter interact, which is able to predict what we observe in experiment.

I don't think you can come up with any classical representation of a photon that will give you the accuracy of predictions that comes from QED, but if you can demonstrate otherwise, feel free.

The best minds have already tried to explain the photon in classical terms, and have determined that so far every attempt to do so has failed. Maybe you'll be the first to succeed but I doubt it, because the other people who have tried were much more rigorous in their approach than you.

posted on May, 18 2015 @ 10:38 AM

originally posted by: Arbitrageur
I agree photons aren't like balls, but I can't think of them as points either. If I thought of them as points I'd think of those points leaking out of the ~1mm wide holes in my microwave oven door, and not much microwave radiation leaks out.

That's because the wave aspect is larger than the hole. The photon is somewhere in the wave, as a probability function. If the wave's stopped, the photon bounces. But it's still a point.

posted on May, 18 2015 @ 10:39 AM

originally posted by: ImaFungi
We are still waiting for a depiction of what and how the photon itself might be.

Wood. It's a little wooden ball, typically painted yellow.

posted on May, 18 2015 @ 10:40 AM

originally posted by: Bedlam

originally posted by: Arbitrageur
I agree photons aren't like balls, but I can't think of them as points either. If I thought of them as points I'd think of those points leaking out of the ~1mm wide holes in my microwave oven door, and not much microwave radiation leaks out.

That's because the wave aspect is larger than the hole. The photon is somewhere in the wave, as a probability function. If the wave's stopped, the photon bounces. But it's still a point.

But phage said points cant exist.

I guess he is wrong, and there is proof that geometry exists. Sweet.

posted on May, 18 2015 @ 10:42 AM

originally posted by: Arbitrageur
I said it wasn't an accurate model of the photon, but I still find it useful.

Our experiments and observations tell us lots about photons, and QED is a good model of how photons and matter interact, which is able to predict what we observe in experiment.

I don't think you can come up with any classical representation of a photon that will give you the accuracy of predictions that comes from QED, but if you can demonstrate otherwise, feel free.

The best minds have already tried to explain the photon in classical terms, and have determined that so far every attempt to do so has failed. Maybe you'll be the first to succeed but I doubt it, because the other people who have tried were much more rigorous in their approach than you.

The only way in which 'some thing and some things' can be (BE!!!!) non classical, is if they are fake.

video games, movies, dreams, etc.

Reality must be classical if it is real.

If it seems like an aspect is not classical;

Then this is because the classicality of it is more complex than you are considering.

AHHHH

But it really may be that the classical world is fake

And what you call the quantum world, is the perfect classical world

And what you know of as classical science,

is the detailing of the realm of symbolic appearances

Now this all makes sense.

This is what Kant means by Phenomena and Noumena

And this is the entirety of our clashing in discussion;

Of my desire to only know, as this is what is claimed to be true knowledge, how reality exists in and of and as itself

And you and/or science wants to know how reality exists in relation to our self.

edit on 18-5-2015 by ImaFungi because: (no reason given)

posted on May, 18 2015 @ 10:47 AM

originally posted by: ImaFungi

But phage said points cant exist.

I guess he is wrong, and there is proof that geometry exists. Sweet.

Some elementary particles have no real extent. Electrons and photons are in that group. There is a radius where the likelihood of it existing is non-negligible, so you get something LIKE a size, but it's not really one. More of an effective radius.

A geometric point is a logical construct, though, and has no real existence.

edit on 18-5-2015 by Bedlam because: (no reason given)

posted on May, 18 2015 @ 10:50 AM

originally posted by: Bedlam

Some elementary particles have no real extent. Electrons and photons are in that group

A geometric point is a logical construct, though, and has no real existence.

Some elementary particles are geometric points.

Therefore geometric points have real existence.

posted on May, 18 2015 @ 01:27 PM

originally posted by: ImaFungi

originally posted by: Arbitrageur
I said it wasn't an accurate model of the photon, but I still find it useful.

Our experiments and observations tell us lots about photons, and QED is a good model of how photons and matter interact, which is able to predict what we observe in experiment.

I don't think you can come up with any classical representation of a photon that will give you the accuracy of predictions that comes from QED, but if you can demonstrate otherwise, feel free.

The best minds have already tried to explain the photon in classical terms, and have determined that so far every attempt to do so has failed. Maybe you'll be the first to succeed but I doubt it, because the other people who have tried were much more rigorous in their approach than you.

The only way in which 'some thing and some things' can be (BE!!!!) non classical, is if they are fake.

video games, movies, dreams, etc.

Reality must be classical if it is real.

