Incredibly huge inconsistency of modern physics

[The Man]

So, wogoga, where's the incredibly huge inconsistency?

It would seem the inconstancy may be that he does not understand wave particle duality. Huygens principle is about wave theory only and therefore lacks the quantum elements so essential to modern physics and our modern technology. QED is a quantum theory and by that nature includes both wave and particle aspects. Regardless of their similarities (in wave aspects) Huygens principle is simply a principle about wave fronts and not a description of electromagnetic interactions (incomplete or otherwise). QED on the other hand is a complete and very precisely experimentally verified description of electromagnetic interactions.

 

[ponderingturtle]

Ask the original poster.

But IMHO wave/particle duality means that it does not matter whether you treat photons as particles or waves. For example EM waves in media also do not travel at the speed of light (interference from scattering means that their effective speed changes).

I know, the point is that if you are really talking about special relativity then you are looking at a more classical theory

 

[The Man]

I know, the point is that if you are really talking about special relativity then you are looking at a more classical theory

No, please remember that it was Einstein in one of the papers preceding Special Relativity that confirmed the quantum nature of light (photo-electric effect). Special Relativity is certainly not a classical theory (although classical theories of relative motion had been proposed before that).

 

[a_unique_person]

It would seem the inconstancy may be that he does not understand wave particle duality.

It is amazing how often that attitude is mistaken for a 'skeptical' stance on an issue. "I can't understand it, therefore you can't prove it".

 

[Skwinty]

Photons have mass!!
I didn't even know they were Catholic.
"Woody Allen"

 

[ponderingturtle]

No, please remember that it was Einstein in one of the papers preceding Special Relativity that confirmed the quantum nature of light (photo-electric effect). Special Relativity is certainly not a classical theory (although classical theories of relative motion had been proposed before that).

I know that, it is also what won him the nobel prize. But what everyone is talking about here is from "On the Elctrodynamics of Moving Bodies".

E&M already fits perfectly with relativity and describes what happens to light perfectly.

The problem is that someone introduced the unnessacary concept of relativistic mass that it confuses people who don't really understand that it has fallen out of favor with physicists in general and so talking about massless particles is perfectly acceptable.

 

[sol invictus]

Special Relativity is certainly not a classical theory (although classical theories of relative motion had been proposed before that).

That's not really correct, given the way these terms are used in modern physics. By a classical theory we mean one in which Planck's constant h is zero. Many classical theories - EM is a good example - are relativistic.

The point really is that SR is not exactly a theory - it's a set of rules which a theory can either be consistent or inconsistent with.

 

[Viper Daimao]

If you really want to blow your mind then look up the Elitzur-Vaidman bomb-tester and its experimental verification: Interaction-free Measurement (PDF). Note that this experiment was done in 1994 so there are probably more recent ones (I will leave finding them as an easy exercise for you).

What's your address? I need to send you the repair bill for my brain.

 

[The Man]

That's not really correct, given the way these terms are used in modern physics. By a classical theory we mean one in which Planck's constant h is zero. Many classical theories - EM is a good example - are relativistic.

The point really is that SR is not exactly a theory - it's a set of rules which a theory can either be consistent or inconsistent with.

Sorry, I was referring to "classical" both in the sense of non-quantum (zero h value) and as applying to fixed universal space and time (upon which theories of relative motion prior to SR were based). I did not make that clear and my use of the term “classical” might not have been understood in both of those contexts.

 

[wogoga]

By the way, in principle it is possible to label each atom of a given diamond with a unique number. If photons traversing this diamond actually were more than half of the time (n_diamond > 2) at rest (i.e. transformed into energy and momentum of carbon atoms), then it would in principle be possible to determine the path of a photon by enumerating the label-numbers of the atoms where the photon rested.

No. It is in principle possible to label each carbon nuclei in a sample of diamond. It is most definitely NOT possible, even in principle, to label each electron in a sample of diamond. And electrons, not nuclei, dominate the interaction of light with matter. So you're simply wrong.

Your defense of the weird QED explanation of sub-luminal propagation speed of photons in transparent media is in the lines of Werner Heisenberg and Niels Bohr, who introduced immunization stratagems (uncertainty principle, complementarity) in order to defend their prejudices against genuinely physical objections (e.g. from Albert Einstein).

