Light can't travel at the speed of light?

[threadmark]

If you are referring to the quadradic mean then yes that’s a formulation, but if your referring to quantum mechanics then no its not a formulation it’s a principle.

 

[ZapperZ]

If you are referring to the quadradic mean then yes that’s a formulation, but if your referring to quantum mechanics then no its not a formulation it’s a principle.

This makes zero sense.

Zz.

 

[threadmark]

The fact is, Niels Bohr gave us the description of the complimentary. being you need wave and particle functions to describe light. Look it up, its fact. you can also look up Luis de Broglie how stated
E=hv ; p=hv/c
On the left is the equation belonging to particles. And on the right are properties relating frequency/waves. even to measure the particle property of momentum you need to know the wave property called frequency

 

[Born2bwire]

The fact is, Niels Bohr gave us the description of the complimentary. being you need wave and particle functions to describe light. Look it up, its fact. you can also look up Luis de Broglie how stated
E=hv ; p=hv/c
On the left is the equation belonging to particles. And on the right are properties relating frequency/waves. even to measure the particle property of momentum you need to know the wave property called frequency

Except that Bohr and deBroglie ended up being wrong. Their ideas were the precursors to modern quantum mechanics. In particular, deBroglie's matterwave is a bit egregious because it only works with single particles in vacuum. If you were to place potential barriers, like a quantum well, then deBroglie's equation does not work.

ZapperZ cannot be more explicit in his statements here. Quantum mechanics has no wave-particle duality. It treats light, electrons, etc. all equally. The wave-particle duality is a consequence of trying to define quantum behavior within the limitations of classical physics. The behavior of quantum mechanics was observed prior to the development of a mature theory with such things as the photoelectric effect and the behavior of atoms.

 

[threadmark]

His 1924 doctoral thesis, Recherches sur la théorie des quanta (Research on Quantum Theory), introduced his theory of electron waves. This included the wave-particle duality theory of matter, based on the work of Albert Einstein and Max Planck on light. The thesis examiners, unsure of the material, passed his thesis to Einstein for evaluation who endorsed his wave-particle duality proposal wholeheartedly; de Broglie was awarded his doctorate.

 

[SpectraCat]

His 1924 doctoral thesis, Recherches sur la théorie des quanta (Research on Quantum Theory), introduced his theory of electron waves. This included the wave-particle duality theory of matter, based on the work of Albert Einstein and Max Planck on light. The thesis examiners, unsure of the material, passed his thesis to Einstein for evaluation who endorsed his wave-particle duality proposal wholeheartedly; de Broglie was awarded his doctorate.

Yep, that's a great story .. I tell it all the time to my students ... but what is your point? That was almost 90 years ago ... quantum theory has evolved just a little since then. You seem to have gotten huffy because ZZ and some others didn't give appropriate credit to the founders of QM when making statements. Please. This stuff is in the mainstream, and is part of the introductory chapters of thousands of textbooks .. it is public domain common knowledge, and THAT is the greatest testament to the founders of QM, that their theory has persisted and evolved for almost 100 years into "the most successful theory in physics".

 

[Born2bwire]

His 1924 doctoral thesis, Recherches sur la théorie des quanta (Research on Quantum Theory), introduced his theory of electron waves. This included the wave-particle duality theory of matter, based on the work of Albert Einstein and Max Planck on light. The thesis examiners, unsure of the material, passed his thesis to Einstein for evaluation who endorsed his wave-particle duality proposal wholeheartedly; de Broglie was awarded his doctorate.

