Recent content by Bach33

From that statement it seems reasonable to investigate the converse view that the helix is the trajectory associated with a fundamental underlying geometry, and the more complex trajectories of the real physical environment are the special cases that depart from that. This is the proposition...

Thank you for your comprehensive answer.

I see that I was applying rather crude observations to something rather more nuanced. But is that to say that we cannot make any generalisations about the trajectories that objects make in the universe? Not to labour the point (and I appreciate your comments), but “orbits” and I would add...

Thanks

Thanks

Also... If I need to accept that particles are not traveling any waveform trajectory, I’m wondering, is there any trajectory that can be associated with particle movement? Is it a straight-line or geodesic? Also, I see that pilot wave theory is still alive as a possible approach to quantum...

I see what you mean here. But is it correct to say "nothing about these paths is helical"? If I'm standing on the surface of the Earth that is rotating and orbiting, surely my trajectory is helical in some reference frame? And similarly, at the next scale up the Earth's trajectory is helical...

Thanks

Thank you for your answer, appreciate it.

Thank you for answer. I know this can get complicated fast, but I see "photon helicity" referred to, including diagrams that show helical path? Also, and this may seem a stretch to include in the discussion as it is not part of the textbook descriptions, but it is fair to say that at most scales...

With respect to wave/particle duality, is it correct to think of a particle traveling a wave path? And if so, given that no orientation with respect to an observer of that wave is generally considered, is the "wave" that is referred to then more accurately the planar projection of a helical path?