LikeLike

]]>I had the same objection. Moreover, with due respect for Descartes semantics, I view the “imaginary” numbers as as natural as the real numbers (which of course don’t make sense as I explained in the “Greatest Number”…)

LikeLike

]]>Dear ian, thanks for the answer. Very interesting. However, completely confused here. If one moves a screen on which an interference pattern shows up, there is still an interference. A real interference, so I don’t understand that node thing-Euler law

LikeLike

]]>Nothing stands under Quantum Physics, so far, making it the ultimate depiction of reality.

Yet, IMHO, the shortcoming of Quantum Mechanics may be in our face: DARK MATTER. (It’s a direct consequence of my interpretation…)

What struck me before I wrote that piece was the lack of duality of the Copenhagen Interpretation. I have known it for decades, of course, but I never reflected that it was an obvious contradiction: Copenhagists claim duality, but then the Born interpretation, that the quantum wave is probabilistic, is a complete contradiction.

The other fact is that mass is obtained from dynamical, and dynamical means spread out, thus wave.

LikeLike

]]>LikeLike

]]>I think Gmax is referring to:

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/05/160512142912.htm

I linked to it, it was just published, and I intent to write about it because it’s the third argument I was going to use about the reality of the Quantum Waves.

LikeLike

]]>Are you asking me or Patrice? If me, more details please.

LikeLike

]]>Like de Broglie and Bohm, I assume there is a physical entity that behaves like a wave and mathematically it is of the form Ψ = Aexp(2πiS/h) – that is essentially standard, with S the action. My first difference is that when S/h is integral, from Euler the phase is no longer complex, so at the antinodes, momentarily the wave becomes real. Apart from the fact that nobody seems to take any notice of Euler’s relationship, I attach physical significance to the point of reality. The second difference is I assume the wave is the cause of diffraction in the 2-slit experiment. (For some reason i cannot understand, nobody else seems to do this either.) To do that, the wave has to travel at the expectation velocity of the particle otherwise they are not there at the same time. The phase velocity is E/p, (from de Broglie and Einstein wave equations) which means E is twice the kinetic energy. Like every other wave, the wave therefore transmits energy and the square of the amplitude is proportional to the energy. If you accept that, then why the electron does not radiate energy in a stationary state follows, as does the Uncertainty principle and the Exclusion principle, and why electrons pair. I am a chemist and the reason i came up with this is that simple chemical bonds properties such and binding energy and bond long are calculable quite well without the use of a computer, and to a first approximation, that of the H2 molecule is simple mental arithmetic – 1/3 the Rydberg energy of hydrogen. More details in my ebook.

LikeLike

]]>What’s your guidance wave interpretation? Louis De Broglie has one, Bohm has one, Patrice has one…

LikeLike

]]>LikeLike

]]>