So there is no such thing as thinking of "wave forms as opposed to particles" because a wave form is a form that a group of particles has. — Metaphysician Undercover

The problem is that there is no longer any such thing as a particle. What we have is a wave that manifests itself in different ways depending upon how it is being observed. But quite literally particles no longer exist as a reasonable description of nature. Wave fields are closer:

How could there be a wave form without points and boundaries? — Metaphysician Undercover

http://www.symmetrymagazine.org/article/what-is-a-particle

"What waves?
Waves are the best metaphor to understand particles and fields. Electrons, in addition to being particles, are simultaneously waves in the “electron field.” Quarks are waves in the “quark field” (and since there are six types of quark, there are six quark fields), and so forth. Photons are like water ripples: they can be big or small, violent or barely noticeable. The fields describing matter particles are more like waves on a guitar string. If you don’t pluck the string hard enough, you don’t get any sound at all: You need the threshold energy corresponding to an electron mass to make one. Enough energy, though, and you get the first harmonic, which is a clear note (for the string) or an electron (for the field).

As a result of all this quantum thinking, it’s often unhelpful to think of particles as being like tiny balls."

Do you observe boundaries between waves in the ocean? It is all continuous with differing amplitudes.

Rather than tiny balls, the processes of the universe should be imagined as such:

The problem is that there is no longer any such thing as a particle. What we have is a wave that manifests itself in different ways depending upon how it is being observed. But quite literally particles no longer exist as a reasonable description of nature. Wave fields are closer: — Rich

You seem to be missing the point, "wave" refers to an activity of particles, so it makes no sense to say there is no particles, only waves, because a wave is composed of particles, usually moving molecules.

A "field" is a mathematical structure so it still makes no sense to say that a wave exists in a field rather than in a substance composed of particles.

Waves are the best metaphor to understand particles and fields. — Rich

Notice the word "metaphor" here? Like I said, you are taking things which are wave-like, then trying to produce a definition of "wave" from these wave-like things. So you produce a definition of "wave" which doesn't require the wave to be a movement of particles. But this is nonsense because "wave" is used here as a metaphor, and you are trying to say that this metaphorical use of "wave" refers to a real wave.

ou seem to be missing the point, "wave" refers to an activity of particles, so it makes no sense to say there is no particles, only waves, because a wave is composed of particles, usually moving molecules. — Metaphysician Undercover

Better represented would be there measurement of a what appears to be a particle is a manifestation of the experiment. A wave in the ocean may strike a rock and one may only perceive the strike on the rock (the perturbation), but that specific observation is a reflection of what the observer was looking at at. Had the observer shifted his gaze, he would see the complete wave. No particles anywhere it is all waves. Particles are remnants of some (not all) ancient philosophies.

Notice the word "metaphor" here? Like I said, you are taking things which are wave-like, then trying to produce a definition of "wave" from these wave-like things. So you produce a definition of "wave" which doesn't require the wave to be a movement of particles. But this is nonsense because "wave" is used here as a metaphor, and you are trying to say that this metaphorical use of "wave" refers to a real wave. — Metaphysician Undercover

Actually the worst possible metaphor, which is entirely anachronistic is the one you are using, that is a billiard ball-like particle. No such animal anywhere in modern physics though apparently the idea still persists in academic philosophy.

At about 22 minutes if this video you can see a simulation of quantum fields - no particles anywhere.



I have no idea why you keep insisting on particles. Such a notion is antiquated though unfortunately it is still part of some science curriculums.

Better represented would be there measurement of a what appears to be a particle is a manifestation of the experiment. A wave in the ocean may strike a rock and one may only perceive the strike on the rock (the perturbation), but that specific observation is a reflection of what the observer was looking at at. Had the observer shifted his gaze, he would see the complete wave. No particles anywhere it is all waves. Particles are remnants of some (not all) ancient philosophies. — Rich

You don't believe that the water consists of molecules of H2O? And do you not believe that the wave is an activity of these molecules?

