Steve3007 wrote:Nameless:
You are moving the goalposts....
You seem to me to have a curiously personal attitude towards the subject of quantum mechanics, as if pointing out that it is not a complete description of all possible observations is some kind of insult.
Really? I made no such claim, so I have nothing to defend there. Sort of another goal post shift fallacy, with some ad-hom sprinkles.
I am not arguing QM, I am offering the evidence as displayed by QM in refutation to Aristotle's insane 'laws of logic'.
The 'evidence' is the fire beneath your finger, how you hypothesize and theorize about it is something else.
I don't need to defend QM.
It seems to be quite popular amongst a broad spectrum of folks, let history judge.
But cutting edge, what's happenin NOW!, is that the evidence has, after all this time, demonstrated that the Eastern philosophers were right on all the time and the Aristotelian's, well... There seems to be much that has been taken for granted that is NOW! being ... re-examined! *__-
There are no "goalposts". I'm merely pointing out that the big challenge of modern physics is uniting the theory of gravity (General Relativity) with the theory of everything else (Quantum Mechanics).
Ugh, back to that...
Anyway, 'my theory' reconciles both theories (and there is more than one theory of gravity, and no good one!
Until mine, that reconciles it perfectly with QM.
How can that be?
"Quantum mechanics comes on as so off the wall that only a mystical state of mind can even begin to probe it's mysteries!" - Richard Feynman and Chuangtse
Find me one QM prediction that failed?
QM cannot describe gravity. It cannot predict the perihelion precession of the planet Mercury, which is described by General Relativity.
Is it me? Am I being obtuse?
I asked for a prediction MADE that has failed, and you offer 'prediction results' (ostensibly) that QM has not made?
Maybe it's the digesting turkey, but, ... there go the goalposts again! *__-
Our economy is based more and more on QM!
I have studied and taught physics, and worked in software and electronics for many years. So it's not necessary to tell me that.
Are you saying that there is no task to be done in uniting QM and GR?
Other than my theory, yes, you are right, yet, there is yet treasure to be found, yet..
We have left the topic and gone careening down some side rail.
A photon is both a wave and a particle, at the same time. It is both A and not A, at the same time! And sometimes A, and sometimes not A, etc... all depending on Perspective of the same One thing!
Saying "a photon is both a wave and a particle" is
not logically equivalent to saying "It is both A and not A".
Beg your pardon? In Aristotelian 'logic', it must be either/or, both cannot be True! It exists in a dualistic polarity, a 'lie' in itself, a 'make-believe' 'Reality'.
And the definition of wave and particle certainly support their 'polarity'.
The Enlightened East Knows better, that Truth is 'inclusive', ALL inclusive! *__-
So, the 'logic' being simultaneously both A and not A, the extent of both opposite 'poles' is True is valid;
"For every Perspective, there is an equal and opposite Perspective!" - The First Law of Soul Dynamics
"The complete Universe (Reality/Truth/God/'Self!'/Tao/Brahman... or any feature herein...) can be completely defined/described as the synchronous sum-total of all Perspectives!" - n
ALL INCLUSIVE!!!
It is saying "It is both A and B". I am both a human and a mammal.
As I said, waves and particles represent a valid dualistic polarity, two 'sets', unlike humans which are a subset of mammals.
"I am both a human and not a human" that would be a logical contradiction.
Yes!
And that would also be a True statement!
Saying that a thing has more than one aspect to its full description, or that it is a member of two sets, or that it has some aspects of one thing and some aspects of another is not illogical.
True enough...
"Wave" and "particle" are models - abstract concepts to help us describe the observed properties of various parts of the world.
Not only do I agree with you, I would expand that to include all 'observed phenomena'.
Photons have some properties that are best modelled with the particle concept and some that are best modelled with the wave concept. There is no logical contradiction involved there.
I think that we've talked this one out sufficiently, no?
In my experience, people often get confused about this...
Is this where I am dismissed into a 'group' of people who 'often get confused about this'? Unworthy of further attention? *__-
Who might see things from a 'different' Perspective?
Quantum Mechanics is impossible to understand by reference to common sense. It introduces some difficult ideas. But that's not the same as saying that it defies logic.
Not talking about 'common sense', Hoss!
Damn goalposts must be on Viagra!
People seem to confuse common sense with logic.
Darn those... people!
Wait, are I one of 'em?
Aren't 'comming sense' a subset of lorgic?
Nameless, if you want to see a description of an experiment which demonstrates this aspect of the nature of photons (and, by extension, other particles) try this...
Thank you, but in a friendly riposte, I'll offer in conclusion;
"...scientists are condemned by their unexamined assumptions to study the nature of mirrors only by cataloging and investigating everything that mirrors can reflect. It is an endless process that never makes progress, that never reaches closure, that generates endless debate between those who have seen different reflected images, and whose enduring product is voluminous descriptions of particular phenomena." - The Adapted Mind
Of what is 'photons' and all other observed phenomena ultimately composed, whether daydreams or diamonds, ultimately composed?