Even Real Particles don't exist Aage Bohr

[rogerl]

Maybe not only virtual particles don't truly exist (as believed by many physicists now). Real particles don't exist as well. According to Aage Bohr, the son of Neils Bohr, particles don't really exist. Nothing moved through the space between the emitter and detector in the double slit experiment. Nothing moved through the space between the piece of changed uranium and the clicking Geiger counter. Clicks in counters are “genuinely fortuitous” events that are correlated with changes in a remote piece of uranium without the intermediary of alpha particles.


Aage Bohr wrote:

"The notion of particles as objects in space, taken over from classical physics, is thereby eliminated. . . . The click being genuinely fortuitous, is no longer produced by a particle entering the counter, as has been a foregone conclusion in quantum mechanics. . . .
The downward path from macroscopic events in spacetime, which in standard quantum mechanics continues into the region of particles, does not extend beyond the onset of clicks."


Can you guys prove subatomic particles really exist? We only detect them. We can't see them in flight. Maybe in between it's only in the math like virtual particles, and only in the detector the field properties transforms to "clicks" that we think are "particles". Isn't it that in QFT, the field is the primary thing. What do you say?

 

[Calrid]

I say a wave theory alone is not enough to explain all the behaviours of matter.

The two slit aptly shows that if measured a photon behaves like a particle and if not like a wave. It's kind of hard to get around this point with just a wave model.

By all means if you have a pure wave theory then I'd like to see it explain all the observable phenomena, otherwise its kind of pointless.

Any links?

Sub atomic particles exist, or there's something really weird going on in them bubble tanks.

 

[alxm]

Maybe not only virtual particles don't truly exist (as believed by many physicists now).

You seem to imply the opposite was true at some point?

According to Aage Bohr, the son of Neils Bohr

And grandson of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_Bohr" . But it doesn't matter who he's related to. What matters is that he's a notable, Nobel-laureate physicist in his own right.

Can you guys prove subatomic particles really exist? We only detect them. We can't see them in flight. Maybe in between it's only in the math like virtual particles, and only in the detector the field properties transforms to "clicks" that we think are "particles". Isn't it that in QFT, the field is the primary thing. What do you say?

I say that's an ontological question, not a physical one.

 

[ZapperZ]

Maybe not only virtual particles don't truly exist (as believed by many physicists now). Real particles don't exist as well. According to Aage Bohr, the son of Neils Bohr, particles don't really exist. Nothing moved through the space between the emitter and detector in the double slit experiment. Nothing moved through the space between the piece of changed uranium and the clicking Geiger counter. Clicks in counters are “genuinely fortuitous” events that are correlated with changes in a remote piece of uranium without the intermediary of alpha particles. Aage Bohr wrote:

"The notion of particles as objects in space, taken over from classical physics, is thereby eliminated. . . . The click being genuinely fortuitous, is no longer produced by a particle entering the counter, as has been a foregone conclusion in quantum mechanics. . . .
The downward path from macroscopic events in spacetime, which in standard quantum mechanics continues into the region of particles, does not extend beyond the onset of clicks." Can you guys prove subatomic particles really exist? We only detect them. We can't see them in flight. Maybe in between it's only in the math like virtual particles, and only in the detector the field properties transforms to "clicks" that we think are "particles". Isn't it that in QFT, the field is the primary thing. What do you say?

Please note that you must provide full citation of your sources when you wish to discuss something like this. Simply providing a "quote" is not sufficient.

Secondly, when you read something like this, in light of what is now conventionally accepted, shouldn't you demand "proof" from Aage Bohr instead? After all, the burden of proof usually comes when someone wants to formulate something new. If you read the actual paper that is similar to the quote that you lifted[1], you'll realize that there are OTHER issues that easily cause problems, such as the non-locality criteria of the formulation.

I would also look at a citation index and see if the publication actually has made an impact, and how "useful" it has become. A quick browse of such index reveals that it hasn't done much other than being cited predominantly in other Found. Phys. papers (you should also figure out the type of papers being published in that journal).

