If probability wave is true wouldn't there be flickering?

[Nugatory]

is that not like saying "just accept that things just are the way they are and don't question it"?

No - its a bit different...

I agree with Bhobba's response above. However, I also feel obligated to mention that David Mermin, one of the pioneers in the field, once summarized quantum mechanics by placing his tongue firmly in his cheek and saying "Shut up and calculate"... So deansatch, it's one thing to know how QM works, but another thing altogether to like it

 

[bhobba]

However, I also feel obligated to mention that David Mermin, one of the pioneers in the field, once summarized quantum mechanics by placing his tongue firmly in his cheek and saying "Shut up and calculate"... So deansatch, it's one thing to know how QM works, but another thing altogether to like it

People say it was Feynman that said that - but really it was Mermin - although it's the type of thing Feynman would have said.

I don't think anyone likes the situation in QM, they just accept it. Even Einstein, whose real attitude to QM is often misrepresented, agreed it was correct - but incomplete. Its perfectly valid to hold Einstein's view and simply accept it until something better comes along. But until it does don't be consumed by the issue - you will get nowhere.

Thanks
Bill

 

[zonde]

I'm still trying to get my head round the movement (and existence) of photons. ie. Why do they move...if nothing propels them...why are they moving? Are they attracted towards something? I can't just accept that they move constantly for no reason.

You can try to ask this question in relativity subforum. It might be easier to take moving at the speed of light as basic idea and rather ask question why things are staying in place (moving inertially). Possible answer is that you can view massive particles as moving at the speed of light but not getting anywhere (not moving straight in the same direction).

And how are they created? If a photon is created what is it created from?

Photon is viewed as excitation of electromagnetic field so in a sense you can say it's made from electromagnetic field.

 

[yoron]

Maybe if you think of it as a symmetry? It's called lights duality, meaning that it has both wave and particle aspects. If you think of it as a field, then it should be about probabilities to my eyes. And those probabilities are actually probabilities, for me that is. The idea of a 'field' do not tell you that it has to be waves, neither does it tell you that it has to be particles. People likes waves, and it's a concept that seems to work, but I like probabilities myself, and a duality.

 

[Ralph Dratman]

Bill,

Even though I had trouble with QM in college, I enjoyed reading the paper you linked. . Your exposition helped me follow the application of the conceptual framework along with the notation.

Thank you!

Ralph Dratman