Zero Size Physics, revisited
in [Relativity]
|
Prev: Way off topic: oil and politics (was: Hexagonal grid and itsthree directions)
Next: New Solutions Manuals, Test Banks, Instructor Manuals 2011
From: mpc755 on 2 Jun 2010 21:08 On Jun 2, 8:44 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > On Jun 2, 5:23 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Jun 2, 7:40 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > On Jun 2, 4:37 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Jun 2, 7:26 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > > On Jun 2, 3:43 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Jun 2, 6:27 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > On Jun 2, 2:02 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > On Jun 2, 4:05 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Einstein won. He questioned what he won the Nobel Prize for. > > > > > > > > > > Mitch Raemsch > > > > > > > > > Not sure what you mean by that but I do not think it has anything to > > > > > > > > do with wave-particle duality. > > > > > > > > > 'Louis de Broglie'http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louis_de_Broglie > > > > > > > > > "His 1924 doctoral thesis, Recherches sur la théorie des quanta > > > > > > > > (Research on Quantum Theory), introduced his theory of electron waves. > > > > > > > > This included the wave-particle duality theory of matter, based on > > > > > > > > the work of Albert Einstein and Max Planck on light. The thesis > > > > > > > > examiners, unsure of the material, passed his thesis to Einstein for > > > > > > > > evaluation who endorsed his wave-particle duality proposal > > > > > > > > wholeheartedly; de Broglie was awarded his doctorate. This research > > > > > > > > culminated in the de Broglie hypothesis stating that any moving > > > > > > > > particle or object had an associated wave." > > > > > > > > > The associated wave is an aether wave. > > > > > > > > > If an ocean wave arrived on shore and was always detected at a > > > > > > > > particular point on the shore then the ocean wave would have a > > > > > > > > particle associated with it. An ocean wave does not arrive at one > > > > > > > > particular point on the shore. An ocean wave arrives along a wide > > > > > > > > width of the shore. The ocean wave arrives along a wide width of the > > > > > > > > shore because the wave does not have an associated particle.. > > > > > > > > > A photon is always detected as a particle because a very small region > > > > > > > > of the photon wave is occupied by the photon particle. The photon > > > > > > > > particle may exist as a very small region of the wave itself. > > > > > > > > > Without a 'particle' associated with a photon, the following statement > > > > > > > > of yours is physically impossible: > > > > > > > > > "EM waves can oscillate into electric matter particles." > > > > > > > > > Without a 'particle' associated with a photon, the following statement > > > > > > > > of yours is physically impossible: > > > > > > > > > "A light wave oscillates into the point particle giving it its > > > > > > > > electric energy." > > > > > > > > > What you are unable to understand is the 'particle' may exist as part > > > > > > > > of the wave itself. The 'particle' may exist as a very small region of > > > > > > > > the wave itself. The 'particle' does not have to be a self-contained > > > > > > > > entity. The 'particle' exists when detected. However, the ability of > > > > > > > > this very small region of the wave to be detected as a 'particle' must > > > > > > > > be considered a particle. It is the ability of a very small region of > > > > > > > > the photon wave to be detected as a particle which is the particle > > > > > > > > associated with the photon wave. > > > > > > > > Matter is wave particle except for the neutrino. And light is just > > > > > > > wave. > > > > > > > > Mitch Raemsch > > > > > > > If light were just wave then the following statement of yours if > > > > > > physically impossible: > > > > > > > "EM waves can oscillate into electric matter particles." > > > > > > > If light were just wave then the following statement of yours if > > > > > > physically impossible: > > > > > > > "A light wave oscillates into the point particle giving it its > > > > > > electric energy." > > > > > > > What you are unable to understand is the 'particle' may exist as part > > > > > > of the wave itself. The 'particle' may exist as a very small region of > > > > > > the wave itself. The 'particle' does not have to be a self-contained > > > > > > entity. The 'particle' exists when detected. However, the ability of > > > > > > this very small region of the wave to be detected as a 'particle' must > > > > > > be considered a particle. It is the ability of a very small region of > > > > > > the photon wave to be detected as a particle which is the particle > > > > > > associated with the photon wave.