View Full Version : is the particle concept in wave-particle duality necessary?
<jabberwocky><div class="vbmenu_control"><a href="jabberwocky:;" onClick="newWindow=window.open('','usenetCode','toolbar=no, location=no,scrollbars=yes,resizable=yes,status=no ,width=650,height=400'); newWindow.document.write('<HTML><HEAD><TITLE>Usenet ASCII</TITLE></HEAD><BODY topmargin=0 leftmargin=0 BGCOLOR=#F1F1F1><table border=0 width=625><td bgcolor=midnightblue><font color=#F1F1F1>This Usenet message\'s original ASCII form: </font></td></tr><tr><td width=449><br><br><font face=courier><UL><PRE>\n\ni understand that in order to understand both the photoelectric effect\nand comptom scattering, that einstein spoke of light as a quanta, and\nthe modern term is photon, and hence light has particle like\nproperties in addition to wave properties.\n\nwhat i wonder is whether it is possible to construct a mathematical\ndescription or expand the mathematical description of waves, that does\nnot need to make use of particles, only waves. perhaps the wave\nfunction of light interacts with the wave function of electrons, that\nresults in the photoelectric effect or comptom scattering.\n\nhence, the idea of particles is a crude classical approximation to a\nmore expanded mathematical understanding of waves.\n</UL></PRE></font></td></tr></table></BODY><HTML>');"> <IMG SRC=/images/buttons/ip.gif BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER ALT="View this Usenet post in original ASCII form"> View this Usenet post in original ASCII form </a></div><P></jabberwocky>i understand that in order to understand both the photoelectric effect
and comptom scattering, that einstein spoke of light as a quanta, and
the modern term is photon, and hence light has particle like
properties in addition to wave properties.
what i wonder is whether it is possible to construct a mathematical
description or expand the mathematical description of waves, that does
not need to make use of particles, only waves. perhaps the wave
function of light interacts with the wave function of electrons, that
results in the photoelectric effect or comptom scattering.
hence, the idea of particles is a crude classical approximation to a
more expanded mathematical understanding of waves.
Uncle Al
Jul30-04, 09:33 AM
<jabberwocky><div class="vbmenu_control"><a href="jabberwocky:;" onClick="newWindow=window.open('','usenetCode','toolbar=no, location=no,scrollbars=yes,resizable=yes,status=no ,width=650,height=400'); newWindow.document.write('<HTML><HEAD><TITLE>Usenet ASCII</TITLE></HEAD><BODY topmargin=0 leftmargin=0 BGCOLOR=#F1F1F1><table border=0 width=625><td bgcolor=midnightblue><font color=#F1F1F1>This Usenet message\'s original ASCII form: </font></td></tr><tr><td width=449><br><br><font face=courier><UL><PRE>\nDaniel wrote:\n>\n> i understand that in order to understand both the photoelectric effect\n> and comptom scattering, that einstein spoke of light as a quanta, and\n> the modern term is photon, and hence light has particle like\n> properties in addition to wave properties.\n>\n> what i wonder is whether it is possible to construct a mathematical\n> description or expand the mathematical description of waves, that does\n> not need to make use of particles, only waves. perhaps the wave\n> function of light interacts with the wave function of electrons, that\n> results in the photoelectric effect or comptom scattering.\n>\n> hence, the idea of particles is a crude classical approximation to a\n> more expanded mathematical understanding of waves.\n\nHow do you quantize a wave?\n\n--\nUncle Al\nhttp://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/\n(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)\nhttp://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz.pdf\n</UL></PRE></font></td></tr></table></BODY><HTML>');"> <IMG SRC=/images/buttons/ip.gif BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER ALT="View this Usenet post in original ASCII form"> View this Usenet post in original ASCII form </a></div><P></jabberwocky>Daniel wrote:
>
> i understand that in order to understand both the photoelectric effect
> and comptom scattering, that einstein spoke of light as a quanta, and
> the modern term is photon, and hence light has particle like
> properties in addition to wave properties.
>
> what i wonder is whether it is possible to construct a mathematical
> description or expand the mathematical description of waves, that does
> not need to make use of particles, only waves. perhaps the wave
> function of light interacts with the wave function of electrons, that
> results in the photoelectric effect or comptom scattering.
>
> hence, the idea of particles is a crude classical approximation to a
> more expanded mathematical understanding of waves.
How do you quantize a wave?
