|
Science Forum Index » Physics Forum » The physicality of a quantum wave. Is it math?...
Page 1 of 1
|
| Author |
Message |
| Nick |
 Posted: Fri Jul 18, 2008 5:27 pm |
|
|
|
Joined: 17 Apr 2005
Posts: 1851
|
I believe that physics is about everything physical but I cannot
understand how a quantum wave is a physical thing. Like Einstein's
aether it looks immatterial. What is the quantum wave made of? I
believe that it is always called the wave function because what we
know about it is all mathematical. It is a math model independant of
anything directly physical. I may have to give way here to the
mathematical because I have no understanding of what quantum waves
could be physically or as some kind of physical substance.
Anybody have an opinion?
Mitch Raemsch |
|
|
| Back to top |
 
|
| Nick |
| Posted: Fri Jul 18, 2008 5:35 pm |
|
|
|
Joined: 17 Apr 2005
Posts: 1851
|
On Jul 18, 7:27 pm, BURT <macromi... at (no spam) yahoo.com> wrote:
Quote: I believe that physics is about everything physical but I cannot
understand how a quantum wave is a physical thing. Like Einstein's
aether it looks immatterial. What is the quantum wave made of? I
believe that it is always called the wave function because what we
know about it is all mathematical. It is a math model independant of
anything directly physical. I may have to give way here to the
mathematical because I have no understanding of what quantum waves
could be physically or as some kind of physical substance.
Anybody have an opinion?
Mitch Raemsch
Its physical because it interferes but what its substance is unknown.
Mitch Raemsch |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Nick |
| Posted: Fri Jul 18, 2008 5:56 pm |
|
|
|
Joined: 17 Apr 2005
Posts: 1851
|
On Jul 18, 7:35 pm, BURT <macromi... at (no spam) yahoo.com> wrote:
Quote: On Jul 18, 7:27 pm, BURT <macromi... at (no spam) yahoo.com> wrote:
I believe that physics is about everything physical but I cannot
understand how a quantum wave is a physical thing. Like Einstein's
aether it looks immatterial. What is the quantum wave made of? I
believe that it is always called the wave function because what we
know about it is all mathematical. It is a math model independant of
anything directly physical. I may have to give way here to the
mathematical because I have no understanding of what quantum waves
could be physically or as some kind of physical substance.
Anybody have an opinion?
Mitch Raemsch
Its physical because it interferes but what its substance is unknown.
Mitch Raemsch
There is no way to define what quantum waves are physically using
another physical concept. They stand alone in nature.
A light wave is a dual wave of electromagnetic force. We know it is a
double wave of electromagnetic energy. But we don't know quantum
waves.
Mitch Raemsch |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Mitch Raemsch... |
| Posted: Fri Jul 18, 2008 6:46 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Jul 18, 8:41 pm, Andrzej Novak <nova... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
Quote: BURT wrote:
Anybody have an opinion?
My opinion is that it is not "physical". Although I suppose there's no hard
definition of "physical" (is potential energy physical? are fields
physical? are particles physical? Answers to these have been different at
different times), I think a reasonable definition of "physical" should
exclude probability waves. A case in point would be the EPR paradox
(followed by Bell's theorem and experimental verification of validity of
Copenhagen interpretation), where "collapsing" of a wavefunction happens at
superluminal speeds.
IMO, This is sufficiently different from all physical things that we know
that we ought to consider matter waves as something not quite physical.
But what is "Physics" then? Isn't it rooted in the Physical?
Mitch Raemsch |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Andrzej Novak... |
| Posted: Fri Jul 18, 2008 11:41 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
BURT wrote:
Quote: Anybody have an opinion?
My opinion is that it is not "physical". Although I suppose there's no hard
definition of "physical" (is potential energy physical? are fields
physical? are particles physical? Answers to these have been different at
different times), I think a reasonable definition of "physical" should
exclude probability waves. A case in point would be the EPR paradox
(followed by Bell's theorem and experimental verification of validity of
Copenhagen interpretation), where "collapsing" of a wavefunction happens at
superluminal speeds.
IMO, This is sufficiently different from all physical things that we know
that we ought to consider matter waves as something not quite physical. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