Actually the worst possible metaphor, which is entirely anachronistic is the one you are using, that is a billiard ball-like particle. No such animal anywhere in modern physics though apparently the idea still persists in academic philosophy. — Rich

No, I'm referring to molecules, and we all know that they are no billiard ball-like particles. Nevertheless they are particles. You are just creating a straw man position, claiming that when someone speaks of particles they mean billiard ball-like particles.

I have no idea why you keep insisting on particles. Such a notion is antiquated though unfortunately it is still part of some science curriculums. — Rich

I wouldn't say that it is antiquated. The idea of molecules has not been replaced by anything yet.

You don't believe that the water consists of molecules of H2O? And do you not believe that the wave is an activity of these molecules? — Metaphysician Undercover

The molecule is a formation of the wave. Here is a depiction.

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v458/n7241/fig_tab/458975a_F1.html



The complete model that you are referring to is gone. It has been replaced by waves everywhere.

Here is how one artist depicts the human energy field:

I checked the reference, the depiction is of the "electron density" of a particular molecule, not a depiction of the molecule itself. I don't think you know what you're talking about. The electrons account for an insignificantly tiny portion of the overall mass of the molecule.

I don't think you know what you are talking about. The image represents density! What the heck more do you need??? It is continuous and dispersed as a wave in a pond of water. Density is continuous and dispersed. It is not a particle. Yet, you still insist on the 17th century billiard ball model. Me thinks that there is an emotional connection here somewhere. Let's drop it. There is nothing left to be discussed. When you are prepared to change, change.

The image is of electron density. Do you not understand that the vast majority of the mass of a molecule is found in the protons and neutrons, not the electrons?

Look at it. There is no particle anywhere. That is the difference between a wave and a particle. This is your Bohr model. Note the difference. The quantum model is continuous. No particle. Continuity, no divisibility is the key issue. There is no separation whatsoever.

Please note the similarity between the quantum wave potential and the image of molecule density. A wave is a wave is a wave.

You can't afford to scoff if you mistake quantum field theory as talking about a literal field rather than a field of probabilities. Like a graph, it is a picture of the observable statistics. It is not a picture of "reality itself".

I figure you'd be back trying to save particles. All of materialism rests upon it. It must be saved at all costs, even if it means teaching 17th century physics in the classroom. Feel free to provide your images of the quantum world. Does it look something like billiard balls separated from each other by nothingness? Something like the Bohr atom?

Bohm's causal model says the probabilistic quantum potential field is very, very real, and propagates through distance and effects through form.

Look at it. There is no particle anywhere. — Rich

Looks like a molecule of water to me. How is that not a particle?

There is no separation whatsoever. — Rich

The separation is between one molecule and another, and it is this separation which allows a wave to propagate in water.

OK, now that we have obliterated separation between electrons, protons, neutrons in a single molecule, you want me to show you how separation is obliterated between molecules.

Ok, look at the molecule. That is how multiple molecules will look with differing amplitudes. BTW, non-locality and entanglement has been laboratory demonstrated at the molecular level.

For whatever reason you need to hold on the anachronistic particle view of the world, so hold on to it. When you are ready to change then change. My guess is that you have some matter-mind philosophy which is dependent upon particles.

As for me, I'm moving full steam ahead with very practical benefits. For one thing, I no longer have to deal with Zeno.

I figure you'd be back trying to save particles. — Rich

No. I'm just pointing out the beginner's mistake you are making about what a QFT picture of an atom or anything would represent. You are thinking of some actual substantial entity - like a wave. A scientist is thinking of the geometry of some collection of statistical predictions.

I agree MU makes the same mistake in complementary fashion. He thinks physicists really might believe fundamental particles to be dinky spherical objects.

You are both as wrong as each other in a perfectly complementary fashion.

