An electron is a posit?

This article concerns photons, rather than electrons, and makes the case that photons don't exist, but does say that electrons do.

Science: Do photons really exist? - 20 August 1994 - New Scientist

First of all, when you examine any light at all it is through absorbing it, and since you are observing the wave-packet itself, you need no medium.

It is a wave-packet, not a physical wave. Physical waves need a medium because they are the result of a disturbance of that medium. Unless you also want to make up another type of useless aether, the idea of a medium is not necessary.

But also the idea of a bubble is not necessary, the goal is not to state the "real" way things are but to find an accurate concept, accurate in its ability to explain phenomenons observed, but its use is not to tell you what is observed.

So if the concept of a wave serves best, then there is no need to replace it with a "bubble", and so far I have yet to see how your bubble analogy could come to terms with wave functions better than the idea of a wave.

That misses the point. "Directly" is just a word. Use it how you like. But that brain of yours is locked in the dark of your skull. Hows does an image of this cat get into your brain (and then into "consciousness")? Your eyes, of course, but these light waves hit your retina, which translates them into another kind of information which the brain puts back together.

What is the wave packet then? You seem to be kicking the can.

And your wave packet is nothing but a variable for word usage and implies only a hunch notion of behavior but it doesn't account for all the observed phenomena of electrons. There are problems that need to be addressed and that is all I've been doing since I mentioned it.

I am aware but altered frame of reference can shed insight into observed behavior and this is why it is used. A mental tool to help guide the math down a different line of thinking. It is asking the question, what if they were like this, what would be the observed behavior be? The math will point it out. The bubble theory does account for observed behavior.

Best for you maybe? The current understanding is not a complete model and it has problems that simple calling it a wave, does not answer.

A wave packet is a wave with finite boundaries. This is possible through the interference of multiple wave functions in series. So the idea of interference is more than just conjecture, it is a result of the math of adding and subtracting wave function series.

Tell me, how exactly does one do bubble math? I find nothing wrong with new ideas, but they need to be applicable, and from what I've read I haven't found anything that adds to quantum concepts, but I may just need you to elaborate on specific points where you feel it does.

There are other things to be considered. If undiscovered particles or force-carriers, whatever you want to call them, complete the model, or an understanding of other dimensions complete the model, then the idea of a wave could be spot on.

I know what wave packets are. You can't seriously think this is the question I was asking.




Too much to explain. I don't think you take me seriously anyways since you can't seem to understand a particular question I asked.



Yeah, and that still does not say what the wave is, or consists of. I am not in conflict with waves. I am not rejecting waves, and your focus seems to be that I am. I never was, I am still asking, what is a wave, but you seem to not understand the question.

so if you are asking me what is a wave, I can describe it to you in mathematical terms or through physical examples, but as far as what is a wave, I have no idea. If I ask you what is a bubble are we not in the same conundrum?

Not necessarily because the thought and implications is the leading purpose. That is all I was stating it for. I can do some assuming here to show you what I mean. When I said bubble, did you envision something that completely surrounds the nucleus of the atom? Like a ball with another ball inside it? If this was your impression, it is not what I was referring to. In fact it would be more like a doughnut instead. On top of that the bubble is not static in shape but instead it is isolating and twisting. It's position is in all points around the atom and has no fixed position. It doesn't even need to orbit or spin but it can if enough energy causes it to spin or move. So this electron doesn't even use energy at all like orbital theories neglect. If the electron is excited it can expand or contract depending on how many other electrons are present. The electron can even bump into itself from time to time causing it's motion to switch accordingly, which is something that particle wave theory has never accounted for. One of the hardest things is determining position however the easiest is energy. This bubble theory actually is supported by the difficulty in determining position and at the same time embraces the energy result the same way. There is no conflict at all. I could continue and go into the math but it's only going to end up an even longer explanation stating the same things I just have and only a few people here would even consider reading it.

What is the difference between your doughnut bubble and the idea of a valence shell?

Also, the idea of harmonics in waves is a good explanation for quantized electron orbits, because it limits the possible energies of the electron to ones that are harmonics of the first.

The uncertainty principle makes common sense, minus the h-bar/2. The faster you take a picture of something, the less blur you see on the film, but the surer you are of the position of that something and vice versa.

They are similar but for the most part the bubble deals only with the electron itself and not it's actual energy. Since you brought it up, I'll say one other problem is dealing with the valence shells with a particle theory. If you can envision the bubble not actually expanding but instead inverting itself in the Y direction, turning itself inside out, you can actually account for a change in position without a loss in energy to do so. You get a higher valence level without energy loss.

Not in conflict with an oscillating electron, it would actually carry the frequency until it either bumped or obtained or loss energy.

I'm not sure exactly how you want me to relate to the whole taking a picture because if light does not travel instantly then every photon will arrive at different times and in different amounts which would blur the picture. The faster you take the shot the fewer photons you allow in, making it less likely to blur.

What does the fact that your brain cannot directly sense the cat have to do with whether you can or cannot directly sense the cat?

The idea of a fixed particle may be wrong, but that would not be earth shattering to modern physicists.

Do you agree that our experience of reality is cooked up in the brain, from the raw input of the sense organs, memory, language, and so on?

Do you know about Kant? If you don't, I suggest a look.

I know that I could not experience the comfort of my chair if I did not have a brain, and I know that my brain cannot experience the comfort of my chair.

So what is the difference between "I" and one's "brain"?

We are no more our brain, than we are our heart. I hope you do not think you only identify with one particular organ. That would seem odd. If anything, I hope you identity with the phenomena we call consciousness.

So in this sense I see the brain as directly connected to the idea of "I". So to separate the two in any meaningful way seems odd to me. Not that I don't feel we are more complete with a body mind you.

If everything else was stripped away from a person and all that was left was their functioning brain would you not still have a person?

Sorry, I edited my post right as you responded. Again, we must make the distinction between the mind and the brain. Your brain is not experiencing anything. You are. Fast is correct.



But our brain is not our consciousness. That is why it is considered a phenomena - there somehow is an "I", a consciousness experiencing the world, independent, but involving, our sensory organs. Our functioning brain assists us in experiencing the world, much like a functioning ear or nose can, but any one particular organ is not what we would call consciousness. It is not what we call a person. And these organs are not the things which experience. Would you say that you are happy, or that your brain was happy?

A dog knows, through whatever passes for its own sort of common sense, that it cannot leap over a house in order to reach its master. It presumably knows this as the directly given meaning of houses and leaps - a meaning it experiences all the way down into its muscles and bones. As for you and me, we know, perhaps without ever having thought about it, that a person cannot be in two places at once. We know (to extract a few examples from the literature of cognitive science) that there is no football stadium on the train to Seattle, that giraffes do not wear hats and underwear, and that a book can aid us in propping up a slide projector when the image is too low, whereas a sirloin steak probably isn't appropriate.