- Hide quoted text - > > > > > > > - Show quoted text - > > > > > > Stop arguing with me. Light is a wave alone and you can not prove it > > > > > otherwise. Particles are not needed for wave absorption. If you insist > > > > > then show why an EM wave cannot enter energy by collapsing? > > > > > > Mitch Raemsch > > > > Please show why a wave of energy cannot collapse into matter at > > > absorption. > > > I am saying a photon wave collapses when detected and is detected as a > > particle of mæther. > > > > I say you need no particle for light to enter matter. > > > You have said repeatedly a light wave collapses into a point particle. > > The ability of the photon to collapse into a point particle IS the > > associated photon particle. > > The wave collapses or oscillates into point energy or what is called > mass. There is no need for a particle nature for this to happen. > Finite density oscillating light energy concentrates itself into the > electric mass of a particle. Non electric mass doesn't absorb light. > > Mitch Raemsch > Here is an image of the interference pattern being formed by photons being detected at the screen over time: http://www.cbu.edu/~jvarrian/252/photslit.gif Image (a) is of 1000 photons detected after 10 seconds. Image (b) is of 60000 photons detected after 10 minutes. Notice how the photon 'particles' create the interference pattern. The photon 'particle' enters and exits a single slit. The photon wave enters and exits both slits and alters the direction the photon 'particle' travels.
From: BURT on 2 Jun 2010 22:07 On Jun 2, 5:23 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Jun 2, 7:40 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Jun 2, 4:37 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Jun 2, 7:26 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > On Jun 2, 3:43 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > On Jun 2, 6:27 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Jun 2, 2:02 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > On Jun 2, 4:05 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > Einstein won. He questioned what he won the Nobel Prize for.. > > > > > > > > > Mitch Raemsch > > > > > > > > Not sure what you mean by that but I do not think it has anything to > > > > > > > do with wave-particle duality. > > > > > > > > 'Louis de Broglie'http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louis_de_Broglie > > > > > > > > "His 1924 doctoral thesis, Recherches sur la théorie des quanta > > > > > > > (Research on Quantum Theory), introduced his theory of electron waves. > > > > > > > This included the wave-particle duality theory of matter, based on > > > > > > > the work of Albert Einstein and Max Planck on light. The thesis > > > > > > > examiners, unsure of the material, passed his thesis to Einstein for > > > > > > > evaluation who endorsed his wave-particle duality proposal > > > > > > > wholeheartedly; de Broglie was awarded his doctorate. This research > > > > > > > culminated in the de Broglie hypothesis stating that any moving > > > > > > > particle or object had an associated wave." > > > > > > > > The associated wave is an aether wave. > > > > > > > > If an ocean wave arrived on shore and was always detected at a > > > > > > > particular point on the shore then the ocean wave would have a > > > > > > > particle associated with it. An ocean wave does not arrive at one > > > > > > > particular point on the shore. An ocean wave arrives along a wide > > > > > > > width of the shore. The ocean wave arrives along a wide width of the > > > > > > > shore because the wave does not have an associated particle. > > > > > > > > A photon is always detected as a particle because a very small region > > > > > > > of the photon wave is occupied by the photon particle. The photon > > > > > > > particle may exist as a very small region of the wave itself. > > > > > > > > Without a 'particle' associated with a photon, the following statement > > > > > > > of yours is physically impossible: > > > > > > > > "EM waves can oscillate into electric matter particles." > > > > > > > > Without a 'particle' associated with a photon, the following statement > > > > > > > of yours is physically impossible: > > > > > > > > "A light wave oscillates into the point particle giving it its > > > > > > > electric energy." > > > > > > > > What you are unable to understand is the 'particle' may exist as part > > > > > > > of the wave itself. The 'particle' may exist as a very small region of > > > > > > > the wave itself. The 'particle' does not