If it seems like an aspect is not classical;

Then this is because the classicality of it is more complex than you are considering.

AHHHH

But it really may be that the classical world is fake

And what you call the quantum world, is the perfect classical world

And what you know of as classical science,

is the detailing of the realm of symbolic appearances

Now this all makes sense.

This is what Kant means by Phenomena and Noumena

And this is the entirety of our clashing in discussion;

Of my desire to only know, as this is what is claimed to be true knowledge, how reality exists in and of and as itself

And you and/or science wants to know how reality exists in relation to our self.

Actually, we do physics backwards - the logical starting point is quantum mechanics which is the true representation of the world. Classical mechanics, although useful, are approximations. Sometimes they overlap - like Maxwell's equations folding into QED (quantum electrodynamics). Other things like spin, have no equivalence in classical mechanics.

"The photon is just another name for the quantized unit of energy in a quantum harmonic oscillator" (Quantum Mechanics, L. Susskind, A. Friedman 2014).

Harmonic oscillators are really mathematical constructs within which we can evaluate the displacement of an object or particle from its resting state - when matter is displaced, it oscillates.

So the photon as a quanta of energy and as an elementary particle which is indivisible can be described by QED, but can't be described as an image or a geometric point in space in classical physics. The rationale is that the quantum state is the REAL state and the classical state is simply imaginary. That's my take on it anyway.

edit on 18-5-2015 by Phantom423 because: (no reason given)

posted on May, 18 2015 @ 02:38 PM

Yeah but we are complex classical beings using complex classical equipment to attempt to jostle the foundations of reality and capture the jostlings and then draw a picture of how the jostlings jostled and attempt to declare how they must have been prior to being jostled.

So we start from the classical realm, which is most immediate to us, and then it takes thousands of years to create the equipment and capture the words and schematics in books to more and more about the realm which we call 'classical' which means 'the realm most immediate to our sensory experience';

And then we say; there is more to reality than just this realm close to our natural experience, there is a more fundamental formulation of substance which is the source of our classical experience and existence;

We say it works differently and weirdly comparatively;

And so we (well I dont, you seem to) say the foundation of reality is not classical, it is weird and different;

But really!

The classical world is the not real world;

The fundamental substance of reality is most ultimately real, and therefore truly most ultimately what the term classical attempted to describe (which is; natural; sensical;logical, reasonable; causal);

But the reason we do not know the fundamental and why we cant think of it as being as it truly is;

Is because we only know it by the clunky, confusing, multiple motion full, jostling as complex classical entities, who use a computation system of symbols to operate (called mind and memory) in reference to the drawing of notes;

And so the models are what happens when the perfection of reality is perturbed, and not only just this, but the recording, mapping, drawing of the results of the perturbed, and that motive perturbment is what is claimed to be knowledge of reality;

The fundamental realm of reality; IF REAL!

Is classical; meaning; causal, physical logic, physical reason

Now there is a great caveat in which the only way my statements I just made can be wrong;

Which is what I was trying to get elucidation on by asking Arb certain questions about the ability of Macro to influence fundamental.

Lets see if you can comprehend how I explain this, if you see what I mean;

Lets say the fundamental realm of reality or the universe, is substance which causally and determinately interacts;

From this, stars and planets formulate;

If you were the size of an average particle in the fundamental realm;

But lets say you could travel at any speed beyond the speed of light, and you had great ability of detailingly mapping out your surroundings;

And you traveled from the center of the sun to the earth; and back and forth till you traced over the earths 2d face in relation to the sun;

And you also passed through the earth each time, so that you recorded and witnessed all the differences of the earth, the differences which exist ultimately at the fundamental level;

Well let me stop right here and say; one thing I am thinking is; Is all the information of the earth contained at the fundamental level? Assuming it is not enough to just witness each particle of fundamental and know all the information, but to witness each particle of the fundamental, and know how each particle relates; is this knowledge of all that can be known of earth?

So considering the perspective of existing as an awareness at the fundamental level;

What I was attempting to ask Arb, was;

Is every event that effects the fundamental level, rooted in only the fundamental effecting the fundamental?

Or can a classical object exist;

Lets say a massive boulder exists;

Does a massive boulder exist, or does only fundamental particles exist, that in reference to other areas of fundamental particles, result in that area of fundamental particles being the classical illusion of massive boulder;

Are classical objects more than the sum of their fundamental parts?

