Even Real Particles don't exist Aage Bohr

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter rogerl
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Bohr even Particles
Click For Summary
SUMMARY

Aage Bohr, son of Niels Bohr, asserts that both real and virtual particles do not exist as traditionally understood in quantum mechanics. He argues that events such as clicks in Geiger counters are "genuinely fortuitous" and not caused by particles traveling through space. This challenges the classical notion of particles as objects in space, suggesting that the fundamental nature of reality may be more aligned with quantum field theory (QFT), where fields take precedence over particles. The discussion raises ontological questions about the existence of subatomic particles and the interpretation of quantum phenomena.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of quantum mechanics principles
  • Familiarity with quantum field theory (QFT)
  • Knowledge of the double-slit experiment and its implications
  • Basic grasp of particle physics terminology
NEXT STEPS
  • Research the implications of Aage Bohr's theories on quantum mechanics
  • Explore the concept of "genuinely fortuitous" events in quantum measurements
  • Study the double-slit experiment in detail and its interpretations
  • Investigate the role of fields in quantum field theory versus particle-centric models
USEFUL FOR

The discussion is beneficial for physicists, quantum mechanics students, and researchers interested in the foundational questions of particle existence and the interpretation of quantum phenomena.

  • #61
Calrid said:
No they do exist for some time, it's just if you tried to measure the photon in its own frame of reference (which is pretty much impossible) the time part of the equation would be undefined. This is a consequence of the maths though not an underlying reality where photons don't exist because that would be dumb and Einstein would probably of turned in his grave if you tried to suggest it. All we can do is measure the photon from our rest frame and see that it travels at c and that it does so in a fashion like a bullet from a gun in some circumstances, showing it is a particle like entity and in others it behaves like a spread out energy signature, or a wave. Firstly you would need to set up an experiment where the wave and particle natures were explained by something else. Without that this is just arm waving.

Thank you, Caldrid. This is the closest that anyone in this forum has come to providing a rational answer to the questions that I raised, and in particular the apparent paradox where a photon does exist in one frame but not in its own.

FYI, it is consistent with some Google results that I found yesterday with regard to photons/relativity. The following article gives some insight as to what might be going on.

http://quantumweird.wordpress.com/quantum-weirdness-a-matter-of-relativity-part-1/"
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #62
mbell said:
Thank you, Caldrid. This is the closest that anyone in this forum has come to providing a rational answer to the questions that I raised, and in particular the apparent paradox where a photon does exist in one frame but not in its own.

FYI, it is consistent with some Google results that I found yesterday with regard to photons/relativity. The following article gives some insight as to what might be going on.

http://quantumweird.wordpress.com/quantum-weirdness-a-matter-of-relativity-part-1/"

Yeah that's another way of putting it although it might cause confusion if you said the photon was already where it was with instantaneous motion through space, in relative concerns because it would seem to naively at least contradict it's own laws. From its point of view its already where it was going because no time has passed and the length contraction meant the distance traveled was 0 also, from our point of view it travels at c. Actually saying that makes no sense does it, so I think undefined is a better way of putting it. I think I seem to recall Einstein saying pretty much that asking what time is like from the point of view of c is undefined. I will try and find the quote. It's something like the question itself is pointless because x.

Interestingly if light experiences everything at once its in a sort of superposition isn't it? :wink:

Meh prefer to just say its not worth getting hung up on peculiarities of maths, just call it undefined.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #63
Calrid said:
Meh prefer to just say its not worth getting hung up on peculiarities of maths, just call it undefined.

Agreed Calrid. :-p
 
  • #64
Man, you physicists over-complicate everything!
 
  • #65
Isn't sopmeone working properly on the MAtrix Interpretation? What experiment would prove it? (I might even fund it)
 
  • #66
wawenspop said:
Isn't sopmeone working properly on the MAtrix Interpretation? What experiment would prove it? (I might even fund it)

Brian Greene stated the following in his latest book The Hidden Reality:

BrianGreene said:
To simulate not just individual minds but also their interactions among themselves and with an evolving enviroment, the computational load would grow orders of magnitude later. But a sophisticated simulation could cut computional corners with minimal impact on quality. Simulated humans on a simulated Earth won't be bothered if the computer simulates only things lying within the cosmic horizon. More boldly, the simulation might simulate stars beyond the sun only during simulated nights, and then only when the simulated local weather resulted in clear skies. When no one's looking, the computer's celestrial simulator routines could take a break from working out the appropriate stimulus to provide each and every person who could look skyward. A sufficiently well-structured program would keep track of the mental states and intentions of its simulated inhabitants, and so would anticipate, and appropriately respond to, any inpending stargazing. The same goes for simulating cells, molecules, and atoms. For the most part they'd be necessary only for simulated specialists of one scientific persuation or another, and then only when such specialists were in the act of studying these exotic realms. A computationally cheaper replica of familiar reality that adjusts the simulation's degree of detail on an as-needed basis would be adequate.


According to Matrix (Aage) interpretation. When when we look at other galaxies or neutron stars, they may just be empty. In other words, the entire Big Bang may be just a put on show to deceive us into thinking the universe was that big. Imagine if they made the limit only up to the moon. We could easily reach the cosmic wall and wonder what's beyond. So they made it virtually "infinite". But in the past, it's possible the stars were just little lights. When astronomy developed on earth, they improved the simulation to make those stars bigger. Also our laws of nature is mostly Lorentz Invariant so we can't track the edge of space or things. And also for easier programming aid. They made our QM observer dependent to offload processing power.

About experiments to prove this. Have you seen the movie Matrix where humans were all in gestational units in suspended animation and a few of them were able to get up from sleep. Similarly, some researchers said those UFO abductees who saw the Greys, etc. were people who were temporary awake in the real world and see the world for what it is (outside of the simulation we are all in).

If you give a million dollars to Brian Greene. Who knows. He may even temporarily quit superstring and focus on your programme. How much funds can you contribute for Matrix (Aage) Research? Are you a Billionaire?
 
Last edited:
  • #67
rogerl said:
According to Matrix (Aage) interpretation. When when we look at other galaxies or neutron stars, they may just be empty. In other words, the entire Big Bang may be just a put on show to deceive us into thinking the universe was that big. Imagine if they made the limit only up to the moon. We could easily reach the cosmic wall and wonder what's beyond. So they made it virtually "infinite". But in the past, it's possible the stars were just little lights. When astronomy developed on earth, they improved the simulation to make those stars bigger. Also our laws of nature is mostly Lorentz Invariant so we can't track the edge of space or things. And also for easier programming aid. They made our QM observer dependent to offload processing power.
?

I think this is an interesting idea, but I sense an undercurrent of anthropomorphism (human-centered-ness) and dualism (the idea that the mind is some non-physical entity, separate from the body), like supposing that "we're humans and we're special with our special minds," and "all else in the universe is just mindless machinery."

For example, if humans evolved through a gradual process, did the Matrix Masters grandually build up their trickery of us at the same time? I just suspect when the line between what is conscious (in need of 'tricking'), and what isn't, is viewed (correctly) as a continuum, then the whole concept of such an illusion becomes much more complicated than it might, at first, appear.
 
  • #68
I am looking for a simple experiment to prove that decoherence is a calculated algorithm and 'registers' output values of the algorithm on decoherence.
Yes, it is worth billions. who knows, anti matter may be matter bit shifted by one? (an easier route to nuclear fusion)
 
  • #69
Closed, pending moderation.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 100 ·
4
Replies
100
Views
11K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 28 ·
Replies
28
Views
6K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
1K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
4K
  • · Replies 58 ·
2
Replies
58
Views
5K