More than anything, it appears to be another "alternative" interpretation of what we are measuring. So then it comes down to the question that if the conventional method already works, and it has resulted in a lot of useful and usable applications, why would one abandon it for something else that is considerably more esoteric with a set of its own conceptual issues?

Zz.

[1] Ole Ulfbeck and Aage Bohr, Found. Phys. v.31, p.757 (2001)

 

[StevieTNZ]

I guess people, including Physicists, should be open to new ideas, rather than the standard explanation everyone else is thinking.

 

[khemist]

I guess people, including Physicists, should be open to new ideas, rather than the standard explanation everyone else is thinking.

Unless you are using math to describe what you talk about, its most likely already been thought of.

 

[Calrid]

Unless you are using math to describe what you talk about, its most likely already been thought of.

That is of course wrong and a somewhat arrogant notion, we have not conceived of everything in any science let alone physics, not even in particle physics. The very fact that you say maths means you think that maths is not a description of a physical model, so the statement is pretty much redundant as obviously at the detailed level we then can't of thought of everything. Even saying maths does not represent the wave is another way of describing something with maths, although undefined is rather irritating.

What if all the forces were mediated by something other than waves and particles though, would this be such a paradigm shifter that we could not explain it?

That's not meant to be an example of new thought by the way as technically I suppose strings does this. Even if it is just arm waving atm. If I'd of thought of something coherent I could build a model around I wouldn't post it here anyway.

 

[ZapperZ]

I guess people, including Physicists, should be open to new ideas, rather than the standard explanation everyone else is thinking.

This is a bit silly, because, by definition, scientists (including physicists) are hired to do new stuff and to find explanation for things that are unexplained! So they are required, by the nature of the profession, to think of new ideas!

It would be nice that, before you make such statement, you actually understands what you are trying to criticize, rather than basing it on ignorance.

Zz.

 

[Calrid]

This is a bit silly, because, by definition, scientists (including physicists) are hired to do new stuff and to find explanation for things that are unexplained! So they are required, by the nature of the profession, to think of new ideas!

It would be nice that, before you make such statement, you actually understands what you are trying to criticize, rather than basing it on ignorance.

Zz.

I love that, are you a Scientist because if you are I can understand you being rather upset about that.



It's kinda like an apprentice saying to a master brick layer that his technique is all wrong.

 

[jtbell]

More often it's like a random Joe Schmoe on the street watching a master bricklayer and telling him he's doing it all wrong.

 

[Calrid]

More often it's like a random Joe Schmoe on the street watching a master bricklayer and telling him he's doing it all wrong.

Indeed.

 

[khemist]

That is of course wrong and a somewhat arrogant notion, we have not conceived of everything in any science let alone physics, not even in particle physics. The very fact that you say maths means you think that maths is not a description of a physical model, so the statement is pretty much redundant as obviously at the detailed level we then can't of thought of everything. Even saying maths does not represent the wave is another way of describing something with maths, although undefined is rather irritating.

What if all the forces were mediated by something other than waves and particles though, would this be such a paradigm shifter that we could not explain it?

That's not meant to be an example of new thought by the way as technically I suppose strings does this. Even if it is just arm waving atm. If I'd of thought of something coherent I could build a model around I wouldn't post it here anyway.

I apologize but I cannot really understand what you are trying to say. Maybe you could elaborate?

I understand that math is not a requirement for a new theory or postulate (e.g. Einstein's thought experiments), but from what I have seen in the scientific world, specifically theoretical physics, a physical description of something without math is not proof (and you bring up string theory, which is a mathematical description but it still is NOT proof. We must verify through experiments). English (and other languages) are far more ambiguous than math is

Math is not a proof, but a proof is generally related to the math (or experiments to test particular mathematics)

 

[wawenspop]

particles do not leave a vapour trail showing their path traveled to the observation point. In fact, the delayed path experiments shows two different paths depending on how its observed. How could anything travel two different ways to the same point? Appears absurd.
And this supports the notion, mentioned above, that no physical particle actually travels through space from a to b. Something started and ended at destination but never 'moved' an inch.

 

[pallidin]

particles do not leave a vapour trail showing their path traveled to the observation point. In fact, the delayed path experiments shows two different paths depending on how its observed. How could anything travel two different ways to the same point? Appears absurd.
And this supports the notion, mentioned above, that no physical particle actually travels through space from a to b. Something started and ended at destination but never 'moved' an inch.