The essence of what I was asking Arb;

Is if you are at the fundamental scale looking at a landscape of fundamental particles;

Imagine somewhere in the distance you see a sturdy collection of fundamental particles, moving as a large stable group, a hand for instance, where I was attempting to go with the boulder for instance;

That is how classical objects are objects;

You might see 'accusal' occurrences;

You might not be able to comprehend and witness how this object is moving as a unity, you cant see the source of its motion; a hand for instance, fingers waving, amidst the fundamental landscape realm you are witnessing;

You would jot down in your notebook the motion of the fingers, and how the hand appeared and moved;

But you would not find the causal source of the fingers moving, by observing just the substance you can see;

When it comes down to it, and I will see how this post is responded to;

The opposite of this case; existing in the classical realm, the realm of acknowledgement of objects and their symbolic depiction in our minds and papers;

It is difficult to determine how when our fingers muddy up the fundamental waters; and then we try to write down how things move; while everything is already moving multiple kinds of ways, and held together with to some degrees still mysterious forces and manners;

Where the causal relationships are beginning and ending;

How quantum realm can seem mysterious and weird and nonsensical and non causal; but that to the highest degree of most likely, if reality is real, the fundamental realm is causal and sensical.

When we do experiments with supposed entanglement;

We are like the hand reaching down into the fundamental landscape, and grabbing the tiniest piece, and moving it, in relation to our perspective, and then mapping out how everything changes in relation to our perspective of how everything was prior to our reaching our hand and moving the piece;

There is no reason to use a mind that claims to be intelligent to produce the thought that when we reach down with our hand into the fundamental realm, and move pieces, events occur which have no cause.

posted on May, 18 2015 @ 03:59 PM

I'm answering you in the only language I know. The quantum world is the only "real" world we have. Beyond that, I can't answer your questions. I think your questions are more philosophical than scientific. And I'm a lousy philosopher!

posted on May, 18 2015 @ 04:07 PM

originally posted by: Phantom423
The quantum world is the only "real" world we have.

Ok, and that precisely brings me to my question and wondering;

Is the classical world, not also just as real in a fundamental sense, if;

A classical object, can physical effect the quantum world?

Is a classical object exactly the sum of its parts?

What would it mean for it to be more than the sum of its parts? And why would that entail not realness?

I suppose part of the essence of this wondering, is the nature of not only parts, but the nature of 'binding' of parts.

And perhaps different mediums of material the parts exist in.

And so there are multiple effects that bind the parts, keep them parts, and keep binded parts into objects, which then when these classical objects composed of many various binded parts interact;

The repercussions are significant and novel on all levels

posted on May, 18 2015 @ 04:13 PM

originally posted by: ImaFungi
A classical object, can physical effect the quantum world?
That's at the heart of the solution to the Schrodinger's cat paradox. The cat is interacting with the quantum systems inside the box and that is why the cat isn't both dead and alive in the box at the same time:

abyss.uoregon.edu...

Decoherence explains why we do not routinely see quantum superpositions in the world around us. It is not because quantum mechanics intrinsically stops working for objects larger than some magic size. Instead, macroscopic objects such as cats and cards are almost impossible to keep isolated to the extent needed to prevent decoherence. Microscopic objects, in contrast, are more easily isolated from their surroundings so that they retain their quantum secrets and quantum behavior.

posted on May, 18 2015 @ 05:04 PM

originally posted by: ImaFungi

originally posted by: Phantom423
The quantum world is the only "real" world we have.

Ok, and that precisely brings me to my question and wondering;

Is the classical world, not also just as real in a fundamental sense, if;

A classical object, can physical effect the quantum world?

Is a classical object exactly the sum of its parts?

What would it mean for it to be more than the sum of its parts? And why would that entail not realness?

I suppose part of the essence of this wondering, is the nature of not only parts, but the nature of 'binding' of parts.

And perhaps different mediums of material the parts exist in.

And so there are multiple effects that bind the parts, keep them parts, and keep binded parts into objects, which then when these classical objects composed of many various binded parts interact;

The repercussions are significant and novel on all levels

It's actually fairly clear cut: classical physics are approximations developed out of necessity because we needed measurements that were in the ballpark. Quantum physics is the "real" world - the world as it actually is, but on a level that we can't see or perceive with our senses. It's just the way nature made us - we didn't have a choice! But is the quantm world real - you bet it is - think super conductors and just about anything electronic today. It's mind bending on the surface, but if you get really interested in the mathematics - which isn't all that complex - you can get a better picture in your mind. You'll think vectors, quantum states, matrices - that sort of thing.
edit on 18-5-2015 by Phantom423 because: (no reason given)

posted on May, 18 2015 @ 05:38 PM

I am arguing that quantum non locality, or what quantum entanglement ~claims to be; cannot both be true; and real.

