Wave-particle duality

[Enthalpy]

I don't think he's a troll, I think he's absolutely right.

 

A quantum particle is not a wave or a classical particle.

When you do an experiment to detect wave-like behaviour, a quantum particle exhibits it.

When you do an experiment to detect particle-like behaviour it exhibits it also.

 

Is it a classical particle or a wave?

It could be a 'combination' of both... or neither !

No.

[MigL]

Yes !

 

Hah, if you don't need to provide proof neither do I.

But if you ever do decide to, start with the photoelectric effect and work your way up to the present.

[Enthalpy]

This is a newspaper-type approach of QM, which has a long history of making QM obscure. I won't participate.

[MigL]

I don't think of QM as obscure nor do I wish to make it so.

Classical particles and waves are in no way representative of Quantum Particles.

Except in some very specific circumstances.

Edited December 7, 2013 by MigL

[decraig]

Quantum mechanics makes no sense. This is obvious. So where does this lead?

 

I examine the particle interpretation.

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

 

Evolution of quantum states do not admit particles outside of the Bohmian mechanics interpretation where particles still require "pilot waves" to guide them. Pilot waves are a field. These waves disappear or no longer interact with matter. This is a lot of metaphysical baggage that strays far from "making sense" so I will no further consider the Bohmian interpretation.

 

The evidence for particle nature seems to be:

 

1) Charge is measured in discrete units.

2) Part of a particle is not measured in one place, and another part somewhere else.

3) Energy absorption is not spread all over, but localized. See the photoelectric effect.

 

There must be a few more I can't think of right away.

 

With the exception of the photoelectric effect, the way experimental physicists usually determine quantum effects is through measuring position.

 

A good example is the Stern-Gerlach experiment where the state of spin angular momentum of an atom is implied by measuring the location where energy is absorbed.

 

I don't see any of this as implying particle nature to matter, but rather the quantization of various physical quantities. But I could be very dim witted about this.

 

I'm fairly sure, for instance, that one wouldn't measure a spin flip in one place and an increase in energy in another, though I'm not aware of any experiments that demonstrate this. (Any reference, anyone?)

 

In fact, I'm not at all very sure what you-all mean by "particle" other than something that has spatially point-like existence having various physical quantities associated with this point.

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

How do you measure a particle? You hit it with another particle.

 

Consider an alternative: For various measurable quantities, interaction of one field with another obtains descrete measurments. But this is not quit enough consideration; we have to account for energy, spin, and charge all at once. This amounts to some sort of insistence that these quantities are intimately related for a particular field (particle) and inseperable. In effect, demanding inseparability echos the classifications of particle physicists.

 

 

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

The mystery for me is that measurements are descrete.

 

Secondly, why are these descretes lumped together one way or another, depending upon the species of particle involved, and nothing in between?; there is not a continuous spectrum of mass.

 

I think some of these answers might be deferred in demanding gauge invariance and extemal action.

 

 

 

referring to my potential dimwittedness, and more, did i miss something anywhere?

Edited December 8, 2013 by decraig