So it means that different entities with energy an momentum are being recorded: Why are they undefined "particles" and not localized waves?happyjack27 wrote: please don't insult me. i don't know all of the experiments. there are a lot. i do know that a photodetector behind a photomultiplier under very low light produces discrete "clicks" as it were.
Perturbation theory assumes waves; so how can it imply undefined "particles"?i also know they've experimentally measured the fine structure constant, i believe by the time it takes an electron to travel a certain distance across a voltage gradient? not sure of the setup there, but the implication is that perturbation theory is correct here, and perturbation theory implies particle-like interactions.
Two waves with opposite magnetic fields will obviously be able to share the same space, while two waves with parallel magnetic fields will repel: Where do undefined "particles" come into the picture?also they've verified the pauli exclusion principle and entanglement.
A theory which is built on subtracting infinity from infinity to get the electron's mass is obviously fudged to get the answer you want: This cannot be real physics.many things predicted by QED. in fact, EVERYTHING predicted by QED from my understanding.
This means that there is an entity with a center-of-mass; why call it "a particle" if you cannot define what a 'particle" isalso, oh, and here's a big one: the tracks in a bubble-chamber! in modern day we use solid-state analogs.
. So why is it "a particle". A localized wave with a center-of-mass will do the same.by their curvature you can tell their charge-to-mass ratio * velocity, via the lorentz force. what happens is as they pass by other particles they impart energy to them, and then it is that energy that you see... well i suppose you can read more about how the original versions worked
None of your examples cannot be explained by a wave which moves slower than the speed of light and thus has mass energy and a center-of-mass.so there are a few examples.
now the question is how do you construct a mathematical apparatus that correctly predicts all these outcomes, using as few assumptions as possible? obviously it's going to involve spatial fields w/moving singularities, because that's, well, what we're seeing. e.g. a photograph ("spatial field") w/a black line on it ("singularity"). and this line is a "track" through time, i.e. the "singularity" moves through time. so you see this is a very direct consequence. we're adding nothing here.
I am afraid you just want to use the term "particle" for behavior which can just as well be modeled in terms of a wave. Why make this distinction if you cannot even define what a "particle" is?
It removes metaphysics from the interpretation of physics. It removes the need for Bohr's nonsensical Principle of Complementarity; which is obviously physics nonsense: Can a particle, as you seem to know what is is, act like a wave? You seem to say no. But can a wave act like a particle as you think that a particle behaves: Yes it can and since we have the same entity acting in a way which you call "a particle" and acting as a wave by diffracting, then there is no reason to make a distinction between the two: Unless you have a specific definition for "a "particle" which mandates that a distinction must be made: But you have not yet given me such a definition. So there are no particles: Only waves!