Recent content by monesh

let's say I'm wrong. why are you so shrill and hostile about it - you are the one being insulting to me. it's ok to be wrong in science you know. and don't you think you're being too dismissive and hasty? furthermore, i think you're actually wrong, or how else do you explain this: "Rayleigh also...

hello everyone! so, i asked the original question here and i may have since found part of the answer on my own: what makes the em radiation emit in waves is SIMPLY the oscillation of the electron FROM THE NUCLEUS, in its flexible em bond that bounces it like a weight on a spring when disturbed...

i guess at this point i at least wonder if i could just accurately say "most scientists have no explanation for exactly how em waves are produced, in the form of waves, from electrons" - or is even this true? is this just the view of the few i have run into here, or is this really the majority...

the way to teach is now part of the question, and i feel i have as much expertise here as anyone. i think the way to teach is to find progressive approximations to the truth. this is what humans use in languge that express (but simplify) feelings, myths that characterize (but simplify) culture...

and bhopp, it seems you've given me very thick and lengthy references to study, which amounts to saying, if i just study a lot of qm for a while, i will eventually find the answer to my qm question. er, yes, but the reason i came here is to first see if there isn't a more direct route to...

in any case, can i ask you, atyy (as I'm still checking bhopp's references) what is causing the wave pattern in em radiation - is it possible to put it in simple terms at first, perhaps in some kind of crude analogy?

atyy: hmmm...is science really like that? scientists know a lot, and scientists care about a lot, especially compared to non-scientists, who might say of all of science, who knows and who cares (about any science). and science is about why to some degree: why did that catch on fire? why does the...

another slight problem...just started reading your first reference which contends, in part, that qm does not assert that nature is fundementally random. but I've read so many secondary sources that claim the opposite. similar to your characterization of einstein not really disagreeing with qm...

hmmm... i still have to research your excellent references in your second to last post, but on your very last post, there may be some unimportant nuances being overemphasized. dethroning local realism is equivalent enough to what i said, that [local] reality was uncertain, dethroned, not...

wow, bhoppa, thanks so much. you did a lot of work just to give me a good answer so i will really look into every part. Thanks!

thank you for responding, zonde. yes, i see what you mean about quantum theory trying to just be a phenomenological description, leaving unanswered the underlying "reality". but, on the other hand, wasn't this einstein's position - that quantum theory was just talking about knowledge, not...

no problem, and thanks for trying - maybe some of what u said will work into the final answer. can't wait for more responses. it seems to be a pretty fundamental question: why waves? hopefully, more will come.

responding to drakith: yes, i may be totally wrong. but let me put it like this: isn't the electron the source of em radiation? and isn't em radiation, like in the double-slit experiment with visible light -em radiation, moving in waves of probable locations? so what is the electron doing - how...

oh, thanks to you too, drakith, for answering. and yes, i understand we know the precise difference in effect, but i guess I'm trying to pin down the immediate cause. why are they waves? what's waving? photons from a waving electron? or probabilities, rising and falling in a physical path - but...

hmmm...well, thank you again for your time. but let me ask this: is my garden hose and water stream wave a good analogy of how we thought em waves were being emitted from oscillating electrons BEFORE quantum theory came along? or would it have been a bad analogy even back then?