Wave particle duality

Literally who cares nerd lmao

File: pepedevilish.jpg (9KB, 158x200px) Image search: [Google]

9KB, 158x200px

>>8933409
My question seems to BTFO'd the nondeterministic fags.

>>8933414
learn about pilot wave theory you faggot.

>>8933445
Please elborate?

>>8933454
It's on Wikipedia. You can't make the math work, and match experimental results, without some weird assumptions (pilot wave faster than light, etc).

>>8933395
there are no "particles". That is just what scientists call the whole wave.

>>8933458
The math works with a lot of models about photons, not all of them can be correct

>>8933517
Ultimately, we can never know any model is absolutely correct. Models are constructs we use to aid in understanding what is going on, that's all.

>>8933458
Why not allow things to move faster than light? Just because the jews says so?

One wavefront = photon, can be described by a gaussian envelope with sinusoidal carrier.
There is no application where it is useful to think of light as a photon.

>>8933395
>Yet another interpretation of QM thread

For the love of god, they all produce the same results. It is literally impossible to tell them apart. Take shit like this to >>>/his/ where it belongs.

>>8933530
Shutup.

>>8934335
But this one has a whole new range of untestable implications!

>>8933635
damn jews always fucking shit up

Maybe unrelated but, why do these quantum fags always imply that quantum physics destroys determinism? I dont get how someone can be stupid enough to say probability can exist in a universe that's fully governed by laws. We dont even know what makes gravity behave the way it does, yet people assume particles are just random?..

Always found it hard to believe that particles behave exactly like a partially observed markov processes looking from the outside-in but have no hidden variables.

not /r/ but seems the best place to ask. do any physics fags know where I can find Fermat's principle applied to the delayed choice quantum eraser?

The wave is a probabilistic wave, not a wave like a sound wave.
Really light is an excitation of a field. QFT sucks

>>8933395
The particle are in a probability wave

>>8935738
What is a "probabilistic wave"? What physical mechanism makes this probability?

ask Gauß.

>>8935796
Who is gau beta?

>>8935814
the eszett is really "ss"

>>8935745
unfortunately that is just a postulate of quantum mechanics, there is no reason that we know of, it just appears (to incredibly high precision) that that is the way matter behaves. Try reading physics and philosophy by heisenberg if you are interested in the more philosophical aspects involved in the interpretation of QM

>>8936617
I don't think he has made much effort if probabilistic model is assumed. It's like theromodynamics, just a statistical method.

>>8934326
except photoelectric effect

>taking the time average of a sin wave and getting different energies

>>8933395
Bohmian mechanics is intended to give the same predictions as conventional quantum theory. So, at this point, barring some novel prediction, it's just semantics. Yes, I'm a positivist, and specifically a post-positivist (AFAIK), with some elements of logical positivism.

>>8934335
Actually, for purely aesthetic reasons, I "like" the spontaneous collapse hypothesis, aka GRW "theory". It makes testably different predictions than standard quantum theory. So, there is a way to deal with the measurement problem that can be tested to see if it's right. Unfortunately, tests of the idea are hard to do, because the predictions are so close to standard quantum theory. (They have to be close to standard quantum theory to not already be falsified.)

>>8938159
>It makes testably different predictions than standard quantum theory

Then it's not an interpretation you dumb fuck. It's a competing theory.

>>8938174
>semantics

>>8938182
Nope. An interpretation is how we make physical sense of some equations and laws (or some set of equations and laws), a competing would be different completely different set of equations and law.