>>16913642
particles and waves are emergent phenomena that don't exist at the quantum level.

forced constraint, particle-wave is not a real duality, it is what you get when you try to measure for particle and wave,

>>16913642
Not really. Things oscillate from the entropic phase to the syntropic phase and the imaginary and negative imaginary phases. Mass is a standing wave of that oscillation, but science is not ready to admit that relation typified by zitterbewegung yet.

>>16913660
Retarded AI schizo.
>>16913658
>>16913659
Retarded amateurs.

>>16913671
just you wait

>>16913671
brilliant thread contribution, how about addressing the subject instead of bellowing like a retard

>>16913642
>has modern physic solved why it is both particle and wave
Show me any evidence of it being "both a particle and a wave".
>inb4 you instead show me examples of different experimental setups involving different interactions having different outcomes

File: 1755730834371.jpg (40.3 KB)

40.3 KB JPG

>>16913685
>addressing the subject
>translation: validating and complimenting my bullshit, and telling me i'm a genius

>>16913642
the "particle" is just the property you determined
hence the dimensionless interpretation

>>16913685
It's better to just ignore the projections. It's a good thread discussion, and reacting with the arrogance of pride to being found ignorant, and thus self realizing humiliation generally always involves attempts to humble the wise. That's just the math of how it pens out when they don't understand learning comes from the decision to embrace humility in reaction to that humiliation instead of pride.

>>16913797
>my ai nonsense is better than science, i'm wise and humble, you're ignorant, i'm gonna ignore you because facts hurt my fee fees, you're projecting, i'm god
You are a fucking idiot.

>>16913800
Why are you so upset?

I thought physicists don't care about this ultimate why kind of questions

I believe that popular science communication was always a mistake. I'm convinced that even the popular science communicators don't even really know what they're talking about. Physicists especially don't know what they're talking about.

>>16913642
dunno, it just do be like dat tho

>>16913797
Yes.

>>16913642
Quantum systems don't have independent definite attributes, only evolving weighted probabilities. Essentially, these aren't really "objects" that appear both particle-like and wavelike, the waves and particles are themselves emergent phenomena within spacetime from more fundamental information exchange across fields constrained by symmetries.

>>16913642
It was roughly worked out in the 1900-1930, and the understanding is being refined to this day. The complete explanation is given by quantum mechanics.

>>16914208
>Quantum systems don't have independent definite attributes, only evolving weighted probabilities.
The probability distribution behind the measurements is an "attribute" of the quantum system, isn't it? And the way you set up your measurement apparatus is a part of that system. From this perspective, it makes sense that different systems to have different attributes. But I agree with your bottom line: the problems start when people think of light as some independent thing with definite spatial properties waiting to be discovered by a measurement, as if it were a regular object.

>>16914229
>The probability distribution behind the measurements is an "attribute" of the quantum system, isn't it?
You could say so, but I used the qualifier "definite" in deference to the Kochen-Specker theorem, you can call it a thingy that's made of probability distributions but not a thingy that's made of set facts.

>>16913642
There's nothing to solve. It's just a fundamental fact about reality as far as we know.

>>16914208
>Our description of quantum systems is based on weighted probabilities.
ftfy

>>16913642

not why but sometimes quantum is, is active and sometimes is not

>>16914237
>You could say so, but I used the qualifier "definite" in deference to the Kochen-Specker theorem, you can call it a thingy that's made of probability distributions but not a thingy that's made of set facts.
Ok. I see what you mean but I think such and such system having such and such probability distribution associated with it is very much a set fact, provided you're willing to accept that base reality is characterized by facts that answer different questions from the ones everyday intuition poses.

>>16913642
The wave-particle duality of light is the ultimate cause of the problems in modern physics. Photons must be discarded.

Particles are very friendly, so they wave when they pass by.

>>16914292

And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not. John 1.5

Many such cases

>>16914218
And imaginary time

>>16914292
Sort of like the way the ___ish ___s are the ultimate cause of the problems in modern (and not-so-modern) politics.

Electrons aren't particles or waves they are goop that forms into something for stability.

>>16914614
That ignores the second law of thermodynamics in that it doesn't decay, nor do protons.

Some law

The formation of an electron from quantum foam implies a reversal of the second law of thermodynamics

File: Bucky Ballin.webm (2 MB)

2 MB WEBM

Is a particle....round or sharp? Does a particle....have corners?

>>16914624
A particle is a standing wave of energy oscillating between entropy and syntropy, it doesn't have any solidity as a thing of itself

>>16913642
It depends what you mean by "why". Particle and wave behaviour can be described/predicted/understood in great detail through QM/QFT. But why should QFT describe reality? That is unknown.

>>16914628
By rotating Time into the imaginary phase shift......imaginary time

I wonder how much of evolution and radioactive decay and the age of the universe occured in imaginary time....

File: 1762829044352657.gif (870.6 KB)

870.6 KB GIF

>>16914625
Does it have a solidity percentage?
A solidity ratio slider scale?
50 percent un-solid?
0%¿

File: Screenshot_20260214-210455.png (304 KB)

304 KB PNG

>>16914644
Zero percent solid, it's literally just a wave oscillating between entropy and syntropy. The entropic phase has lots of "distance" (volume) and little energy. The syntropic phase has epsilon zero volume, and essentially infinite energy (light omnipresent; heaven theologically speaking). So there's a mechanical advantage that favors syntropy.