--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz.pdf
<jabberwocky><div class="vbmenu_control"><a href="jabberwocky:;" onClick="newWindow=window.open('','usenetCode','toolbar=no, location=no,scrollbars=yes,resizable=yes,status=no ,width=650,height=400'); newWindow.document.write('<HTML><HEAD><TITLE>Usenet ASCII</TITLE></HEAD><BODY topmargin=0 leftmargin=0 BGCOLOR=#F1F1F1><table border=0 width=625><td bgcolor=midnightblue><font color=#F1F1F1>This Usenet message\'s original ASCII form: </font></td></tr><tr><td width=449><br><br><font face=courier><UL><PRE>\n\n\n"Daniel" <ensabah6@yahoo.com> wrote in message\nnews:ba566c17.0407291826.6bd69e19@posting .google.com...\n>\n>\n> i understand that in order to understand both the photoelectric effect\n> and comptom scattering, that einstein spoke of light as a quanta, and\n> the modern term is photon, and hence light has particle like\n> properties in addition to wave properties.\n>\n> what i wonder is whether it is possible to construct a mathematical\n> description or expand the mathematical description of waves, that does\n> not need to make use of particles, only waves. perhaps the wave\n> function of light interacts with the wave function of electrons, that\n> results in the photoelectric effect or comptom scattering.\n>\n> hence, the idea of particles is a crude classical approximation to a\n> more expanded mathematical understanding of waves.\n\nSure. Already Lorentz thought in that direction, and of course Heisenberg.\nThere are modern ideas with soliton-like descriptions - but I don\'t know the\ndetails.\n\nHarald\n\n</UL></PRE></font></td></tr></table></BODY><HTML>');"> <IMG SRC=/images/buttons/ip.gif BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER ALT="View this Usenet post in original ASCII form"> View this Usenet post in original ASCII form </a></div><P></jabberwocky>"Daniel" <ensabah6@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:ba566c17.0407291826.6bd69e19@posting.google.c om...
>
>
> i understand that in order to understand both the photoelectric effect
> and comptom scattering, that einstein spoke of light as a quanta, and
> the modern term is photon, and hence light has particle like
> properties in addition to wave properties.
>
> what i wonder is whether it is possible to construct a mathematical
> description or expand the mathematical description of waves, that does
> not need to make use of particles, only waves. perhaps the wave
> function of light interacts with the wave function of electrons, that
> results in the photoelectric effect or comptom scattering.
>
> hence, the idea of particles is a crude classical approximation to a
> more expanded mathematical understanding of waves.
Sure. Already Lorentz thought in that direction, and of course Heisenberg.
There are modern ideas with soliton-like descriptions - but I don't know the
details.
Harald
p.kinsler@imperial.ac.uk
Aug12-04, 08:29 AM
<jabberwocky><div class="vbmenu_control"><a href="jabberwocky:;" onClick="newWindow=window.open('','usenetCode','toolbar=no, location=no,scrollbars=yes,resizable=yes,status=no ,width=650,height=400'); newWindow.document.write('<HTML><HEAD><TITLE>Usenet ASCII</TITLE></HEAD><BODY topmargin=0 leftmargin=0 BGCOLOR=#F1F1F1><table border=0 width=625><td bgcolor=midnightblue><font color=#F1F1F1>This Usenet message\'s original ASCII form: </font></td></tr><tr><td width=449><br><br><font face=courier><UL><PRE>\n\n\nUncle Al <UncleAl0@hate.spam.net> wrote:\n> Daniel wrote:\n> > [...]\n> > hence, the idea of particles is a crude classical approximation\n> > to a more expanded mathematical understanding of waves.\n\n> How do you quantize a wave?\n\nIs this a trick question? I would think many people would regard\nthe standard quantum optics treatment of photons (which amounts\nto quantized simple harmonic oscillators living inside orthonormal\n"field mode" solutions of Maxwells equations) as being something\nyou might call a "quantized wave".\n\n--\n---------------------------------+---------------------------------\nDr. Paul Kinsler\nBlackett Laboratory (QOLS) (ph) +44-20-759-47520 (fax) 47714\nImperial College London, Dr.Paul.Kinsler@physics.org\nSW7 2BW, United Kingdom. http://www.qols.ph.ic.ac.uk/~kinsle/\n\n</UL></PRE></font></td></tr></table></BODY><HTML>');"> <IMG SRC=/images/buttons/ip.gif BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER ALT="View this Usenet post in original ASCII form"> View this Usenet post in original ASCII form </a></div><P></jabberwocky>Uncle Al <UncleAl0@hate.spam.net> wrote:
> Daniel wrote:
> > [...]
> > hence, the idea of particles is a crude classical approximation
> > to a more expanded mathematical understanding of waves.
> How do you quantize a wave?
Is this a trick question? I would think many people would regard
the standard quantum optics treatment of photons (which amounts
to quantized simple harmonic oscillators living inside orthonormal
"field mode" solutions of Maxwells equations) as being something
you might call a "quantized wave".
--
---------------------------------+---------------------------------
Dr. Paul Kinsler
Blackett Laboratory (QOLS) (ph) +44-20-759-47520 (fax) 47714
Imperial College London, Dr.Paul.Kinsler@physics.org
SW7 2BW, United Kingdom. http://www.qols.ph.ic.ac.uk/~kinsle/
arivero
Aug12-04, 08:30 AM
It could be said that the quantum mechanics idea of "probability wave" superseeds the idea of wave, in the same way that it does with the idea of particle.
vBulletin® v3.8.7, Copyright ©2000-2012, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.