View Single Post
  #30  
Old 21-11-2008, 05:56 PM
xelasnave's Avatar
xelasnave
Gravity does not Suck

xelasnave is offline
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Tabulam
Posts: 17,003
The great thing about the net is if you look long enough you can find someone of good repute who says what you want to hear........
a quote from wiki on page

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Particle-wave_duality
.............
The path integral formulation or sum over histories approach of Richard Feynman also considers particles to be the primary entities:

I want to emphasize that light comes in this form—particles. It is very important to know that light behaves like particles, especially for those of you who have gone to school, where you were probably told something about light behaving like waves. I'm telling you the way it does behave—like particles. [Emphasis as in the original]

—Richard Feynman, QED: The Strange Theory of Light and Matter (1985), p. 15
Feynman goes on to explain that the wave behaviour is exhibited only as a consequence of how the particle histories are summed. He says:

It's rather interesting to note that electrons looked like particles at first, and their wavish character was later discovered. On the other hand, apart from Newton making a mistake and thinking that light was "corpuscular," light looked like waves at first, and its characteristics as a particle were discovered later. In fact, both objects behave somewhat like waves, and somewhat like particles. In order to save ourselves from inventing new words such as "wavicles," we have chosen to call these objects "particles," but we all know that they obey these rules for drawing and combining arrows [representing complex values of wave functions] that I have been explaining. It appears that all the "particles" in Nature—quarks, gluons, neutrinos, and so forth (which will be discussed in the next lecture)—behave in this quantum mechanical way. [Emphasis as in the original]...

So what does this leave us with a particle scribing a wave thru space and eventuality "flat lining"...

I spent all afternoon reading about light and duality again and so I thought this was amusing... I wonder in the context of what he said how he would explain the double slit experiemnt..I guess he has someplace... I will look.


alex
Reply With Quote