"Bohr rejected Einstein's particle of light, proposed in 1905, until well into the 1920s" (see). After evidence had shown more and more that Einstein was right, Bohr (and others) succeeded in transforming Einstein's physical photon-concept into a theological concept. Einstein then fought the theological properties attributed to quanta. Nevertheless, the supporters of the Bohr-fraction succeeded in convincing the world that Einstein (instead of Bohr) was the obstructionist in recognizing the reality of quanta.

What Ziggurat actually means is this:

I concede that physical reasoning (e.g. conservation laws, possibility of images in space and time) is applicable in the case of carbon atoms. However, such physical reasoning is not applicable in the case of electrons, because electrons are quantum objects, and quantum objects are not subject to physical reasoning.​

But why should it not be possible to label the electrons of a diamond? It may be difficult or impossible to distinguish between the electrons of an electron pair. But from the fact that (normal, ideal) diamonds have a very regular crystal structure and are excellent electrical insulators, we conclude (by physical reasoning) that the two electrons of each carbon bond are essentially stationary. So if it is possible to label the carbon atoms, then it is also possible to label the carbon bonds and therefore the electron pairs.

So what Ziggurat advocates is this:

A photon traversing a diamond takes on the one hand all paths, i.e. the photon comes close to every single electron pair of the diamond. On the other hand, the photon is absorbed and reemitted by a sequence of (labeled) photon pairs. ​

Such a physical absorption and reemission is obviously inconsistent with the photons-use-all-paths claim. But in theology (as opposed to physical reasoning), there is always a solution. In analogy to virtual particles one can introduce virtual absorption and reemission. So photons are virtually absorbed and reemitted by all electron pairs of the diamond. In media with refractive index n > 1 in general, such virtual stops happening everywhere reduce the speed from c between two stops to c/n over many stops.

Cheers, Wolfgang

 

[Reality Check]

I see Wolfgang is back on his "science is theology" hobby horse. Any yet more arguments from authority!

Where have I seen this before? I know - in every thread that he has posted in!

P.S. Wolfgang: QCD is not weird.

 

[Reality Check]

Wolfgang: Just in case you are interested here is one of the tests of the fact that photons follow all paths in a system: Elitzur-Vaidman bomb-tester
Note that this test has been experimentally verified. Here is a paper on it (PDF)

 

[Ziggurat]

Your defense of the weird QED explanation of sub-luminal propagation speed of photons in transparent media is in the lines of Werner Heisenberg and Niels Bohr, who introduced immunization stratagems (uncertainty principle, complementarity) in order to defend their prejudices against genuinely physical objections (e.g. from Albert Einstein).

Uh, no. The uncertainty principle is very physical, and can be experimentally observed all over the place. One of the simplest examples is a simple Stern-Gerlach experiment. Establish the spin about one axis, and measure it about another, and you'll see rather directly that the uncertainty principle holds, with direct and unambiguous consequences.

What Ziggurat actually means is this:

Do not tell me what I mean. And you're still completely wrong. Nuclei are very much subject to quantum mechanics, but their larger masses and charges serve to localize them very well. The same cannot be said for electrons. That they do not behave the way your intuition suggests they should does not mean that they do not behave according to the laws of physics. That's your problem, not the universe's.

But why should it not be possible to label the electrons of a diamond?

Because they are identical particles whose wave functions experience significant overlap.

It may be difficult or impossible to distinguish between the electrons of an electron pair. But from the fact that (normal, ideal) diamonds have a very regular crystal structure and are excellent electrical insulators, we conclude (by physical reasoning) that the two electrons of each carbon bond are essentially stationary.

You can conclude whatever you like by whatever reasoning you think is applicable, but you're still be wrong. There are electrons in diamond which are delocalized. Diamond is a transparent insulator not because all the electrons are localized, but because the bands are full, and you cannot excite an electron without adding a significant amount of energy. Were electrons simply stationary and inert as you suggest, with every electron just stuck on one atom, carbon wouldn't even solidify, let alone turn into the hardest substance known.

But in theology (as opposed to physical reasoning), there is always a solution.

You keep using the phrase "physical reasoning". I can only assume you mean hand-waving analogies, because what you're saying has absolutely no connection to any mathematical theory of the physical world. And here's a clue for you, since you seem to be in short supply: if you can't express your theory mathematically, nobody who actually knows anything about physics is going to take you seriously.

 

[hgc]

But in theology (as opposed to physical reasoning), there is always a solution.

You said it, Brother! Loosy-goosy gets the job done every time.

Theology: The study of the unknowable.

 

[sol invictus]

Sorry, I was referring to "classical" both in the sense of non-quantum (zero h value) and as applying to fixed universal space and time (upon which theories of relative motion prior to SR were based). I did not make that clear and my use of the term “classical” might not have been understood in both of those contexts.