have to be a self-contained > > > > > > > entity. The 'particle' exists when detected. However, the ability of > > > > > > > this very small region of the wave to be detected as a 'particle' must > > > > > > > be considered a particle. It is the ability of a very small region of > > > > > > > the photon wave to be detected as a particle which is the particle > > > > > > > associated with the photon wave. > > > > > > > Matter is wave particle except for the neutrino. And light is just > > > > > > wave. > > > > > > > Mitch Raemsch > > > > > > If light were just wave then the following statement of yours if > > > > > physically impossible: > > > > > > "EM waves can oscillate into electric matter particles." > > > > > > If light were just wave then the following statement of yours if > > > > > physically impossible: > > > > > > "A light wave oscillates into the point particle giving it its > > > > > electric energy." > > > > > > What you are unable to understand is the 'particle' may exist as part > > > > > of the wave itself. The 'particle' may exist as a very small region of > > > > > the wave itself. The 'particle' does not have to be a self-contained > > > > > entity. The 'particle' exists when detected. However, the ability of > > > > > this very small region of the wave to be detected as a 'particle' must > > > > > be considered a particle. It is the ability of a very small region of > > > > > the photon wave to be detected as a particle which is the particle > > > > > associated with the photon wave.- Hide quoted text - > > > > > > - Show quoted text - > > > > > Stop arguing with me. Light is a wave alone and you can not prove it > > > > otherwise. Particles are not needed for wave absorption. If you insist > > > > then show why an EM wave cannot enter energy by collapsing? > > > > > Mitch Raemsch > > > Please show why a wave of energy cannot collapse into matter at > > absorption. > > I am saying a photon wave collapses when detected and is detected as a > particle of mæther. > > > I say you need no particle for light to enter matter. > > You have said repeatedly a light wave collapses into a point particle. > The ability of the photon to collapse into a point particle IS the > associated photon particle. > > If you have the basement windows open and there is a hurricane and an > ocean wave enters through the windows is the ocean wave entering the > basement as a particle? Of course not. The ocean wave does not have > the ability to collapse and be detected as a particle. > > A photon has wave-particle duality. The ability of the wave to > collapse and be detected as a particle IS the 'particle' associated > with the photon.- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - Particle wave is soley for quantum matter vibration. Light wave requires no particle. This is the direction Einstein took in the end. Mitch Raemsch
From: mpc755 on 2 Jun 2010 22:15 On Jun 2, 10:07 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > On Jun 2, 5:23 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Jun 2, 7:40 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > On Jun 2, 4:37 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Jun 2, 7:26 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > > On Jun 2, 3:43 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Jun 2, 6:27 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > On Jun 2, 2:02 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > On Jun 2, 4:05 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Einstein won. He questioned what he won the Nobel Prize for. > > > > > > > > > > Mitch Raemsch > > > > > > > > > Not sure what you mean by that but I do not think it has anything to > > > > > > > > do with wave-particle duality. > > > > > > > > > 'Louis de Broglie'http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louis_de_Broglie > > > > > > > > > "His 1924 doctoral thesis, Recherches sur la théorie des quanta > > > > > > > > (Research on Quantum Theory), introduced his theory of electron waves. > > > > > > > > This included the wave-particle duality theory of matter, based on > > > > > > > > the work of Albert Einstein and Max Planck on light. The thesis > > > > > > > > examiners, unsure of the material, passed his thesis to Einstein for > > > > > > > > evaluation who endorsed his wave-particle duality proposal > > > > > > > > wholeheartedly; de Broglie was awarded his doctorate. This research > > > > > > > > culminated in the de Broglie hypothesis stating that any moving > > > > > > > > particle or object had an associated wave." > > > > > > > > > The associated wave is an aether wave. > > > > > > > > > If an ocean wave arrived on shore and was always detected at a > > > > > > > > particular point on the shore then the