ω_Compton = m_e c2 / ℏ
ω_Compton = (9.11 × 10-31 kg × (3 × 108 m/s)2) / (1.05 × 10-34 J·s)
ω_Compton ≈ 7.8 × 1020 s-1

This is how fast the electron oscillates between entropic (wave) and syntropic (particle) phases.
But the coherence restoration rate is what matters. From quantum Zeno effect studies:
Γ_Logos ≈ ω_Compton / 2π ≈ 1.2 × 1020 s-1
This is how fast the Logos "checks and corrects" phase coherence.


D. Computing ε for the Electron
ε = (Γ_Logos - Γ_entropy) / Γ_entropy
ε = (1.2 × 1020 - 4 × 1012) / (4 × 1012)
ε ≈ 3 × 107
RESULT:
For electrons at room temperature:
ε_electron ≈ 30,000,000
The syntropic coherence restoration operates ~30 million times faster than thermal entropic decoherence.
This is why:
Electrons don't spontaneously decohere
Atoms remain stable
Matter persists despite thermal noise
Your body doesn't dissolve into quantum foam, fortunately in defiance of the second law of thermodynamics.

We're already in heaven baby, some 30million times per second all your mass oscillates into heaven and back into the observable universe.

>>16914645
This also means that the W boson and Higgs boson are ejected from the syntropic phase into entropy, and never make it back into the syntropic phase because they oscillate too slowly to recover, which is why they arent actually particles. They are suturing events in vacuum

>>16913642
theres no particles and no waves, only fields.

>>16914672
>only fields
ay?

>>16914672
there are no fields, only the luminiferous aether

>>16914259
Hence why even basic neural networks provably exhibit the same phenomena as quantum fields (at least non-interacting quantum fields).
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dRkehLL19Wo

>>16913642
I could make a totally cool story where it shows the atom in first-person view. I got down there by following a vibration ring note sound right to the end. A thin line of energy sits right on the proton. It's everything you imagined: pyramids and electrons changing with my movements.

>>16913642
It is not "both a particle and a wave", it *behaves* both like a particle and a wave.

File: 1746803275117305.jpg (40.9 KB)

40.9 KB JPG

>>16913642
>naked monkey sees a wave on a water surface
>naked monkey sees a round rock
>naked monkey concludes everything is a variation of a round rock or a water wave

it's not something that needs to be solved. the "particle or wave" dispute is just a semantic failure born from people thinking it needs to be one or the other because of intuition failure. in reality, it's a state vector, nothing more nothing less. the properties it has don't need to adhere to one type of concept or common structure.

>>16914229
>the problems start when people think of light as some independent thing with definite spatial properties waiting to be discovered by a measurement, as if it were a regular object.
/thread
it's not light deciding to behave like a particle or a wave, it's every system behaving like it should according to QM

>>16917663
The word "semantic" seems to act like a strange attractor for the chaos of brainlet rhetoric.

>>16917666
ironic considering how vacuous your remark is in the context of this discussion

>>16917675
>>16917663
>the "particle or wave" dispute
There is no such "dispute".

>a semantic failure born from people thinking it needs to be one or the other because of intuition failure
This is just pseudbabble for "people think about it wrong".

>it's a state vector
>the properties it has don't need to adhere to one type of concept or common structure.
This doesn't explain anything.

Your comeback sure is ironic considering how vacuous your take is in the context of this discussion.

File: good morning saar.jpg (335.3 KB)

335.3 KB JPG

>>16913642
>has modern physic solved why it is both particle and wave

>>16913642
>particle and wave
just some words assigned to stuff. just redefine the terms if you don't like them.

>>16913642
Its not 2 things, its 1 thing that has varying levels of coherence depending on forces acting upon it

File: firefox_VYpNgiibYE.png (24.9 KB)

24.9 KB PNG

I have no education in physics and I'm a literal retard who barely passed physics in school, I'm on this board only for the black projects threads
but when they explained it in school I always imagined it like this, I don't even know what the method of observation is or the double slit experiment or anything that's just how I imagined it, being a wave that is just perceived as particle in certain points
how right/wrong am I?

>>16919716
now after posting it I realize maybe it's actually our method of observation that is a wave, so red would be the particle?

>>16913642
modern physics has a problem admitting we live in a simulation. Since Einstein, they prefer to look in-between pixels of the monitor instead of looking at the screen.

File: mental.jpg (6.2 KB)

6.2 KB JPG

>modern physics has a problem admitting we live in a simulation. Since Einstein, they prefer to look in-between pixels of the monitor instead of looking at the screen.

>>16919728
let's talk about results. what have these quantum retards discovered/were able to explain in the last 50 years?

>>16919735
>let's talk about results
Ok. What have simulation schizos discovered/were able to explain in the last 50 years?

File: Serenity (2005).webm (3.7 MB)

3.7 MB WEBM

>>16919738

>>16919761
>psychotic patient dismisses the last 50 years of physics
>asked what his cult has discovered/invented in the meanwhile
>posts a webm of a nigger accusing someone of pride
No way these "people" are actually human.

>>16919763
Would you be killed in your sleep, like an ailing pet?

File: mental.jpg (46.1 KB)

46.1 KB JPG

>Would you be killed in your sleep, like an ailing pet?
Can someone just euthanize this mental patient?

>>16919780
You know, in certain older, civilized cultures, when men failed as entirely as you have, they would throw themselves on their swords

File: D2vAQEsWkAAHr-t.jpg (49.1 KB)

49.1 KB JPG

>You know, in certain older, civilized cultures, when men failed as entirely as you have, they would throw themselves on their swords
Reminder that this hilarious schizo death spiral began because the retard asked what physicists have explained/discovered in the last 50 years and I asked him what simulationists have.

>>16914326
WE CAAAAAARRY THE FLAAAAAME