Bohr contention

[AntonioLao]

Less than four months after the publication of the EPR paper, Bohr responded with the same title in Physical Review, Volume 48, October 15, 1935. His argument is positively optimistic. He based the completeness of quantum mechanics on the principle of complementarity.

Reference:

http://www.upscale.utoronto.ca/GeneralInterest/Harrison/Complementarity/CompCopen.html

http://www.toequest.com/forum/showthread.php?t=723

[Guille]

What is the principle of complementarity?

[AntonioLao]

Excerpt from webpage

Here is a favorite statement of Bohr's Principle of Complementarity, based on so-called wave-particle duality for light:

"But what is light really? Is it a wave or a shower of photons? There seems no likelihood for forming a consistent description of the phenomena of light by a choice of only one of the two languages. It seems as though we must use sometimes the one theory and sometimes the other, while at times we may use either. We are faced with a new kind of difficulty. We have two contradictory pictures of reality; separately neither of them fully explains the phenomena of light, but together they do." -- Albert Einstein and Leopold Infeld, The Evolution of Physics, pg. 262-263.

Incidentally, I have been told that Infeld wrote the entire book The Evolution of Physics in 1938, but was experiencing difficulty in getting anyone to publish it. Once Einstein put his name on it, all such difficulties disappeared.

[Guille]

For me waves don't exist. I mean, yes, they do, but.....


Light doesn't exist as a wave, any kind of argument in the defence of the existence of light as such (wave), is, and only is, a fallacy caused by bad experimentation, wrong use of mathematics, and wrong understanding of nature.

[AntonioLao]

Light doesn't exist as a wave

Maybe light does not exist as a wave but it sure does move like a wave, since its frequency and wavelength can always be measured accurately and precisely.

[Guille]

Maybe light does not exist as a wave but it sure does move like a wave, since its frequency and wavelength can always be measured accurately and precisely.

oh, yes, but this is a different point of discussion.

I don't know much about the math used for these calculations you mention about light as wave, but what if they have been misinterpret? Ok, maybe there are too many scientists to misinterpret an equation, but, what if it's not misinterpret, it's just that the parts of the equations represent extra things that we still don't know, and that they would explain why the equations calculate light's wavelegth and frequency, and they will show that it's not wavelegth and frequency but other twofactors for particle light.

[AntonioLao]

but other twofactors for particle light.

Maybe I can email you the latest work I have done recently that might shed some light along this other factors' idea.

[Guille]

Maybe I can email you the latest work I have done recently that might shed some light along this other factors' idea.

Sure, do it. I would apreciate it. Thanks.

[AntonioLao]

Sure, do it. I would apreciate it.

I am hoping by now you have received the email and the attached pdf file? As I have mentioned elsewhere that a theory combining general relativity and quantum mechanics must by necessity contains both constant of light speed and Planck's constant of action. However, in the alternative derivation the Planck's constant canceled out. What remains is just the square of light speed.

I will have more to say about this when I finish reading chapter 26 of Pais' book 'Subtle is the Lord' on Einstein's life and science.

[Guille]

I am hoping by now you have received the email and the attached pdf file? As I have mentioned elsewhere that a theory combining general relativity and quantum mechanics must by necessity contains both constant of light speed and Planck's constant of action. However, in the alternative derivation the Planck's constant canceled out. What remains is just the square of light speed.

I will have more to say about this when I finish reading chapter 26 of Pais' book 'Subtle is the Lord' on Einstein's life and science.

I have, I'm going to read it just now.