ocean wave would have a > > > > > > > > particle associated with it. An ocean wave does not arrive at one > > > > > > > > particular point on the shore. An ocean wave arrives along a wide > > > > > > > > width of the shore. The ocean wave arrives along a wide width of the > > > > > > > > shore because the wave does not have an associated particle.. > > > > > > > > > A photon is always detected as a particle because a very small region > > > > > > > > of the photon wave is occupied by the photon particle. The photon > > > > > > > > particle may exist as a very small region of the wave itself. > > > > > > > > > Without a 'particle' associated with a photon, the following statement > > > > > > > > of yours is physically impossible: > > > > > > > > > "EM waves can oscillate into electric matter particles." > > > > > > > > > Without a 'particle' associated with a photon, the following statement > > > > > > > > of yours is physically impossible: > > > > > > > > > "A light wave oscillates into the point particle giving it its > > > > > > > > electric energy." > > > > > > > > > What you are unable to understand is the 'particle' may exist as part > > > > > > > > of the wave itself. The 'particle' may exist as a very small region of > > > > > > > > the wave itself. The 'particle' does not have to be a self-contained > > > > > > > > entity. The 'particle' exists when detected. However, the ability of > > > > > > > > this very small region of the wave to be detected as a 'particle' must > > > > > > > > be considered a particle. It is the ability of a very small region of > > > > > > > > the photon wave to be detected as a particle which is the particle > > > > > > > > associated with the photon wave. > > > > > > > > Matter is wave particle except for the neutrino. And light is just > > > > > > > wave. > > > > > > > > Mitch Raemsch > > > > > > > If light were just wave then the following statement of yours if > > > > > > physically impossible: > > > > > > > "EM waves can oscillate into electric matter particles." > > > > > > > If light were just wave then the following statement of yours if > > > > > > physically impossible: > > > > > > > "A light wave oscillates into the point particle giving it its > > > > > > electric energy." > > > > > > > What you are unable to understand is the 'particle' may exist as part > > > > > > of the wave itself. The 'particle' may exist as a very small region of > > > > > > the wave itself. The 'particle' does not have to be a self-contained > > > > > > entity. The 'particle' exists when detected. However, the ability of > > > > > > this very small region of the wave to be detected as a 'particle' must > > > > > > be considered a particle. It is the ability of a very small region of > > > > > > the photon wave to be detected as a particle which is the particle > > > > > > associated with the photon wave.- Hide quoted text - > > > > > > > - Show quoted text - > > > > > > Stop arguing with me. Light is a wave alone and you can not prove it > > > > > otherwise. Particles are not needed for wave absorption. If you insist > > > > > then show why an EM wave cannot enter energy by collapsing? > > > > > > Mitch Raemsch > > > > Please show why a wave of energy cannot collapse into matter at > > > absorption. > > > I am saying a photon wave collapses when detected and is detected as a > > particle of mæther. > > > > I say you need no particle for light to enter matter. > > > You have said repeatedly a light wave collapses into a point particle. > > The ability of the photon to collapse into a point particle IS the > > associated photon particle. > > > If you have the basement windows open and there is a hurricane and an > > ocean wave enters through the windows is the ocean wave entering the > > basement as a particle? Of course not. The ocean wave does not have > > the ability to collapse and be detected as a particle. > > > A photon has wave-particle duality. The ability of the wave to > > collapse and be detected as a particle IS the 'particle' associated > > with the photon.- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text - > > Particle wave is soley for quantum matter vibration. Light wave > requires no particle. This is the direction Einstein took in the end. > > Mitch Raemsch Here is an image of the interference pattern being formed by photons being detected at the screen over time: http://www.cbu.edu/~jvarrian/252/photslit.gif Image (a) is of 1000 photons detected after 10 seconds. Image (b) is of 60000 photons detected after 10 minutes. Notice how the photon 'particles' fill-in the interference pattern over time. The photon 'particle' enters and exits a single slit. The photon wave enters and exits both slits and alters the direction the photon 'particle' travels.
