Hi Mati,
Yes, I do understand that Einstein's model checks out while Newton's was
not quite right. But I was not talking about models, I was talking about
ontology's. And I do understand that Einstein's ontology was what must
be one of the most brilliant moves of the century. Even if Wolfgang
says, 'two such utterly different mathematical models', it can't be so
as the two models yield almost identical results. In context you can see
he means ontology's.
The difference between relativistic and Newtonian results is
proportional to (gamma -1) or to some power of this quantity,
depending on what it is we're talking about. I'm sitting right now on
the experimental floor of a synchrotron where the electrons are
circulating with gamma = 13700. The synchrotron radiation output is
proportional to gamma^2, thus the radiated power is nearly 9 orders of
magnitude higher than it would've been based on classical calculation.
Small difference? Yeah, sure.
So, no, it is simply *not true* that the two models yield "almost
identical results". This is an error, promoted by poorly written
popularizations. What is true is that within the narrow region of
physical parameters corresponding to our everyday experiences the
differences are small (as it is to be expected, once you think about
it). The further you get away from this region, the more the
differences grow, without limit.
To illustrate by example, the functions
f(x) = x/x_0
g(x) = sin(x/x_0)
are quite different in their behavior. One has a constant slope, the
other one doesn't. One grows (in absolute value) with no bound in
both directions of the X-axis, the other one is bounded. But, if you
would've only used a very narrow range of x values, say |x| < 0.001*x_0
then within this range the difference is negligible and may well go
unnoticed. And, you might've used f(x) for centuries, then, upon
learning that the more correct function is g(x), you could be
astonished at the thought that "two such different functions may yield
nearly the same results". But, they do not yield nearly the same
results, except within a narrow range of values of x.
Yes, I know.
Yes. And that was my point about interpretations of QM. It was
Wolfgang's point about the difference between the 'force of gravity' and
the 'curvature of space'.
Thanks for the credit, but I'll decline.
"Quantum electrodynamics "resolves" the wave-particle duality by saying
that light is made of particles, but the price of this great achievement
of science is a retreat by physics to a position of being able to
calculate only the probability that a photon will hit a detector,
without offering a good model of how it actually happens."
Feynman
Aha. And, is there anything in this passage about "little shiny
spheres"?
I'm not asking in jest. You keep harping on the term "particle".
Well, what is "particle"? You've to realize that lots of the physics
terminology was crafted in the "older, simpler times" when we dealt
with things directly accessible to the senses and could proceed with
no clear cut definitions, just some intuitively (here is this word
again) understood meanings. But by now we got far away from the
sandbox of science's childhood and those vague meanings are not good
enough. Clear definitions are needed. Absent a definition of what we
mean by "particle", an argument about whether photons are particles or
not is meaningless exercise. So, I suggest, try to define to yourself
what are the meanings you attach to the word "particle", then check
whether this agrees with the meaning used in QM.
There are many others.
Oh, I do know the quandary. Reading about QM has and still is a
wonderful experience. Bohm said it well:
"For example one may consider a water wave which causes a cork to bob.
The further the cork is from the center of the wave the less it will
move. But with the quantum field, it is as if the cork could bob with
full strength even far from the source of the wave."
I am not formally educated in the matter. I have read what I could on
the subject. hv is the quanta 'at transition'. We have, from what I
read, no observation that says light is otherwise corpuscular.
What do you mean "otherwise". Between interactions? I'll repeat
again, the only access we've to Mother Nature is through observations,
and observations mean interactions.
A repeated line in arguments here goes like "all you're telling me is
what it (where it can be light, gravity, heat, wave, whatever) does,
but I want to know what it *is*". Now, from the point of view of
physics, this is meaningless. From the point of view of physics, any
physical entity is fully characterized by the set of all its possible
interactions. That's the "is" for said entity and, as far as physics
is concerned, there is no other "is". Anything neyond the
interactions is metaphysics.
Mati Meron | "When you argue with a fool,
[email protected] | chances are he is doing just the same"