Quantum Mechanics

Discussion concerning the first major re-evaluation of Dewey B. Larson's Reciprocal System of theory, updated to include counterspace (Etheric spaces), projective geometry, and the non-local aspects of time/space.
Gopi
Posts: 153
Joined: Wed Jan 05, 2005 1:58 am

QM Contd...

Post by Gopi »

Hi everyone,

Quote:
But I am coming to the conclusion that there is no "wave-particle" duality, at all, and that it is simply an artifact of our perception, and the instruments we use to augment our perception. (It will be a tough concept to explain.)
Just musing....

Is this in any way connected to merely taking different 'sections' so to speak,of the motion,so that according to the type of interaction 'section' we see the corresponding property of the motion?In the chapter on Light,there are concepts like 'metric linkages' and 'affine linkages'....maybe these are the 'sections'.Any other reference to get to understand it better?

Quote:
gopiv wrote:

What I meant to ask was,how is the charged electron detected by the photons,do the photons merely bounce back from the electron as is elaborated in the "Compton scattering"?

What speed range of photons are they using, visible/radio or X-ray/hard uV?
They use X-rays in almost all of the cases.

Cheers,

Gopi
User avatar
bperet
Posts: 1501
Joined: Thu Jul 22, 2004 1:43 am
Location: 7.5.3.84.70.24.606
Contact:

Re: QM Contd...

Post by bperet »

gopiv wrote:
Is this in any way connected to merely taking different 'sections' so to speak,of the motion,so that according to the type of interaction 'section' we see the corresponding property of the motion?In the chapter on Light,there are concepts like 'metric linkages' and 'affine linkages'....maybe these are the 'sections'.Any other reference to get to understand it better?
ONE of the things that is confusion about projective geometry (and there are a LOT of confusing things), is that the various "layers," projective, affine, metric and Euclidean, are nothing but "layers of assumptions" that we have applied for a specific viewpoint--the actual motions, themselves, are the same in all strata.

Thus, and "affine" linkage differs from a "metric" linkage not because the underlying motion is different, but because we have added the "metric" assumptions to the the "affine" layer, namely that of relative angle and distance.

The easiest way to understand this, is to examine the difference between metric and Euclidean geometries. There is only ONE difference--Euclidean geometry is "scale invariant", in other words, the "scale" of all measurements is fixed at unity (1). The metric layer is "scale variant", which means the scale is not the same for each object being viewed.

If you were to look out and view a city from a distance, your binocular vision would allow you to adjust what you are seeing to the Euclidean perspective, where everything is viewed with the same scale. The building you see miles away, that appears only centimeters tall, you know to be many meters high. And you know it is in the distance, because that is how you get the scale to Unity--you literally "slide it backwards", until the scale and distance are in the same, unit ratio, as everything else in view.

But, take a photograph of that city, and get out your measuring stick, and measure that same building. It will only BE centimeters high. If you were to find the same size building, closer, and measure it, it would be larger than the other one, on the photograph. The SCALE is different for each object in the photograph, DUE TO PERSPECTIVE. One of the dimensions, that of distance, is missing in the photograph, and thus you have no way, using only the photograph as reference, to determine how far the building is, in the distance, and therefore no way to "set" your scale back to Unity, as you can with binocular vision and Euclidean projection.

So when you consider the various "linkages", remember -- photographs of photographs. The "reality", as we understand it this far, is the underlying scalar motion. The first picture is "affine", the picture of that picture is "metric", the picture of that picture is "Euclidean." The 15 degrees of freedom is down to 6 when you reach the Euclidean picture, so a LOT of information has been lost.

gopiv wrote:
Quote:
gopiv wrote:

What I meant to ask was,how is the charged electron detected by the photons,do the photons merely bounce back from the electron as is elaborated in the "Compton scattering"?

What speed range of photons are they using, visible/radio or X-ray/hard uV?
They use X-rays in almost all of the cases.
X-rays, being HF photons, will not be absorbed by "matter", which goes to show that since they are being absorbed, the electron is actually a cosmic positron.
Every dogma has its day...
Post Reply