Pmb

We're in no means "hung up" on it nor are worried about semantics. We're trying to understand exactly what it is that you're "envisioning" but you appear to be attempting it to describe it in a way that is not getting your point across.

People here aren't concerned that much with semantics. But you're opening post was stating something which is false in the way that you described it. All you were talking about was how this or that was a dimension and trying to argue how right you were. Now you're asking us not to take you literally?

Then here is what I suggest. Describe what you're envisioning in a post in which you don't use the term "dimension."

pittsburghjoe

The revelation is that a free, unmeasured particle is not both energy waves and physical mass at the same time. It is in one state or the other. Energy waves in a field + superposition will transform into matter/mass when observed.


...hidden variables can exist because the energy waves are holding what the particle will physically be when it is transformed over.

Pmb

Nobody ever said that it was. If you thought that this is what quantum theory states then you're mistaken.

There's no such thing as an "energy wave." You're understanding of the basic concepts in modern physics appear to be distorted. E.g. quantum mechanics states that something like an electron does not have either a position in space or a particular value of momentum until its measured. It doesn't say that an electron is either a particle or a wave depending on when its observed.

Where did the notion that there is such thing as an energy wave? An a particle is not a "physical mass". Particles and bodies "have" mass, they "aren't" mass. Saying that is like saying that a macroscopic body is temperature since it has that property.

I recommend getting your terminology in synch with modern physics so that we can understand what you're saying.

Pmb

Note: Please don't get the impression that I'm insulting you in any way, shape or form merely because of what I said. Not knowing something , or learning it incorrectly, has absolutely nothing to do with someone's intelligence. It merely means never gaining the knowledge, learning it from a bad source, or misinterpreting what you read in a manner in which is different with what the author intended. Okay?

pittsburghjoe

wave particle duality


You have heard of the double slit experiment ..no? What is going through both slits?


meh, I'm pretty dumb. I know it.

Pmb

Yes. I'm familiar with it.

What is going through both slits?
[/quote]
Quantum mechanics tells us that's an invalid question. That's because we cannot make statements about things we don't know. In this case we can't say that "something" went through both slots because when we try to determine which slot something went through we change what it is that we're trying to measure. The results of the experiment then become different.

Mathematically speaking the quantum mechanical wave function is treated like a "complex valued wave" which goes through both slots. But the only measurable thing that can be associated with it is the probability that something will happen or that we'll get a given result after we make a measurement.

Now now! I'd personally prefer it if nobody would think that way or make comments like that about themselves. Not understanding doesn't mean not being able to understand. Can we agree on that?

If so then I recommend reading Chapter 1 of the Feynman Lectures on Physics Volume 3. It describes exactly what you're talking about and why scientists came to accept why that's an invalid question. The math is trivial

How about if we discuss that chapter right now?
The Feynman lectures on physics, Richard P. Feynman, Robert B. Leighton, and Matthew Sands, Addison-Wesley, Reading, Mass, Volume I, II (1964); Volume III (1965) | R. B. Bird | download

pittsburghjoe

I just made it a valid question. A wave is not just math ..are EM waves just math? no

Pmb

And my answer was that in quantum mechanics that question is not valid. I gave you the text which explains precisely why that's true. Is there a reason you don't wish to read it?

No. You are incorrect. In QM a wave is only a mathematical object which tells you what to predict.

On the other hand that is not true with classical electrodynamics where indeed an electromagnetic wave has a physical meaning.

pittsburghjoe

"In QM a wave is only a mathematical object which tells you what to predict."

So a mathematical object goes through both slits and creates an interference pattern when not observed? That's ridiculous. You are either saying mass duplicates itself and goes through both slits or magic.

Pmb

I never said that. I said that it's treated that way. I said that the wave function is not a physical entity and as such it cannot be observed.

Why do you think so many people have a hard time understanding QM? Where do think that the old adage "Shut up and calculate" came from?

See https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Shut_up_and_calculate

You have yet to ask "When I set up this experiment and make this measurement what is the probability that I will measure this quantity? And those are the only questions which one can answer with QM. Nothing else. That's why Richard Feynman said in a later chapter of that text that nobody understands QM.

And I now promise you that you will continue to believe that until you learn the subject properly, e.g. read the chapter I suggested. Until then I won't post in this thread again since it would mean that you are not willing to take our advice and learn the subject. I'm certain that all of the physics helpers will agree with me in that the book I mentioned is the best there is on the subject.

Nope. It is only you who are saying that, not I. You keep on insisting that QM allows you to even speak about things you're not observing.

That's what can be expected from people who refuse to learn QM properly.

Good bye.