Uh... what?

 

[mbell]

It is commonly said that when an electron makes a quantum jump to a lower energy state it emits a photon. Such a photon will then travel at the speed of light, perhaps for billions of light years, where it may encounter an atom and be "absorbed" by another electron, raising it to a higher energy level.

Now, it is also said that when something moves at the speed of light, time is dilated to such an extent that time stops completely. So, imagining for a moment that a photon can have something like a perspective, from its point of view it is destroyed as soon as it is created.

How can a photon be said to exist in these circumstances? Is it not the case that all that can be said is that a pair of electrons exchanged energy?

Or is it the case that the photon can betray its existence in some way to a third party en route as part of this exchange?

And what about a photon that is emitted and never ever absorbed? Is it meaningful in any way to consider such a photon as having an existence? If so, how would you define such an existence?

 

[pallidin]

Now, it is also said that when something moves at the speed of light, time is dilated to such an extent that time stops completely. So, imagining for a moment that a photon can have something like a perspective, from its point of view it is destroyed as soon as it is created.

OK, look at what you just said.
That, obviously, can not be true else we would not see anything at all; in your scenario the photons are destroyed simultaneously with their creation.
Thus we could never see anything!

 

[wawenspop]

Well try this then, - in youngs slits expt a wave function is used to calculate the results correctly. But a wave function is neither particle nor wave and is not an observable UNTIL its actually observed at the screen. So no physical entity actually traveled to the screen. A wave function is not a physical entity that leaves a track travelled.

 

[mbell]

OK, look at what you just said.
That, obviously, can not be true else we would not see anything at all; in your scenario the photons are destroyed simultaneously with their creation.
Thus we could never see anything!

No, that is an invalid argument. You 'see' things courtesy of an electron state change somewhere in your retina. That state change arose as a consequence of a state change in some other electron. You haven't proven that a photon 'existed' for that to happen, and certainly not what 'exist' might mean.

 

[Drakkith]

A wave function is not a physical entity that leaves a track travelled.

To leave a track wouldn't something have to interact with whatever its leaving a track through? Seems to me that it could be something whether its interacting or not.

 

[Drakkith]

No, that is an invalid argument. You 'see' things courtesy of an electron state change somewhere in your retina. That state change arose as a consequence of a state change in some other electron. You haven't proven that a photon 'existed' for that to happen, and certainly not what 'exist' might mean.

So what caused the electron in your retina to change? How did the other electron accomplish this?

 

[mbell]

So what caused the electron in your retina to change? How did the other electron accomplish this?

I'm not sure that question is easily answered since, from what I've read, causality is not cut and dry in the quantum realm. However, physicists seem to have no problem with the notion that systems may be 'entangled', in which a change in one place makes a change in the other.

 

[Drakkith]

I'm not sure that question is easily answered since, from what I've read, causality is not cut and dry in the quantum realm. However, physicists seem to have no problem with the notion that systems may be 'entangled', in which a change in one place makes a change in the other.

Sure. But the electrons in your eye and the electrons in the light bulb are not entangled.

 

[Calrid]

I apologize but I cannot really understand what you are trying to say. Maybe you could elaborate?

I understand that math is not a requirement for a new theory or postulate (e.g. Einstein's thought experiments), but from what I have seen in the scientific world, specifically theoretical physics, a physical description of something without math is not proof (and you bring up string theory, which is a mathematical description but it still is NOT proof. We must verify through experiments). English (and other languages) are far more ambiguous than math is

Math is not a proof, but a proof is generally related to the math (or experiments to test particular mathematics)

Let me put it simply then we have not already imagined everything in either maths any branch of science or any combination there of, which physics theories always are these days, Bells aspect experiment is an experiment based on the application of quantum entanglement, it is both mathematically formalised and rigidly experimental. Virtually all science in physics has a mathematical basis especially now, so I dispute your assertion, it sounds arrogant.

If you mean thought experiments that bear no relation to actually experiment then maybe but even then I would contend this is by no means true. There are more unknowns in science than there are knowns about almost any subject.