From: BURT on 2 Jun 2010 23:05 On Jun 2, 6:08 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Jun 2, 8:44 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Jun 2, 5:23 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Jun 2, 7:40 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > On Jun 2, 4:37 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > On Jun 2, 7:26 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Jun 2, 3:43 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > On Jun 2, 6:27 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > On Jun 2, 2:02 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > On Jun 2, 4:05 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > Einstein won. He questioned what he won the Nobel Prize for. > > > > > > > > > > > Mitch Raemsch > > > > > > > > > > Not sure what you mean by that but I do not think it has anything to > > > > > > > > > do with wave-particle duality. > > > > > > > > > > 'Louis de Broglie'http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louis_de_Broglie > > > > > > > > > > "His 1924 doctoral thesis, Recherches sur la théorie des quanta > > > > > > > > > (Research on Quantum Theory), introduced his theory of electron waves. > > > > > > > > > This included the wave-particle duality theory of matter, based on > > > > > > > > > the work of Albert Einstein and Max Planck on light. The thesis > > > > > > > > > examiners, unsure of the material, passed his thesis to Einstein for > > > > > > > > > evaluation who endorsed his wave-particle duality proposal > > > > > > > > > wholeheartedly; de Broglie was awarded his doctorate. This research > > > > > > > > > culminated in the de Broglie hypothesis stating that any moving > > > > > > > > > particle or object had an associated wave." > > > > > > > > > > The associated wave is an aether wave. > > > > > > > > > > If an ocean wave arrived on shore and was always detected at a > > > > > > > > > particular point on the shore then the ocean wave would have a > > > > > > > > > particle associated with it. An ocean wave does not arrive at one > > > > > > > > > particular point on the shore. An ocean wave arrives along a wide > > > > > > > > > width of the shore. The ocean wave arrives along a wide width of the > > > > > > > > > shore because the wave does not have an associated particle. > > > > > > > > > > A photon is always detected as a particle because a very small region > > > > > > > > > of the photon wave is occupied by the photon particle. The photon > > > > > > > > > particle may exist as a very small region of the wave itself. > > > > > > > > > > Without a 'particle' associated with a photon, the following statement > > > > > > > > > of yours is physically impossible: > > > > > > > > > > "EM waves can oscillate into electric matter particles." > > > > > > > > > > Without a 'particle' associated with a photon, the following statement > > > > > > > > > of yours is physically impossible: > > > > > > > > > > "A light wave oscillates into the point particle giving it its > > > > > > > > > electric energy." > > > > > > > > > > What you are unable to understand is the 'particle' may exist as part > > > > > > > > > of the wave itself. The 'particle' may exist as a very small region of > > > > > > > > > the wave itself. The 'particle' does not have to be a self-contained > > > > > > > > > entity. The 'particle' exists when detected. However, the ability of > > > > > > > > > this very small region of the wave to be detected as a 'particle' must > > > > > > > > > be considered a particle. It is the ability of a very small region of > > > > > > > > > the photon wave to be detected as a particle which is the particle > > > > > > > > > associated with the photon wave. > > > > > > > > > Matter is wave particle except for the neutrino. And light is just > > > > > > > > wave. > > > > > > > > > Mitch Raemsch > > > > > > > > If light were just wave then the following statement of yours if > > > > > > > physically impossible: > > > > > > > > "EM waves can oscillate into electric matter particles." > > > > > > > > If light were just wave then the following statement of yours if > > > > > > > physically impossible: > > > > > > > > "A light wave oscillates into the point particle giving it its > > > > > > > electric energy." > > > > > > > > What you are unable to understand is the 'particle' may exist as part > > > > > > > of the wave itself. The 'particle' may exist as a very small region of > > > > > > > the wave itself. The 'particle' does not have to be a self-contained > > > > > > > entity. The 'particle' exists when detected. However, the ability of > > > > > > > this very small region of the wave to be detected as a 'particle' must > > > > > > > be considered a particle. It is the ability of a very small region of > > > > > > > the photon wave to be detected as a particle which is the particle > > > > > > > associated with the photon wave.