Waves don't exist
- Thread starter RJBeery
- Start date
This is a pretty ridiculous post.
Maxwell's equations are wave equations. One can have a completely consistent theory of radiation without ever having to invoke "photons". For the uninitiated, this is how it was originally discovered.
EM radiation looks like a wave. (It satisfies the wave equations, just as water waves or waves on a string.) EM radiation walks like a wave. (See, for example, double slit scattering.) These properties cannot be captured by a particle.
Maxwell's equations are wave equations. One can have a completely consistent theory of radiation without ever having to invoke "photons". For the uninitiated, this is how it was originally discovered.
EM radiation looks like a wave. (It satisfies the wave equations, just as water waves or waves on a string.) EM radiation walks like a wave. (See, for example, double slit scattering.) These properties cannot be captured by a particle.
Ben, EM radiation "looks like a wave" because that's the way you were taught to understand and remember it. What is actually traveling through space is a bunch of photons. The wave-like appearance is a relic of the photons being restricted to paths that are made available to them. By the way, if wave-like properties cannot be captured by particles then why did you mention water waves? 
martillo
Registered Senior Member
RJBeery:
I have a complete theory about this. You can take a look at the site: http://www.geocities.com/anewlightinphysics but I would like to know which are your theories about.
I totally agree with you but you must then have to describe how diffraction patterns happen for photons , electrons, protons and neutrons in terms of your models of the particles.
I have a complete theory about this. You can take a look at the site: http://www.geocities.com/anewlightinphysics but I would like to know which are your theories about.
Ben, the photoelectric effect and the Compton effect cannot be explained with wave equations, yet I can explain the dual slit with particles. Why introduce the concept of wave-particle duality if it isn't necessary?
IsThatSo, are you suggesting that space and "spontaneous matter creation" is composed of waves? I don't get your post.:bugeye:
Martillo, it looks that you've put a lot of effort into your theory, thanks for sharing. I'll have to read it all before I can comment.
IsThatSo, are you suggesting that space and "spontaneous matter creation" is composed of waves? I don't get your post.:bugeye:
Martillo, it looks that you've put a lot of effort into your theory, thanks for sharing. I'll have to read it all before I can comment.
It is necessary though, if everything was straight forwards and particle's, then you would have a completely causality driven system with no room for "err". Waveformation's to me imply reasoning into Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle which could not fully appreciated as just particle based.
martillo
Registered Senior Member
Steve100:
The Feynman's double slit experiment fails in the assumption that only one particle is emitted at a time. If you analyze in deep the process by which the particles are emitted you will realize that there's no guarantee that individual particles are emitted in each discrete event. Actually a "burst" of parallel "trains" of particles are emitted and so two "trains" passes trough the slits interacting at the end producing the diffraction pattern in a way that is very compatible with the Huygen's principle although applied to "trains" of particles.
Because the world is NOT "perfectly described by particles". Google "double-slit experiment".
martillo
Registered Senior Member
Letticia:
Much more complete than you could imagine.
NOT in current "Mainstream Physics", which get out of rails with Einstein and De Broglie theories (although their formulas are quite fine), but IT IS in the new theories presented at: http://www.geocities.com/anewlightinphysics
Much more complete than you could imagine.
Last edited:
Letticia, you are presuming that the only explanation for wave interference patterns is that the photons are themselves made of waves. If we arrange pieces of cheese in that same interference pattern shall we claim that the mice that congregate there are made of waves as well?
Explain why, with optics, a lens can have a focus at 'infinity'. An object with infinite optical distance is focused by the lens, which projects the distant object into a local focal 'point'.
Is it because EM radiation has a short enough wavelength at optical frequencies that it propagates more or less in nice straight lines (effective theory)? Radio frequency certainly doesn't do that if you try to focus it with a glass lens?
Is it because EM radiation has a short enough wavelength at optical frequencies that it propagates more or less in nice straight lines (effective theory)? Radio frequency certainly doesn't do that if you try to focus it with a glass lens?