End of wave-particle duality
You can't harness an ox and a quivering doe into one cart ...
(free retelling of a famous phrase)
The cause of wave-particle duality is a methodological error. Proponents of the wave nature of light preferred to “ignore” the most important facts contradicting their theories, but “ignore” did not work and they simply had to introduce a new entity - “ether”, which in itself contradicts an important methodological principle - “Occam's razor” ( Ockham, Occam ) or Newton's principle: "I do not invent hypotheses!".
You can fix this error as follows. You just have to listen to Rene Descartes: “ Accurately define the meanings of words, and you will save the world from half the misunderstanding .”
We look at what definition is given to the term "wave" (or "Waves") in modern physics [1]:
')
It should be noted that this “failure” contains a contradiction. On the one hand, it is stated that
So, the word "waves" should be understood as various "types of movements or processes." But, of course, there are a lot of different “movements” in Nature, which means that we need another sign (or signs) that distinguishes precisely those kinds of movements, which are “waves”. I think it will be convenient to leave the term “waves” only for mechanical (classical!) Waves, and for others
Although, in principle, I know a common feature by which
This feature is the need for a “medium” for the existence of waves. True, “medium” should be understood not as a known “continuous medium”, which is a mathematical abstraction, but “physical medium”, which has a structure, i.e. consisting of a large number of elements.
With the help of this common feature, it will be possible to combine classical (mechanical) waves and phenomena, which I proposed to call “wavelike”.
So, the definition of the term "wave" in the broadest sense may sound as follows.
Definition A wave is a process (or “movement” in a broad sense), possible and, under appropriate conditions, occurring in a system of a large number of elements.
Introducing the term "system" instead of "environment" we will cover a greater number of physical phenomena, which
But, most importantly, thanks to this definition, we do not need to invent a monster - wave-particle duality, because a wave is a property of a large number of corpuscles (elements) and it cannot be a property of one corpuscle. The corpuscle can only " participate in the wave ", but not " have wave properties "!
Based on this definition, we will look in a new way at the so-called “interference” and “diffraction patterns” created by the light fluxes . Of course, all these well-known experiments, supposedly "confirming" the wave nature of light (and other elementary particles!), Should be immediately attributed to "wave-like" phenomena!
These paintings, only at first glance, look like ordinary (classical) waves.
Let's compare the famous “Newton's rings” with the “circles on the water”, which are formed when a stone falls on a calm water surface (see Fig . 1 and 2 ).
Figure 1 shows Newton's rings in three versions: 1 - in reflected white light; 2 - in green; 3 - in red [2]. And figure 2 shows “the propagation of waves from a stone that fell into the water” from the book [3].
Immediately, the static nature of Newton's rings and the dynamism of the waves on the water, which, indeed, spread, move, are striking. This is the first difference .
The second difference can be seen by comparing Newton's rings with a standing wave. There is also a dynamic in the standing wave - only the nodes are stationary, and the crests and troughs are constantly moving, as if changing places.
The third difference is that Newton's rings exist while there is light, and for “circles on the water,” the stone is only the initial impetus, after which they embark on “free swimming”.
All these differences suggest that Newton's rings are not the result of the interference of some “waves”, but only a redistribution of the light flux due to the interaction of photons with the glass atoms. In this case, the determining factor is the geometry of the surface of the glass, which is easily verified by changing the radius of curvature of the lens or other distortions of the geometry of the surfaces. Those. the properties of light, one might even say, are “secondary”, since, qualitatively, the picture of Newton's rings does not depend on the color of light or its intensity, but depends on the properties of the medium — glass.
On the other hand, Newton's rings fall under our definition , because there is not even one, but at least two systems: a system — a stream of a large number of photons and a system — a large number of atoms constituting the glass. And it is not surprising that the interaction of these systems generates a "wavelike" phenomenon, which some physicists thought was one of the proofs of the wave nature of light.
In the book "Understanding Physics" [4], this "confirmation" of the wave nature of light is given:
Pay attention also to the fact that the needle participating in this experiment is not used when interpreting the results of the experiment, although there will be no diffraction pattern without a needle!
As we see, one and the same experiment can be interpreted differently, depending on what fundamental statements we are standing ...
(free retelling of a famous phrase)
The cause of wave-particle duality is a methodological error. Proponents of the wave nature of light preferred to “ignore” the most important facts contradicting their theories, but “ignore” did not work and they simply had to introduce a new entity - “ether”, which in itself contradicts an important methodological principle - “Occam's razor” ( Ockham, Occam ) or Newton's principle: "I do not invent hypotheses!".
You can fix this error as follows. You just have to listen to Rene Descartes: “ Accurately define the meanings of words, and you will save the world from half the misunderstanding .”
We look at what definition is given to the term "wave" (or "Waves") in modern physics [1]:
W. - changes in a certain set of physical. quantities (fields) capable of moving (spreading), moving away from the place of their occurrence, or fluctuating within a limit. areas of spaceLike this! True, the authors immediately abandon their words as follows:
In modern understanding of the concept of V. is so broad and ambiguous that it is virtually impossible to indicate a single sign common to all types of movements or processes, to-rye our intuition or tradition refers to the wave.That's where the "dog is buried"! Such a revelation makes it clear - why this monster was born - "wave-wave duality"!
')
It should be noted that this “failure” contains a contradiction. On the one hand, it is stated that
It is impossible to specify a single characteristic common to all species.waves. On the other hand, I specifically replaced the ending of the quotation with “waves”, though, there:
movements or processesthose. This is a common feature !
