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

On Fri, 30 May 2025 0:16:28 +0000, Ross Finlayson wrote:

On 05/29/2025 02:25 PM, LaurenceClarkCrossen wrote:

On Thu, 29 May 2025 15:27:26 +0000, Ross Finlayson wrote:
>

On 05/27/2025 02:11 PM, LaurenceClarkCrossen wrote:

On Tue, 27 May 2025 20:23:36 +0000, Ross Finlayson wrote:
>

On 05/27/2025 01:18 PM, The Starmaker wrote:

LaurenceClarkCrossen wrote:

>
Particle wave duality is no longer accepted as it has been
experimentally disproven.
>
The question regarding photons is still disputed.
>
"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.

>
>
There is no "duality" of a wave and a particle, but it is a particle
wave.
>
>
A pool stick whether long or short is still a pool stick.
>
>
>
>

>
Not to mention it's a wave resonance.

Not to mention that particles act like waves in oceans but we don't
think a wave of water is a particle. No one here can give a good reason
to claim light is a particle.

>
Sure one can, there's a particle model of any sort of discrete thing.
>
In a particle theory, ....
>
Of course, it's wave known there's "particle/wave duality", at least
for sure admitting a real wave description, then above that there's
a "wave/resonance duality", further indicating things like structural
and molecular chemistry that waves by themselves don't fully explain.
>
It's a continuum mechanics: that's about the end of it.
>
Instantons, solitons, wave-packets, sum-of-histories, all sorts
usual higher-level notions about particle theory to explain where
its "limits", as, analytical completions and analyticity, in the
mathematics, are, "limitations", say.

Waves aren't discrete.
Light is not a photon.
There is no wave-particle duality unless you think waves on a pond
involve this.
There are particles and waves without a continuum between them.

>
There's not anything without a continuum within it.
>
Unless you'd care to suggest there isn't, then,
that would always be, "something else".
>
Now, these are rather riddles, point being that's what you're making.
>
Anyways particle theory is so simple and classical that
there are point particles and force example line vectors,
then on the outside is what's called "potential theory"
and where in a potentialistic theory, it's the fields of
potential, the potential fields, that are the real fields,
while the classical is, instead of an origin itself,
always an image as a projection in a perspective.
>
There are theories of particles, and theories of waves,
and about equivalent energy and the entire entelechy
of the connectedness of it all, connexions sometimes,
usually it results waves and Huygens' principle, or
rather the principle of Huygens that waves beget waves
among Huygens' various principles, which aren't necessarily
held while waves beget waves is held, waves are
"models of change in an open system".

Let's see. How about mountain ranges? There's a gulf between particles
and waves.
The "something else" is space.
No, the consensus of experts rejects the wave-particle duality, so light
is one or the other. There is no riddle.