Bohm's causal model says the probabilistic quantum potential field is very, very real, and propagates through distance and effects through form. — Rich

Sure. Bohm gave it a crack and fair enough. But it fell at the first hurdle. It couldn't be relativised (without making unrealistic presumptions about Born probabilities). And given Bell's inequalities, there is no hope of recovering any kind of conventional determinism anyway.

So these days to be a Bohmian is a pretty surefire way of telling the world you are a crank. Much like going on about Bergson. And if you bring in Sheldrake, it's a slam-dunk. Bring on the dancing Wu-Li masters.

OK, now that we have obliterated separation between electrons, protons, neutrons in a single molecule, you want me to show you how separation is obliterated between molecules.

Ok, look at the molecule. That is how multiple molecules will look with differing amplitudes. BTW, non-locality and entanglement has been laboratory demonstrated at the molecular level. — Rich

The point being that if there is no separation between molecules then a wave is impossible. Clearly the separation has not been obliterated or else waves would have been obliterated as well.

For whatever reason you need to hold on the anachronistic particle view of the world, so hold on to it. When you are ready to change then change. My guess is that you have some matter-mind philosophy which is dependent upon particles. — Rich

If we get rid of the particle view, waves become an impossibility, as a wave is an activity of the particles of a substance. If I did not support a particle view of the world, I could not believe in the existence of waves.

You seem to believe in some nonsense waves without particles.

point being that if there is no separation between molecules then a wave is impossible. Clearly the separation has not been obliterated or else waves would have been obliterated as well. — Metaphysician Undercover

No. It is a universal. It is the fabric. Imagine the ocean as the universe with waves and waves everywhere. First you must be able to imagine it. Right now, all you can imagine are billiard balls. There cannot be a discussion until you can imagine otherwise. I provided you b with the images, but you cannot universalize it. No matter how large, to wish to compartmentalize it, ultimately make the universe one large particle separated as such from what?

Your propensity for calling everyone and anyone who doesn't buy into your anachronistic materialistic philosophy a crackpot, including one if the great geniuses of modern physics, brings to mind a quote by Oscar Wide:

“The highest as the lowest form of criticism is a mode of autobiography.

How is that for some analytical psychology?

Now, can you talk to your neurons and tell them I'm not interested in anything they are forced to say? Really, I am not at all interested. Just make your comments to someone else who is awe of you.

including one if the great geniuses of modern physics — Rich

Sure, Bohm produced both good science and crackpot ideas. That is not unusual among mathematical/scientific geniuses. Newton was famous for his alchemy too. There are tons of such examples.

But that's OK because science is an institution designed to sort the wheat from the chaff like this. Bohm's good ideas are in the textbooks and did real things like help build nukes. His other suggestions quickly fizzled within science and now are only recycled - with little real understanding - among those who are fans of anything esoteric.

Bohm's pilot wave interpretation had scientific respectability for a while precisely because it was anachronistically materialistic. Like Einstein and many others - still in shock from what quantum mechanics had revealed - felt that science had got as far as it had by presuming reality to be local and deterministic. That metaphysics had really worked for 400 years. So why abandon it until you were really forced to. Bohmian mechanics was one attempt to not to have to change the deep metaphysics of physics. It was respectable on that score.

But it didn't pan out. Roll on 60 or 70 years it is broadly accepted that determinism and locality have to be junked as "images of reality". Or at least, the best they can hope for is that they are emergent features - how things look in the classical limit.

So to cling on to the past hope of yesterday's physicists is what counts as anachronistic materialism.

And mistaking the pictures of quantum field theory to be pictures of actual quantum fields, rather than field-like pictures of quantum statistics, doesn't make this less anachronistic. Whether it is classical particles or classical waves you have in mind, both are just as much old hat when it comes to what QFT is about.

Sure, Bohm produced both good science and crackpot ideas — apokrisis

I wish to remind you of Wilde's great insight into human nature. It is extremely insightful:

“The highest as the lowest form of criticism is a mode of autobiography."

Forget about philosophy. You need to ruminate on your autobiography.

