The Universe as a Hologram

Originally posted by black beetle
This simply means that the particles are neither existent, nor not existent, nor both existent and non existent, nor neither
😵

No, Bose-Einstein and Fermi-Dirac statistics clearly imply the existence of particles. That is how quantum physics was founded - Planck assumed that light was only found in packets - particles - with a discrete amount of energy.

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
No, Bose-Einstein and Fermi-Dirac statistics clearly imply the existence of particles. That is how quantum physics was founded - Planck assumed that light was only found in packets - particles - with a discrete amount of energy.

Then, kindly please define what exactly the quantum particle is
😵

Originally posted by black beetle
Then, kindly please define what exactly the quantum particle is
😵

A quantum particle is defined by its wavefunction. In addition, you can assign composite wavefunctions to multiple particles. These composite wavefunctions obey a certain symmetrization requirement depending on whether the particles are bosons or femions. Each particle also carries a certain amount of spin, which is also quantized.

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
A quantum particle is defined by its wavefunction. In addition, you can assign composite wavefunctions to multiple particles. These composite wavefunctions obey a certain symmetrization requirement depending on whether the particles are bosons or femions. Each particle also carries a certain amount of spin, which is also quantized.

Yes, yes, I know we can calculate how exactly a quantum particle arrived at a certain point. However, I asked you to tell me what a particle is
😵

Originally posted by black beetle
Yes, yes, I know we can calculate how exactly a quantum particle arrived at a certain point. However, I asked you to tell me what a particle is
😵

It is a concept which you can describe using quantum physics.

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
It is a concept which you can describe using quantum physics.

What exact kind of concept is it? Has it mass, and thus physical existence, or not? The wavefunction is a mathematical formula we are using in order to predict the probabilities of finding particles at certain points. For one, the quantum particle is really somewhere but we cannot locate it. For two, the wavefunction must contain some kind of physical correspondence with the physical reality of the quantum realm, otherwise it cannot be considered effective.

On the other hand, if the quantum particle is indeed a concept (an idea, thus a mind-only element that lacks of matter), it is not at all a particle as it is understood in Caretsian-Newtonian physics, but something else. Once more, the tetrallema holds; and, once more, you failed to define what exactly a quantum particle is
😵

Originally posted by black beetle
What exact kind of concept is it? Has it mass, and thus physical existence, or not? The wavefunction is a mathematical formula we are using in order to predict the probabilities of finding particles at certain points. For one, the quantum particle is really somewhere but we cannot locate it. For two, the wavefunction must contain some kind of physical c ...[text shortened]... he tetrallema holds; and, once more, you failed to define what exactly a quantum particle is
😵

Mass is not required for physical existence. Neither is a specific location, although any particle will have a specific expectation value for the position operator. Why do you think these things are required for physical existence?

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
Mass is not required for physical existence. Neither is a specific location, although any particle will have a specific expectation value for the position operator. Why do you think these things are required for physical existence?

Well, I explained you in detail a specific thesis based on the Copenhagen Interpretation, whose main new approach is the concept of the quantum particle that is understood as a point-wave source.
Since energy and matter are analogous and matter can be expressed in terms of energy and vice-versa, the sole known mechanism by which energy can be transferred is the particles and the waves. Therefore, when we accept that the quantum particle has the dual nature “particle/ wave”, we in fact accept that the nature of the particle is in full accordance with the tetrallema I mentioned at my forth post of the fourth page of this thread. You see, since the properties of the classical particle are not identical to the properties of the quantum particle, the quantum particle cannot be seen as a classical particle although it is a particle; at the same time, the quantum particle behaves as a wave when it is not observed and as a particle when it is observed -whilst the wavefunction is not a physical entity itself but a formula that describes mathematically a physical entity. All in all, the tetrallema is used in order to describe a reality radically different than the reality we are experiencing every day in the physical world that surrounds us.

I don’t know how many times I will have to ask you to comment on the nature of the quantum particle as clearly as I did when I repeatedly offered you in detail my explanation regarding the tetrallema; and I cannot see what exactly you do not understand, and what exactly you believe that is not accurate regarding my 4th post at the 4th page of this thread
😵

Originally posted by black beetle
Well, I explained you in detail a specific thesis based on the Copenhagen Interpretation, whose main new approach is the concept of the quantum particle that is understood as a point-wave source.
Since energy and matter are analogous and matter can be expressed in terms of energy and vice-versa, the sole known mechanism by which energy can be transferr ...[text shortened]... xactly you believe that is not accurate regarding my 4th post at the 4th page of this thread
😵

Particles are neither pure waves nor pure point particles, however you can always write a wavefunction as a collection of waves or point particles (mathematically the approaches are equivalent though one may be more convenient than the other depending on the situation).

Classical mechanics is emergent from quantum mechanics under the assumption that you can replace observables by their expectation values; the validity of this assumption will then determine whether or not classical mechanics is accurate. In this sense the particle's position is thus simply the expectation value for the position operator, which in general does depend on time. So the realities are really not quite so radically different, and obviously they are describing the same thing (one simply doing it more accurately).