- Hide quoted text - > > > > > > > > - Show quoted text - > > > > > > > Stop arguing with me. Light is a wave alone and you can not prove it > > > > > > otherwise. Particles are not needed for wave absorption. If you insist > > > > > > then show why an EM wave cannot enter energy by collapsing? > > > > > > > Mitch Raemsch > > > > > Please show why a wave of energy cannot collapse into matter at > > > > absorption. > > > > I am saying a photon wave collapses when detected and is detected as a > > > particle of mæther. > > > > > I say you need no particle for light to enter matter. > > > > You have said repeatedly a light wave collapses into a point particle.. > > > The ability of the photon to collapse into a point particle IS the > > > associated photon particle. > > > The wave collapses or oscillates into point energy or what is called > > mass. There is no need for a particle nature for this to happen. > > Finite density oscillating light energy concentrates itself into the > > electric mass of a particle. Non electric mass doesn't absorb light. > > > Mitch Raemsch > > Here is an image of the interference pattern being formed by photons > being detected at the screen over time:http://www.cbu.edu/~jvarrian/252/photslit.gif > Image (a) is of 1000 photons detected after 10 seconds. Image (b) is > of 60000 photons detected after 10 minutes. > > Notice how the photon 'particles' create the interference pattern. > > The photon 'particle' enters and exits a single slit. The photon wave > enters and exits both slits and alters the direction the photon > 'particle' travels.- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - How do you know they are photons? I mean the only evidence is for their wave nature that can collapse into an electric particle at absorption. Light goes into electric matter and requires no particle nature to do so. The screen absorbs individual waves not photons. You're going to need more evidence for the photon. But it isn't there. The photoelectric effect is equally accomplished by wave absorption causing electrons to jump out of the atom. They simply float out. Mitch Raemsch
From: mpc755 on 2 Jun 2010 23:24
On Jun 2, 11:05 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > On Jun 2, 6:08 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Jun 2, 8:44 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > On Jun 2, 5:23 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Jun 2, 7:40 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > > On Jun 2, 4:37 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Jun 2, 7:26 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > On Jun 2, 3:43 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > On Jun 2, 6:27 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > On Jun 2, 2:02 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > On Jun 2, 4:05 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Einstein won. He questioned what he won the Nobel Prize for. > > > > > > > > > > > > Mitch Raemsch > > > > > > > > > > > Not sure what you mean by that but I do not think it has anything to > > > > > > > > > > do with wave-particle duality. > > > > > > > > > > > 'Louis de Broglie'http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louis_de_Broglie > > > > > > > > > > > "His 1924 doctoral thesis, Recherches sur la théorie des quanta > > > > > > > > > > (Research on Quantum Theory), introduced his theory of electron waves. > > > > > > > > > > This included the wave-particle duality theory of matter, based on > > > > > > > > > > the work of Albert Einstein and Max Planck on light. The thesis > > > > > > > > > > examiners, unsure of the material, passed his thesis to Einstein for > > > > > > > > > > evaluation who endorsed his wave-particle duality proposal > > > > > > > > > > wholeheartedly; de Broglie was awarded his doctorate. This research > > > > > > > > > > culminated in the de Broglie hypothesis stating that any moving > > > > > > > > > > particle or object had an associated wave." > > > > > > > > > > > The associated wave is an aether wave. > > > > > > > > > > > If an ocean wave arrived on shore and was always detected at a > > > > > > > > > > particular point on the shore then the ocean wave would have a > > > > > > > > > > particle associated with it. An ocean wave does not arrive at one > > > > > > > > > > particular point on the shore. An ocean wave arrives along a wide > > > > > > > > > > width of the shore. The ocean wave arrives along a wide width of the > > > > > > > > > > shore because the wave does not have an associated particle. > > > > > > > > > > > A photon is always detected as a particle because a very small region > > > > > > > > > > of the photon wave is occupied by the photon particle. The photon > > > > > > > > > > particle