No. It is a universal. It is the fabric. Imagine the ocean as the universe with waves and waves everywhere. First you must be able to imagine it. Right now, all you can imagine are billiard balls. — Rich

Unless you can explain to me how the waves in the ocean can exist other than as an activity of the water molecules, it is pointless for you to ask me to try to imagine such a thing.

There cannot be a discussion until you can imagine otherwise. — Rich

I am all ready to imagine this universe of waves, but you have to explain to me how these waves exist if not as particles moving. Otherwise I will just believe that you are making unsubstantiated claims.

I agree MU makes the same mistake in complementary fashion. He thinks physicists really might believe fundamental particles to be dinky spherical objects. — apokrisis

In case you haven't noticed, I'm talking about molecules not fundamental particles. How could I believe a molecule to be a spherical object when they are always depicted otherwise? As for fundamental particles, I don't think that physicists have any idea of what their physical form is. For all they know, they could be some form of wave interaction like Rich insists.

You need to ruminate on your autobiography. — Rich

I've made a sufficient number of points against your position. If you have no answers, we can all draw our own conclusion.

Unless you can explain to me how the waves in the ocean can exist other than as an activity of the water molecules, it is pointless for you to ask me to try to imagine such a thing. — Metaphysician Undercover

The molecules are waves. I already told you that non-local, quantum entanglement had been demonstrated at the molecular level. Try to imagine a continuous wave. This is the universe of the quantum potential field. Everything is created within this and if course since it is continuous everything is entangled, and since the potential acts by form, action at a distance is part of the description. Bell's Theorem is a direct experimental evidence of the Bohm quantum potential.

Sometimes it is helpful to ruminate over one's autobiography. It provides lots of insight into oneself.

Sometimes it is helpful to ruminate over one's autobiography. It provides lots of insight into oneself. — Rich

Well you had a good go at me. Now its your turn. If you want to advance your own position, let's hear how you would defend it against my specific criticisms.

https://www.nature.com/nphys/journal/v11/n3/full/nphys3233.html

"Assuming that a notion of objective reality exists, our results thus strengthen the view that the wavefunction should directly correspond to this reality."

https://arxiv.org/format/1412.6213

Yep I agree with the paper that reality really is probabilistic. So a picture of a wavefunction - in picturing a "field" of probabilities rather than an actual material field - is about that reality and not merely our usual observer uncertainty. But you have been arguing for an actual material field. And not just an ordinary one, but some holographic consciousness field that has the substantiality to record an interference pattern on it.

But you have been arguing for an actual material field. — apokrisis

I have not argued for materialism since grade school.

What we have is a quantum field which is embued with memory and consciousness. Everything is real. Everything is continuous. Everything is entangled. Everything is probabilistic with uncertain outcomes. In other words, the universe is exactly as we experience it.

What we have is a quantum field which is embued with memory and consciousness. — Rich

I'd love to see the Nature reference on that.

(But then Nature is part of the establishment conspiracy against morphic field research, blah, blah, blah, pass around the tinfoil hats.)

The boundary is a cloud. There is no hard boundary though there is a continuum of substantiality. Physicists have acknowledged this in their research of particles. In fact, everything seems to be connected, even non-locally. Daoists arrived at the same idea but observing the macro and how everything flows from one to the other. I flow directly into the rest of the universe. — Rich

You guys really know your philosophy, but I'd like to add to this boundary question the idea of 0.9 repeater. It goes on for infinity, but it never reaches 1. Surely 1 is a fuzzy boundary that is not crossed.

This topic has split into two different topics, both of which I find equally fascinating. The first is of motion and time and the second of the intrinsic inertial properties of an object.

The latter was my original intent.

If we start with the premise that you can type an energy field and direction into an object and have it spring into acceleration - is that a feasible premise irrespective of time?

The former is a lot more confusing for me. To be honest with you, I spent an hour reading through the wave particle debate, got about half way through it and understood about half of what you were saying. But, it's great reading and I'll go over it a few more times before I'm done. I might ask you some questions along the way if that's ok.