strubenuff

http://www.geocities.com/hlindner1/W...ant/Quant.html

Undercurrent

Other than the fact that he seems to want to declare a scientific theory invalid because it doesn't appeal to him based on a text book, two magazine articles, and a short popularied book?

He declares that no data disprove the wave theory of light, and then cites two observations that do disprove it (ones that were known by 1920, indicating how far the author has read, methinks) and some jibberish about electrons the size of atoms. As a refutation of these observations, he includes seven points about the states of electrons which, to the extend that they are not nonsensical, are not really relevant to the why the photon theory is "wrong". Essentially, he tries to ascribe the apparent absorption of photons to the structure of the electron, with some help from some convenient background radiation, rather than the properties of the light itself. The mechanism of this selective absorption by electrons is merely asserted. The fact that the photon theory of light, additionally explains the black-body spectrum, and is generalizable to explain observations about other particles, one of which, he himself invokes about electrons, is irrelevant to him.

Finally, he talks about an experiment that supposedly proves his assertions, with a photon source tuned to emit an intensity 1/10 photon. How an intenisty (energy per unit time) could be said to equal to 1/10th of an energy escapes me.

Summary: Just another blowhard "philosopher" anxious to tell us why science is wrong and true knowledge comes from hanging on his every word. He mistakes his own lack of comprehension for weaknesses in the scientific institution. He asks a lot of rhetorical questions that there have been readily available answers for for decades, if only he would read them.

eh

I think Undercurrent summed it up fairly well. If you want to read more of Linder's crackpottery, the last time I looked he was hanging around scifourms.com.

strubenuff

Thanks for the reply.

Minnesota

"The conceptual mess which is called "Quantum Theory" is a perfect example of the inadequacy of Science"

Immediate "Kook" tip offs #4 and #8

Within the opening paragraph:

#4 Implies science as a whole has missed the boat, and if "it" would only open its eyes and see the world as I see it, gosh what strides it could make.

#8 Capitalizing the word "science," as to imply a cabal of grizzled, mutual masturbators who wont let the new kids on the block join in the game.

NumberTenOx

OK, Quantum Mechanics is weird, and there may exist an alternative explanation that makes it less weird, or at least understandably weird.

But this article says that photons are waves, not particles, and goes on to describe the photoelectric effect and other quantum effects as being a property of electrons, not photons. (Since other charged particles can emit and absorb photons, I assume those are also composed of "circulating EM waves").

But I understand the double slit experiment to show the wave/particle duality as follows: when you look, you see each photon going through only one slit. So they are particles; otherwise you'd see each one going through both slits. When you don't look, you get an interference pattern as each photon travels through both slits.

If photons are waves, how can you detect each one traveling through only one slit?

tensorproduct

I haven't done a whole lot of QM yet in college, but I was under the impression that a photon is neither a wave or a particle. It is a photon, an object that in certain aspects behaves like a particle, in others like a wave.

Could someone with more knowledge of the subject tell me if I'm right?

Shadowy Man

Yes, this is the best way to think about it. Waves and particles are theoretical constructs developed by physicists in order to model the phenomena present in the material world as observed through specifically designed experiments.

In fact, experiments designed to measure the wave-like property of light do so just as well as the experiments designed to measure the particle-like properties of light.

Light is light and has no duality. The duality exists because of the limitations in our current ability to think about light.

strubenuff

SM,

Would it be correct to say nothing should be called a particle or a wave, since all matter (to the best of my knowledge) exhibits the "duality" (ie-matter waves)?

enigma555

Only if you look really close