I would go further and say physics is in a golden age of being both right and wrong.

 

[mbell]

Sure. But the electrons in your eye and the electrons in the light bulb are not entangled.

And your evidence for this is...

 

[Drakkith]

And your evidence for this is...

Look up entanglement. I'm pretty sure it's obvious.

 

[Calrid]

Look up entanglement. I'm pretty sure it's obvious.

No think he means that photons don't only become entangled in the lab or in a galaxy far far away.

I'd imagine the eye in some conditions can mirror the conditions of a lab experiment just as they can in a light bulb.

Ie you don't need a special set up to create entangled pairs, just the right conditions.

 

[Drakkith]

No think he means that photons don't only become entangled in the lab or in a galaxy far far away.

I'd imagine the eye in some conditions can mirror the conditions of a lab experiment just as they can in a light bulb.

Ie you don't need a special set up to create entangle pairs, just the right conditions.

Your eye isn't creating entangled particles. Nor are they entangled with all sorts of particles ranging from mm's to millions of light years in distance from your eye.
The argument that photons don't exist and the particles in your eye and whatever you are seeing seems pretty ridiculous to me.

 

[Calrid]

Your eye isn't creating entangled particles. Nor are they entangled with all sorts of particles ranging from mm's to millions of light years in distance from your eye.
The argument that photons don't exist and the particles in your eye and whatever you are seeing seems pretty ridiculous to me.

Er I don't understand why you are saying photons don't exist or why you think entanglement has to have a laser and a crystal to happen or some other special set up. Entanglement happens naturally all the time, it's just to measure it you need a really precise set up. This isn't a magical occurrence that only happens in labs. I think is what he was trying to infer. If not then apologies.

I'm pretty sure that's what he meant?

The simplest form of entanglement btw is two electrons occupying the same orbit, pair production is a natural consequence of quantum mechanics not a magical rare event. The fact it has only ever been measured in a lab style set up is not evidence that there are no black swans, quite the contrary such a deduction would make quantum mechanics wrong.

 

[Drakkith]

The simplest form of entanglement btw is two electrons occupying the same orbit, pair production is a natural consequence of quantum mechanics not a magical rare event. The fact it has only ever been measured in a lab style set up is not evidence that there are no black swans, quite the contrary such a deduction would make quantum mechanics wrong.

I am not saying photons don't exist. I'm arguing against the following statement.

No, that is an invalid argument. You 'see' things courtesy of an electron state change somewhere in your retina. That state change arose as a consequence of a state change in some other electron. You haven't proven that a photon 'existed' for that to happen, and certainly not what 'exist' might mean.

And to:

I'm not sure that question is easily answered since, from what I've read, causality is not cut and dry in the quantum realm. However, physicists seem to have no problem with the notion that systems may be 'entangled', in which a change in one place makes a change in the other.

And:

And your evidence for this is...

My evidence for this is the fact that entangled particles are created together. The electrons in your eye are not entangled with other electrons NOT in your eye. That isn't how entanglement works. The electrons in my eye were not created along with the other electrons that mbell is saying are entangled with them.

 

[ZapperZ]

Unless I misread something, I think both of you are really not completely disagreeing with each other, but rather are considering different things. Let's see if *I* can add some confusion to this! :)

If A scatters off B, then it is entirely plausible that, after the scattering, A and B may share an entangled property with each other (be it momentum, spin, etc..). Now, if A then scatters of C, then it is very likely that the property that A shared with B has been changed. So the degree of entanglement between A and B is now weaker, or has been destroyed. But now, A and C could be entangled via a property due to that scattering.

One can then imaging A scattering off D, and then E, and then F, ... etc. The more A scatters off other entities, the less and less it has information about it's first love, i.e. B. This is a naive view of "decoherence". Yet, every single time A scatters of an entity, it could easily form a new entangled quantity with its latest partner. So this is how one could say that entanglement is created "all the time", since such scattering events occurs almost continuously under normal situation. However, so do subsequent scatterings/interactions with numerous other entities. So the "entangled information" that each entity carries doesn't last very long, or can't be detected easily.

