Re: Wave particle duality has been disproven for photons also.

Den 29.05.2025 23:40, skrev LaurenceClarkCrossen:

 

Den 27.05.2025 05:27, skrev LaurenceClarkCrossen:

Particle wave duality is no longer accepted as it has been
experimentally disproven.
>
>
"Did We Get the Double Slit Experiment All Wrong?"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DpMcC-E5l5c
>
Light is a wave and not a particle.

I disagree with the article. It's not what was said but what can be
intelligently understood from the evidence. Don't confuse the evidence
with the paper.

It is not an article, it is a video which refers to an article.
The first few statements of the video sums up
the content of the article pretty well:
"Did we misunderstand the double slit experiment,
  the most famous experiment in quantum physics?
  We usually interpret it as proof that light is both
  a particle and a wave, the essence of quantum physics.
  Yet in a new paper, a group of physicist disagree.
  It can all be explained by particles, they say."
So according to the "new paper":
The double slit experiment proves that light is a particle.
I note with interest that Laurence Clark Crossen intelligently
understands that the statement:
"The double slit experiment proves that light is a particle."
really means:
"The double slit experiment prove that light is a wave."
Well done ! :-D

 QED is clearly mistaken. Why would I take their word on it?

Because QED is confirmed by a lot of experiments
and never falsified.
Didn't you know that it is experimental evidence
that determines the validity of a theory?

 There is no evidence that light is a particle, and you have not
presented any. Neither has Quantum physics.

Are you really so ignorant that you don't know
the experimental evidence that confirms the validity of QED,
and are you really so naive that you think the evidence
doesn't exist because you are ignorant of it?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Precision_tests_of_QED
https://edu.itp.phys.ethz.ch/hs10/ppp1/PPP1_6.pdf

 Light is either a wave or a particle.
 You haven't convinced me of anything.

I haven't tried to convince you of anything.
I know that you understand nothing whatever I say.
My reason for responding to you is that your demonstrations
of your peculiar way of reasoning amuses me.
Like when you intelligently understand that a statement
means the opposite of what it sais.
Hilarious!
--
Paul
https://paulba.no/