Either spooky action at a distance truly exists; therefore this universe is not real.

Or spooky action at a distance truly does not exist; therefore this universe is real.

And this is my point about classical object, and quantum fundamental realm;

There is a classical difference between a rock and an apple;

This presumes the reason there is a classical difference between these two objects, is because and only because, of the quantum difference between them;

(you see the crux of what I am getting at is the nature of stability, is the existing object apple just as fundamental as all the fundamental quantum that exist, precisely because fundamental quantum is all that exists, and therefore the apple is nothing other than fundamental quantum, but the apple is an apple object and the rock is a rock object, and they are stable objects and can be moved around, in relation to 'everything' in relation to local quantum; you see, stability, everything doesnt constantly leak and melt into one another, where is the source of this stability; binding energies between quanta)

So fundamentally, the earth, is quantum particles, that are stuck in relatively stable relationships with local quantum particles (and, in unclear to me ways suggested to have possible non local relationships with particles);

So consider the earth from the perspective of what we are agreeing as being the true essence of reality, purely from quantum particle perspective;

So consider viewing an area of the earth, purely as viewing quantum particles that are that area of earth;

when an apple enters into your view, you would be seeing a quantity of quantum particles that are moving as a connected unit, which is the meaning of classical object;

So if the quantum unit itself, is the primary unit, isnt the apple just as much of a fundamental existent, just as primal and essential, if from the perspective of the quantum realm, the apple as an object, the apple as nothing but a stable collection of quanta, moves as a unit, effects and is effected by surrounding quanta? Does this make no true separation between classical world and quantum? It is a seamless and faultless unity from top down and bottom up, there is no weird mysterious spooky, (only to the mind of the ignorant), there is only substance which obeys reasonable rule.

posted on May, 18 2015 @ 05:43 PM

Well I wouldn't say the quantum world is real it is an aproximation to help us make predictions. So far it seems to work rather well. But realize we could have gotten things wrong and there is actually something else going on. Like virtual photons to be honest I've always doubted this there is something going on that is just to small do us to detect. But it's close enough that the math works. Will call it a placeholder until we find out what is really going on.

posted on May, 18 2015 @ 05:50 PM
Matt Strassler wrote an interesting article on virtual particles explaining that they aren't particles and it's a confusing misnomer.

profmattstrassler.com...

The best way to approach this concept, I believe, is to forget you ever saw the word “particle” in the term. A virtual particle is not a particle at all. It refers precisely to a disturbance in a field that is not a particle. A particle is a nice, regular ripple in a field, one that can travel smoothly and effortlessly through space, like a clear tone of a bell moving through the air. A “virtual particle”, generally, is a disturbance in a field that will never be found on its own, but instead is something that is caused by the presence of other particles, often of other fields.
I'm not sure if that's what you were thinking but if it is, apparently he agrees with you.

posted on May, 18 2015 @ 06:10 PM

originally posted by: dragonridr

Well I wouldn't say the quantum world is real it is an aproximation to help us make predictions. So far it seems to work rather well. But realize we could have gotten things wrong and there is actually something else going on. Like virtual photons to be honest I've always doubted this there is something going on that is just to small do us to detect. But it's close enough that the math works. Will call it a placeholder until we find out what is really going on.

Yes - still questions about predictability and "hidden variables". But QM is a calculus of probabilities - so are those questions even relevant? We got some things right - like quantum tunneling and the Josephson effect. So to date, it's turned out to be very useful in our real world. I did read somewhere (forget where) that someone predicted another level underneath QM - so who knows - we're still at the beginning.

posted on May, 18 2015 @ 07:00 PM

In a sense you're right - classical physics is probably more important to our perceived world than quantum mechanics.

We can look at the rock and the apple and know they are different - do absolutely nothing to them and still describe them. You can measure both of them and nothing changes. You can do the same to two apples or two rocks.

In the quantum world, any measurement of a system changes the system. So if your apple and rock were a single system and you made a measurement of one, you would necessarily change the whole system in some way. That's a very incomplete way of describing the difference between classical and QM physics. And that one concept can blow your mind to pieces if you think about some of the possibilities.

No one understands this stuff - or why we even have a quantum world - much less how it works. That's why the math is useful - at least you can draw a 3-vector and scribble out what's happening based on the principle.

posted on May, 18 2015 @ 11:52 PM

originally posted by: ImaFungi

originally posted by: Bedlam

Some elementary particles have no real extent. Electrons and photons are in that group

A geometric point is a logical construct, though, and has no real existence.

Some elementary particles are geometric points.

Therefore geometric points have real existence.

top topics

80