It is why clear signature of quantum entanglement can only be done with entities that does not interact that easily (photons in vacuum or in fiber optics), or only for very small distances (using atoms/etc.).

Zz.

 

[Drakkith]

Zapper I understand what you are saying and I agree. I'm just trying to figure out why mbell is telling me photons might not exist and the electrons in my eye might be entangled with the electrons in the light bulb. Doesn't make sense to me.

 

[wawenspop]

OK, look at what you just said.
That, obviously, can not be true else we would not see anything at all; in your scenario the photons are destroyed simultaneously with their creation.
Thus we could never see anything!

We just need the correct *sequence* to 'see' something.
Taking a Bohmian view of this, then the photon could already 'know' its next destination at its outset.
This breaks weak causality because it implies a signal backwards in time (FTL) from destination to source.
But in the example quoted, as far as the photon is concerned these events are simultaneous anyway, apart
from A happening sequentially before B (but at the same time).
We are allowed to break weak causality because no changes can take place in intervening space - there is no track.
So we cannot disturb a cause and effect chain and 'alter' history because our photon cannot 'do' anything on its so-called way. No laws of physics broken either.

I like this view because it relieves us the task of explaining decoherence of a massively spread out wavefunction simultaneously over its entire area. The photon 'knows' its destination at the outset. How could a spatially large spread wavefunction collapse over its entire surface area instantly? Much better if it needn't because it knows its exact destination at the start. Hence the Bohmian view might add useful mechanisms of explanation.

 

[Calrid]

Zapper I understand what you are saying and I agree. I'm just trying to figure out why mbell is telling me photons might not exist and the electrons in my eye might be entangled with the electrons in the light bulb. Doesn't make sense to me.

Well they might be what about this seems troubling?

Sight relies on something entering your eye that has been produced by a physical law. In this case it might be an entangled photon or it might not, but nothing precludes either.

Photons might not exist is not a scientific idea though, not sure why that appears in this thread except as an unprovable posit? They may or may not, experiment tells us that something like a particle but not a particle, exactly, does though.

Do particles exist is not something that aught to trouble a scientist too much, he doesn't even know what the duality concerns are precisely, any basis for this question relies on speculation beyond science as it stands.

I'm going to read more carefully in future, dag nab it!

Even real particles don't exist is just arm waving IMO, but then I don't have access to this paper so maybe he has proved this?

Demonstrates the problem of a posit outside of science that you can't even link. The only people who can discuss it are the people who can access the media. It becomes pointless. Sure those who can, can discuss it, but it makes for a piss poor thread I think if it's not open to debate by the many.

 

[Jamma]

This whole thread just turns out to be about semantics. People are arguing about whether something is real or not, but to be arguing about this you need some sort of definition of what counts as real.

There is no way that one could ever prove or disprove the existence of something in between detections- one model which explains existence where the particle "exists" between these two events and the same model where the particle only "exists" when it is detected are equally consistent, so neither theory is more or less "real" (haha!) than the other.

In other words, you may choose to say that your particle doesn't really exist in between these two states if you really want to, but I don't see what this achieves, especially since for it to have its future effect it must exist in some sense, even if it's not some place in space or time.

 

[Calrid]

This whole thread just turns out to be about semantics. People are arguing about whether something is real or not, but to be arguing about this you need some sort of definition of what counts as real.

There is no way that one could ever prove or disprove the existence of something in between detections- one model which explains existence where the particle "exists" between these two events and the same model where the particle only "exists" when it is detected are equally consistent, so neither theory is more or less "real" (haha!) than the other.

In other words, you may choose to say that your particle doesn't really exist in between these two states if you really want to, but I don't see what this achieves, especially since for it to have its future effect it must exist in some sense, even if it's not some place in space or time.

Quite my problem is not only can I not "see" the photon, but I cannot see why the photon does not exist.

Pictures or it didn't happen!

As threads go it's a non starter.

Very frustrating, but you are quite correct I suspect the paper is just semantic wibble. No offence to the person who wrote it.

I've always chosen to say that at some points the photon as an entity is undefined, I'd like to see anyone tell me why that is wrong. This is yet another philosophical interpretation issue it seems.