OK. FYI, the more common term for fixed space-time is "Galilean" or (less specifically) "Newtonian". When physicists say "classical", they always (in my experience at least) mean not quantum.

 

[sol invictus]

Your defense of the weird QED explanation of sub-luminal propagation speed of photons...
<nonsense snipped>

Wolfgang: do you see that computer you're reading this on? Do you know how it was made? Do you realize it's full of transistors, semiconductors, electron beams (if you have an old monitor), and tons of other extremely sophisticated parts? Do you realize that all that would never had been possible if physicists hadn't understood quantum mechanics?

Of course I'm talking to the guy that claimed the declining birthrate in Japan was due to a shortage of souls, so I'm not sure why I'm bothering.

 

[The Man]

Such a physical absorption and reemission is obviously inconsistent with the photons-use-all-paths claim. But in theology (as opposed to physical reasoning), there is always a solution. In analogy to virtual particles one can introduce virtual absorption and reemission. So photons are virtually absorbed and reemitted by all electron pairs of the diamond. In media with refractive index n > 1 in general, such virtual stops happening everywhere reduce the speed from c between two stops to c/n over many stops.

Cheers, Wolfgang

Why is physical absorption and reemission obviously inconsistent with the photons-use-all-paths claim? Sum over histories and the path integral refer to the paths from emission to absorption (or detection). A photon takes all paths from a physically emitting electron to the next physically absorbing electron within the lattice structure, not all paths through all valence electrons of the entire lattice structure. Real or physical photons require real and physical absorption and emission. What do you mean by virtual absorption? If the photons are not really absorbed or reemitted then they can not really be delayed. Even the exchange of virtual photons between the electrons and the protons of the carbon atoms involve real emission and absorption resulting in a real exchange of momentum. It seems that you only want physical absorption and reemission to be inconsistent with the photons-use-all-paths claim so you can solve that inconsistency by proposing your own principle of virtual absorption.

ETA:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virtual_particle

It is sometimes said that all photons are virtual photons. This is because the world-lines of photons always resemble the dotted line in the above Feynman diagram: the photon was emitted somewhere (say, a distant star), and then is absorbed somewhere else (say a photoreceptor cell in the eyeball). Furthermore, in a vacuum, a photon experiences no passage of (proper) time between emission and absorption. This statement illustrates the difficulty of trying to distinguish between "real" and "virtual" particles as mathematically they are the same objects and it is only our definition of "reality" which is weak here. In practice, a clear distinction can be made: real photons are detected as individual particles in particle detectors, whereas virtual photons are not directly detected; only their average or side-effects may be noticed, in the form of forces or (in modern language) interactions between particles.

 

[The Man]

"Bohr rejected Einstein's particle of light, proposed in 1905, until well into the 1920s" (see). After evidence had shown more and more that Einstein was right, Bohr (and others) succeeded in transforming Einstein's physical photon-concept into a theological concept. Einstein then fought the theological properties attributed to quanta. Nevertheless, the supporters of the Bohr-fraction succeeded in convincing the world that Einstein (instead of Bohr) was the obstructionist in recognizing the reality of quanta.

For those interested in the Einstein Bohr debates and not just what wogoga writes about them on other forums.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bohr-Einstein_debates


Also check out the links in the “see also” section.

 

[wogoga]

There are electrons in diamond which are delocalized. Diamond is a transparent insulator not because all the electrons are localized, but because the bands are full, and you cannot excite an electron without adding a significant amount of energy. Were electrons simply stationary and inert as you suggest, with every electron just stuck on one atom, carbon wouldn't even solidify, let alone turn into the hardest substance known.

Look at any visualisation of the cristal structure of diamond. The nuclei have a strong positive charge (6 protons versus 2 electrons), whereas each of the four bonds surrounding a carbon atom consists of an electron pair. The negative charge of such a pair is a strong adhesive between two neighbouring nuclei. The hardness of diamonds is due to the short distance between the positive nuclei and the negative electron pairs, resulting in huge electrostatic attraction. Because the electron pairs are (physically) stationary, a diamond is a good insulator and can only be deformed by breaking the bonds between atoms and thus resulting in fragmentation of the crystal.

Cheers, Wolfgang

 

[Henners]

The hardness of diamonds is due to the short distance between the positive nuclei and the negative electron pairs

...which also explains why hydrogen is far harder than diamond!