And deBroglie did not develop a complete theory, again his ideas were direct precursors to modern quantum mechanics. Much of the foundations of quantum mechanics were worked out through the last half of the 1920's. Schroedinger developed the non-relativistic wave equation after deBroglie presented his electron waves. Heisenberg developed his formulation after deBoglie. In modern theory, deBroglie's ideas are a historical footnote. The next large development was quantum field theory and its application in quantum electrodynamics which was developed initially in the 1940's and resurfaced in the 1950's. All of these theories do not have an explicit wave-particle duality. In QM and QFT, we treat the photon, electron, gravitron, etc. all with the same physics. The phrase "wave-particle" is merely a stop-gap that attempts to bridge the properties assigned to classical waves and classical particles to how a field and its assciated particle behaves in quantum mechanics.

And really, if you are going to post word for word other people's work, you should cite where you took the passage from, in this case Wikipedia.

 

[DaveC426913]

And really, if you are going to post word for word other people's work, you should cite where you took the passage from, in this case Wikipedia.

Yeah. Threadmark: technically, that's plagiarism. Use the quotes feature.

 

[threadmark]

I think we need to stick to the facts,( Light can't travel at the speed of light?)
Well to answer this question, we need to ask what is light and what is it traveling in. empty space? , glass? Its 299,792,458m/s if E=mc^2. if light can't travel at the speed of light then tell us where Einstein got his formula wrong.

 

[ZapperZ]

I think we need to stick to the facts,( Light can't travel at the speed of light?)
Well to answer this question, we need to ask what is light and what is it traveling in. empty space? , glass? Its 299,792,458m/s if E=mc^2. if light can't travel at the speed of light then tell us where Einstein got his formula wrong.

It was croghan27 who made the faulty connection that all "particles" must have mass, and since light is a "particle", how can it travel at c! The rest of us have been trying to correct that by showing that a "particle", especially in the QM concept of light, need not have a mass! That's why a photon can travel at c!

Einstein did not get Special Relativity wrong. None of the responses that many of us have done here indicated that SR is wrong.

Now which part of that did you not understand?

Zz.

 

[threadmark]

Hey dude, I refer to the original question of this post. i study the history of physics, from Newtonian physics/classical physics and quanta. My books may be old but they still are relative today. It confused me when you stated it acts like a particle. So I post my books information to get feedback but you still say I am wrong. I came at you like I did because the information I have known for years had been protested by zapperz. I have taught this history to people.

 

[SpectraCat]

Hey dude, I refer to the original question of this post. i study the history of physics, from Newtonian physics/classical physics and quanta. My books may be old but they still are relative today. It confused me when you stated it acts like a particle. So I post my books information to get feedback but you still say I am wrong. I came at you like I did because the information I have known for years had been protested by zapperz. I have taught this history to people.

No one said the *history* was wrong ... they just pointed out that things have evolved a bit since the inception of QM, and people now know that the complementarity principle is basically superfluous, and was just a way of rationalizing the confusing results of QM to an audience that had only ever known CM. If you start out learning QM early, it still seems weird, but it's easier to come to grips with. It also means that we (scientists) are more willing to accept that the QM description of "particles" is complete without need for analogy to classical concepts of waves or particles.

 

[ZapperZ]

Hey dude, I refer to the original question of this post. i study the history of physics, from Newtonian physics/classical physics and quanta. My books may be old but they still are relative today. It confused me when you stated it acts like a particle. So I post my books information to get feedback but you still say I am wrong. I came at you like I did because the information I have known for years had been protested by zapperz. I have taught this history to people.

Too bad you don't understand the present!

If you continue to provide what are essentially a physics question, but with outdated historical answers, then you've provided erroneous answers. I'm shocked you didn't implicate any Caloric theory along the way to smack down Thermodynamics. You also seem to read things that aren't there. No one who responded to the OP even suggested that SR is wrong, yet you somehow implicated as such and merely added to the non-relevant discussion.

I strongly suggest you wait until a relevant historical question comes up, or hang around the History forum, before you jump in with your "expertise".

The OP no longer seems to respond or participate in this discussion, so unless he/she contact me for further clarification, I will assume that this has been sufficiently addressed. So this thread is done. This thread was never meant as a "historical discussion of outdated quantum physics".

Zz.