may exist as a very small region of the wave itself. > > > > > > > > > > > Without a 'particle' associated with a photon, the following statement > > > > > > > > > > of yours is physically impossible: > > > > > > > > > > > "EM waves can oscillate into electric matter particles." > > > > > > > > > > > Without a 'particle' associated with a photon, the following statement > > > > > > > > > > of yours is physically impossible: > > > > > > > > > > > "A light wave oscillates into the point particle giving it its > > > > > > > > > > electric energy." > > > > > > > > > > > What you are unable to understand is the 'particle' may exist as part > > > > > > > > > > of the wave itself. The 'particle' may exist as a very small region of > > > > > > > > > > the wave itself. The 'particle' does not have to be a self-contained > > > > > > > > > > entity. The 'particle' exists when detected. However, the ability of > > > > > > > > > > this very small region of the wave to be detected as a 'particle' must > > > > > > > > > > be considered a particle. It is the ability of a very small region of > > > > > > > > > > the photon wave to be detected as a particle which is the particle > > > > > > > > > > associated with the photon wave. > > > > > > > > > > Matter is wave particle except for the neutrino. And light is just > > > > > > > > > wave. > > > > > > > > > > Mitch Raemsch > > > > > > > > > If light were just wave then the following statement of yours if > > > > > > > > physically impossible: > > > > > > > > > "EM waves can oscillate into electric matter particles." > > > > > > > > > If light were just wave then the following statement of yours if > > > > > > > > physically impossible: > > > > > > > > > "A light wave oscillates into the point particle giving it its > > > > > > > > electric energy." > > > > > > > > > What you are unable to understand is the 'particle' may exist as part > > > > > > > > of the wave itself. The 'particle' may exist as a very small region of > > > > > > > > the wave itself. The 'particle' does not have to be a self-contained > > > > > > > > entity. The 'particle' exists when detected. However, the ability of > > > > > > > > this very small region of the wave to be detected as a 'particle' must > > > > > > > > be considered a particle. It is the ability of a very small region of > > > > > > > > the photon wave to be detected as a particle which is the particle > > > > > > > > associated with the photon wave.- Hide quoted text - > > > > > > > > > - Show quoted text - > > > > > > > > Stop arguing with me. Light is a wave alone and you can not prove it > > > > > > > otherwise. Particles are not needed for wave absorption. If you insist > > > > > > > then show why an EM wave cannot enter energy by collapsing? > > > > > > > > Mitch Raemsch > > > > > > Please show why a wave of energy cannot collapse into matter at > > > > > absorption. > > > > > I am saying a photon wave collapses when detected and is detected as a > > > > particle of mæther. > > > > > > I say you need no particle for light to enter matter. > > > > > You have said repeatedly a light wave collapses into a point particle. > > > > The ability of the photon to collapse into a point particle IS the > > > > associated photon particle. > > > > The wave collapses or oscillates into point energy or what is called > > > mass. There is no need for a particle nature for this to happen. > > > Finite density oscillating light energy concentrates itself into the > > > electric mass of a particle. Non electric mass doesn't absorb light. > > > > Mitch Raemsch > > > Here is an image of the interference pattern being formed by photons > > being detected at the screen over time:http://www.cbu.edu/~jvarrian/252/photslit.gif > > Image (a) is of 1000 photons detected after 10 seconds. Image (b) is > > of 60000 photons detected after 10 minutes. > > > Notice how the photon 'particles' create the interference pattern. > > > The photon 'particle' enters and exits a single slit. The photon wave > > enters and exits both slits and alters the direction the photon > > 'particle' travels.- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text - > > How do you know they are photons? I mean the only evidence is for > their wave nature that can collapse into an electric particle at > absorption. Light goes into electric matter and requires no particle > nature to do so. > You just contradicted yourself in the above statements. When you say the "wave nature that can collapse into an electric particle" you are describing the particle nature of a photon. > The screen absorbs individual waves not photons. > > You're going to need more evidence for the photon. But it isn't there. > The photoelectric effect is equally accomplished by wave absorption > causing electrons to jump out of the atom. They simply float out. > > Mitch Raemsch |