Particles are "real" in the sense that they are not divisible like a continuous variable; a single electron behaves very differently from two hypothetical (non-existent) particles with half the charge and spin.

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
Particles are neither pure waves nor pure point particles, however you can always write a wavefunction as a collection of waves or point particles (mathematically the approaches are equivalent though one may be more convenient than the other depending on the situation).

Classical mechanics is emergent from quantum mechanics under the assumption that ...[text shortened]... ery differently from two hypothetical (non-existent) particles with half the charge and spin.

Edit: “Particles are neither pure waves nor pure point particles”

If particles are neither waves nor particles, what are they?



Edit: “however you can always write a wavefunction as a collection of waves or point particles (mathematically the approaches are equivalent though one may be more convenient than the other depending on the situation).”

But the wavefunction is nothing but a mathematical description of potential existence! Since quantum physics attributes the fundamental description of unobserved reality to a mathematical realm of potential existence by means of the wavefunction, this formula by definition lacks of an 1:1 physical correspondence to the nature of the particle because for each possibility within the realm of potentiality it merely assigns a probability that it will be manifested when the system in question is measured. And, still, you have not state what is the specific nature of the quantum particle;



Edit: “Classical mechanics is emergent from quantum mechanics under the assumption that you can replace observables by their expectation values; the validity of this assumption will then determine whether or not classical mechanics is accurate. In this sense the particle's position is thus simply the expectation value for the position operator, which in general does depend on time.”

Still, the expectation value for the position operator is merely probabilistic and lacks of an 1:1 physical correspondence to the exact point location of the particle, which by the way is not a “pure point particle”;



Edit: “So the realities are really not quite so radically different, and obviously they are describing the same thing (one simply doing it more accurately).”

No. These two realities are as radically different as it gets due to the fact that the classical particle is fully defined and orthogonal, whilst the quantum particle and its nature are not defined by means that they would be acceptable in the classical realm;



Edit: “Particles are "real" in the sense that they are not divisible like a continuous variable; a single electron behaves very differently from two hypothetical (non-existent) particles with half the charge and spin.”

Particles being “real” in that sense means simply that the potentialities within the wavefunction are created by previous activations of the wavefunction into experienced probabilistic events, therefore the quantum particles retain their undetermined -as you said: “neither pure waves nor pure point particles”- nature. Still, we agree we can calculate how a particle arrived at a certain point -but we don’t have a clue about the nature of the particle
😵

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
Particles are neither pure waves nor pure point particles, however you can always write a wavefunction as a collection of waves or point particles (mathematically the approaches are equivalent though one may be more convenient than the other depending on the situation).

Classical mechanics is emergent from quantum mechanics under the assumption that ...[text shortened]... ery differently from two hypothetical (non-existent) particles with half the charge and spin.

Edit: “Classical mechanics is emergent from quantum mechanics under the assumption that you can replace observables by their expectation values; the validity of this assumption will then determine whether or not classical mechanics is accurate. In this sense the particle's position is thus simply the expectation value for the position operator, which in general does depend on time.”

Yes, however I was talking about the specific case of a trapped undisturbed quantum particle that lacks of a defined location; in this context, the probability to measure the particle at a certain location remains constant over time although it changes throughout space
😵

Originally posted by black beetle
Edit: “Classical mechanics is emergent from quantum mechanics under the assumption that you can replace observables by their expectation values; the validity of this assumption will then determine whether or not classical mechanics is accurate. In this sense the particle's position is thus simply the expectation value for the position operator, which in ...[text shortened]... ticle at a certain location remains constant over time although it changes throughout space
😵

Why is this specific case so important to you? It's an academic example that is of theoretical interest but is certainly not precise in a real world context especially if you are focusing on the time dependence of the probability density.

Originally posted by black beetle
Edit: “Particles are neither pure waves nor pure point particles”

If particles are neither waves nor particles, what are they?



Edit: “however you can always write a wavefunction as a collection of waves or point particles (mathematically the approaches are equivalent though one may be more convenient than the other depending on the situation). ...[text shortened]... cle arrived at a certain point -but we don’t have a clue about the nature of the particle
😵

If particles are neither waves nor particles, what are they?

Wavefunctions. Particles are particles, obviously, just not particles at a specific point in the classical context, but particles smeared around some point in space.

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
[b]If particles are neither waves nor particles, what are they?

Wavefunctions. Particles are particles, obviously, just not particles at a specific point in the classical context, but particles smeared around some point in space.[/b]

The wavefunctions themselves are nothing but a mathematical formulism, a description as "physical" as a noun or a verb. What exactly is "physical" regarding a noun?
😵

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
Why is this specific case so important to you? It's an academic example that is of theoretical interest but is certainly not precise in a real world context especially if you are focusing on the time dependence of the probability density.

It is important to me because this way I have not the slightest problem to visualize the quantum particle as a point-wave source. For the time being I have no better way to grasp the nature of the particle
😵