So, the word "waves" should be understood as various "types of movements or processes." But, of course, there are a lot of different “movements” in Nature, which means that we need another sign (or signs) that distinguishes precisely those kinds of movements, which are “waves”. I think it will be convenient to leave the term “waves” only for mechanical (classical!) Waves, and for others
types of movements or processescome up with another term. I propose, within this article, to call them "wave-like movements" (or "phenomena" or "processes") ...
Although, in principle, I know a common feature by which
our intuition or tradition refers to the wavecertain kinds of movements ...
This feature is the need for a “medium” for the existence of waves. True, “medium” should be understood not as a known “continuous medium”, which is a mathematical abstraction, but “physical medium”, which has a structure, i.e. consisting of a large number of elements.
With the help of this common feature, it will be possible to combine classical (mechanical) waves and phenomena, which I proposed to call “wavelike”.
So, the definition of the term "wave" in the broadest sense may sound as follows.
Definition A wave is a process (or “movement” in a broad sense), possible and, under appropriate conditions, occurring in a system of a large number of elements.
Introducing the term "system" instead of "environment" we will cover a greater number of physical phenomena, which
Our intuition or tradition refers to the wave.It should also be noted that this definition does not impose any restrictions on the presence or absence of various kinds of links between elements of the system or any interactions between them.
But, most importantly, thanks to this definition, we do not need to invent a monster - wave-particle duality, because a wave is a property of a large number of corpuscles (elements) and it cannot be a property of one corpuscle. The corpuscle can only " participate in the wave ", but not " have wave properties "!
Based on this definition, we will look in a new way at the so-called “interference” and “diffraction patterns” created by the light fluxes . Of course, all these well-known experiments, supposedly "confirming" the wave nature of light (and other elementary particles!), Should be immediately attributed to "wave-like" phenomena!
These paintings, only at first glance, look like ordinary (classical) waves.
Let's compare the famous “Newton's rings” with the “circles on the water”, which are formed when a stone falls on a calm water surface (see Fig . 1 and 2 ).
Figure 1 shows Newton's rings in three versions: 1 - in reflected white light; 2 - in green; 3 - in red [2]. And figure 2 shows “the propagation of waves from a stone that fell into the water” from the book [3].
-------  Figure 1. Newton's rings. | -------  Figure 2. Wave propagation from a stone falling into the water. | |||
The second difference can be seen by comparing Newton's rings with a standing wave. There is also a dynamic in the standing wave - only the nodes are stationary, and the crests and troughs are constantly moving, as if changing places.
The third difference is that Newton's rings exist while there is light, and for “circles on the water,” the stone is only the initial impetus, after which they embark on “free swimming”.
All these differences suggest that Newton's rings are not the result of the interference of some “waves”, but only a redistribution of the light flux due to the interaction of photons with the glass atoms. In this case, the determining factor is the geometry of the surface of the glass, which is easily verified by changing the radius of curvature of the lens or other distortions of the geometry of the surfaces. Those. the properties of light, one might even say, are “secondary”, since, qualitatively, the picture of Newton's rings does not depend on the color of light or its intensity, but depends on the properties of the medium — glass.
On the other hand, Newton's rings fall under our definition , because there is not even one, but at least two systems: a system — a stream of a large number of photons and a system — a large number of atoms constituting the glass. And it is not surprising that the interaction of these systems generates a "wavelike" phenomenon, which some physicists thought was one of the proofs of the wave nature of light.
In the book "Understanding Physics" [4], this "confirmation" of the wave nature of light is given:
“If light is a stream of photons,” thought Taylor, “I can make it extremely rare.” He reduced the heat of the bulb to a minimum and installed several light filters in front of the needle. According to Taylor's calculations, no more than one photon fell on a needle per second. It means that there could be no talk of any collective interaction of particles. He placed the device in a light-tight casing, installed a photographic plate instead of the screen, hung up a sign "Do not turn off!", Took a vacation and went to ride on a yacht. When Taylor returned a month later, rested and tanned, he showed a photographic plate and saw that traces of two million photons that alternately hit the target for a month formed on the photographic plate in the classical diffraction pattern. For those who managed to believe in quantum theory, it was a real shock.And now once again look at our definition of waves, and, immediately, we come to the conclusion that the described experiment in no way proves the wave nature of light. And, on the contrary, it proves that the so-called “diffraction pattern” is not drawn by a single photon, or two, or ten, or a hundred, or even a thousand photons, but only “two million” photons, t. e. only "a large number of elements that make up the system "!
Pay attention also to the fact that the needle participating in this experiment is not used when interpreting the results of the experiment, although there will be no diffraction pattern without a needle!
As we see, one and the same experiment can be interpreted differently, depending on what fundamental statements we are standing ...
Literature
- Physical Encyclopedia / Ch. ed. A.M. Prokhorov. Ed. count D.M. Alekseev, A.M. Baldin, A.M. Bonch-Bruevich, A.S. Borovik-Romanov et al. —M .: Sov. encyclopedia. T. I. Aaronov - Boma effect - Long lines. 1988. 704s., Il.
- Myakishev G.Ya., Bukhovtsev B.B. Physics. Textbook for grade 10. — M .: Enlightenment, 1972. — 368 pp., Ill.
- Kadomtsev B. B., Rydnik V.I. Waves around us. - M .: Knowledge, 1981. - 152s., Il.
- I. Javadov. Understandable physics. - Study Guide / St. Petersburg: Written in pen, 2014. — 154s., Il.
Source: https://habr.com/ru/post/427235/
All Articles