Are all comprised of waves?

[Quantum321]

The micro-universe is comprised only of waves of energy...different frequencies...and charges...please contribute to this thread...

I can find nothing else that contributes to out understanding of the atom...

[Klaynos]

Qm waves have energy, they are not energy. Energy is a property not a thing.

 

A qm wave/particle isn't a wave or a particle but something else that exhibits properties of both. There is no good analogy for this so we are forced into calling them waves and or particles due to our limited experiences in the macro world.

[Strange]

I can find nothing else that contributes to out understanding of the atom...

 

 

Have you taken into account electric charge, spin, the weak interaction, the strong nuclear force, color charge, and various other quantum states?

 

If everything were just "waves of energy" how would that account for covalent bonding, beta decay, nuclear fission, etc?

[Sriman Dutta]

But, we can't disagree that most energy transfer takes place through waves.

[swansont]

But, we can't disagree that most energy transfer takes place through waves.

 

 

I can.

 

Waves are an apt description at the quantum level, but the energy involved is relatively small. If I drop a 100 kg boulder just 1 m, I am transferring 1 kJ of energy when it hits the ground, which is more than 6 x 10^21 eV. Ten times more than that for an elevator to take me up a few floors.

 

Even at the quantum level, interactions are often localized, and you are looking at the particle-like behavior.

 

The bottom line it's an artificial distinction meant to make learning QM a little easier. Klaynos correctly points this out — we use the descriptions because of what we have familiarity with.

[MigL]

If we perform an experiment ( observation ) on a quantum particle to detect waves that IS what we detect.

If we do an experiment on a quantum particle to detect particles that IS what we detect.

But a quantum particle is both ( or neither ) as it is essentially a probability distribution.

 

The particle or wave treatment are just models that are applied ( quite successfully ) for different circumstances.

[Quantum321]

Very interesting comments. Strange you are just to damn smart. A compliment...but you need more imagination..M theory..strings vibrate different frequencies......I know all waves possess momentum..Momentum carries energy. Waves can be electromagnetic or gluons. Are there other types of waves.

 

Here is what I am thinking...the universe is not complicated. Back to basics. We can't know how it all began. All what we can do is explain what we know now. Since the LHC has not detected any particles smaller than quarks....can we assume quarks are the smallest particle?

Edited January 7, 2017 by Quantum321

[swansont]

Very interesting comments. Strange you are just to damn smart. A compliment...but you need more imagination..M theory..strings vibrate different frequencies......I know all waves possess momentum..Momentum carries energy. Waves can be electromagnetic or gluons. Are there other types of waves.

 

Here is what I am thinking...the universe is not complicated. Back to basics. We can't know how it all began. All what we can do is explain what we know now. Since the LHC has not detected any particles smaller than quarks....can we assume quarks are the smallest particle?

Are electrons bigger or smaller than quarks? What about neutrinos? What do you think bigger or smaller means in this context?

[Strange]

All what we can do is explain what we know now.

 

 

And that is what physics attempts to do. You can come up with simplistic "explanations" (like, "its all just waves") but that means ignoring most of what we know. In order to explain the interactions of electrons, photons, quarks and the various other leptons, fermions, bosons, etc. you need the full complexity of modern quantum theory.

 

And although much of quantum mechanics can be described in terms of waves, that is not the only method that works. There is an entirely equivalent system called Matrix Mechanics (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matrix_mechanics).

 

So I think it could easily be argued that reality does not consist of waves at all. That is just a convenient mathematical trick we use to describe it.

[madmac]

Quantum321.

Being an aetherist i should believe in waves, but i don't. I believe in particles, eg free photons (whatever they are), & larger particles (confined photons).

Waves make good models (math) & that's ok. But i believe that wavelike effects are due to spin (all sub-atomic particles spin).

Einsteinians don't believe in aether, yet they (mostly) believe that waves are real (not just good for models).

 

Its funny, real waves need something to wave, & i believe in that something, yet i don't believe that waves are real --- but Einsteinians don't believe in that something yet believe that waves are real. It should be the other way around, go figure.

[Bender]

Quantum321.

Being an aetherist i should believe in waves, but i don't. I believe in particles, eg free photons (whatever they are), & larger particles (confined photons).

Waves make good models (math) & that's ok. But i believe that wavelike effects are due to spin (all sub-atomic particles spin).

Einsteinians don't believe in aether, yet they (mostly) believe that waves are real (not just good for models).

 

Its funny, real waves need something to wave, & i believe in that something, yet i don't believe that waves are real --- but Einsteinians don't believe in that something yet believe that waves are real. It should be the other way around, go figure.

Science isn't about believing is stuff and natural phenomena don't care whether anyone believes in them. Feel free to believe in whatever you want, but I hope you are aware of the fact that the aether was never found. You definitely are not obliged to believe in waves or anything else if you don't want to.

 

Also, even google doesn't know the word "aetherist" and "Einsteinians" is apparently a word in Catalan.

Edited January 30, 2017 by Bender

[geordief]

Are electrons bigger or smaller than quarks? What about neutrinos? What do you think bigger or smaller means in this context?

Is size relative in a similar way to simultaneity? Can you only say one particle is bigger than another based on a hierarchy of causation?

 

Do the particles have to interact before any judgement as to comparative sizes can be made?

[swansont]

Is size relative in a similar way to simultaneity? Can you only say one particle is bigger than another based on a hierarchy of causation?

 

Do the particles have to interact before any judgement as to comparative sizes can be made?

Size is a relative measurement. I don't know what a "hierarchy of causation" is.

 

If a particle doesn't interact, how do you measure its size?

[geordief]

(1) Size is a relative measurement. I don't know what a "hierarchy of causation" is.

 

(2) If a particle doesn't interact, how do you measure its size?

1) My idea was that a particle that was caused by some interaction would by definition be smaller than the "mother" particle and really that would be all that could be said in absolute terms(as to whether one particle was larger than another)

 

2) True

Edited January 30, 2017 by geordief

[Bender]

Isn't usually assumed quarks and electrons have no size? Also, is the "size" of a quark relevant if quarks cannot exist alone, due to colour restrictions?

[madmac]

Bender.

Einsteinian is in my Shorter Oxford.

Aetherist i found on page 2 of a google search, it was on page 60 of Newton & The Theory of Matter (1967) by Hall & Hall. It said that Newton was an aetherist at heart.

Re M&M (& Miller) u might have a look at analyses by Hicks & by Cahill.

 

Do u believe in particles or waves or both???

Edited January 31, 2017 by madmac

[swansont]

Isn't usually assumed quarks and electrons have no size?

That was underlying my question about the assertion that "the LHC has not detected any particles smaller than quarks". I mean, how can you, if it's a point particle?

[Quantum321]

It has been my understanding that the prominent force with protons etc. are static charges not waves as such.

[Bender]

Bender.

Einsteinian is in my Shorter Oxford.

Aetherist i found on page 2 of a google search, it was on page 60 of Newton & The Theory of Matter (1967) by Hall & Hall. It said that Newton was an aetherist at heart.

Re M&M (& Miller) u might have a look at analyses by Hicks & by Cahill.

 

Do u believe in particles or waves or both???

Neither. Both are models that have their merit in specific situations.

 

I doubt Newton would have been an aetherist when confronted with the experimental results and theoretical insights we have today.

That was underlying my question about the assertion that "the LHC has not detected any particles smaller than quarks". I mean, how can you, if it's a point particle?

I like your questioning style, but I thought it was useful to point it out more explicitly (and I wasn't entirely sure myself)

[madmac]

Bender.

Yes in reality (pun intended) all we ever have is models.

 

But i have one model, & it has particles. In it, wave-like behaviour is created by particles.

Conversely i suppose that one can have one model, having only waves, & in it the waves create particle-like behaviour.

 

And i suppose that one can have two separate models to use as needed, perhaps with no theory explaining any possible link. In fact here one could claim both as being reality, without perhaps breaking any law of common-sense (not being sarcastic here).

 

Any reality re a part of physics (particles, waves) is eventually & inevitably found to be unreal, & ideally is replaced by a better model (that is usually optimistically called reality)(we never learn), sometimes only after a costly & bitter war (dominated by propaganda & misinformation & censorship & Nobel Prizes) which eventually ends after one side (the aged side) is weakened by funerals.

Edited February 1, 2017 by madmac

[Bender]

Hence why QFT talks about "quantised field excitations" which show both wave-like and particle-like behaviour.

 

As far as I understand it (which is admittedly not very much), e.g. an electron or a photon are wavelike excitations in respectively the electron-field and the electromagnetic field. Because these fields are quantised, they cannot transfer part of the energy, but have to expend all of it at one interaction, which makes it appear as a particle.

 

It is still a model, as is everything in physics, but it shows that there are more possibilities than "waves with particle-like properties" or "particles with wave-like properties".

 

That's what I got from this paper another member posted here not too long ago. A lot of it went over my head, but overall I thought it made sense.

[swansont]

Bender.

Yes in reality (pun intended) all we ever have is models.

 

But i have one model, & it has particles. In it, wave-like behaviour is created by particles.

Conversely i suppose that one can have one model, having only waves, & in it the waves create particle-like behaviour.

 

 

 

What we actually have is that in QM, what one means by a particle is not what one means in classical physics. If you stick to strictly classical notions you are not going to get the full/correct picture in QM.