Explaining Quantum Theory.

[swansont]

I think that all that you say is correct, except the last sentence, as quoted above.

 

I am probably in a silent science minority, as I have and hear this and similar statements said very often. I really wonder if most people are saying " the king has beautiful robes on " when he is naked , but because everybody else can see he has no clothes on but dare not disagree with the majority, they repeat " the king has beautiful clothes on ".

 

 

It's a valid criticism, because it's always a possibility that this is happening, but one needs to look at what evidence is available and what experiments you can do or have been done to exclude certain explanations. And the issue here is that when you send one particle at a time through the slits, you still get an interference pattern.

[derek w]

question?Is it a case that it's possible to design an experiment and make a wave look like a particle,but it's not possible to make a particle look like a wave?

Because the energy of a wave can collapse to a single point.

Edited February 6, 2013 by derek w

[imatfaal]

question?Is it a case that it's possible to design an experiment and make a wave look like a particle,but it's not possible to make a particle look like a wave?

Because the energy of a wave can collapse to a single point.

 

Well - you can show diffraction patterns with particles upto the size of buckyballs . These are most definitely particles (60 atoms of carbon) - yet they can be shown to behave like waves.

 

http://www.univie.ac.at/qfp/research/matterwave/c60/index.html

[Crimson Sunbird]

I have a relatively strong understanding of physics in other areas, but quantum physics still blows my mind.

Same here. I would recommend the book Quantum: A Guide for the Perplexed by Jim Al-Khalili; I’ve found it to be a most readable introduction to quantum physics.

[derek w]

Well - you can show diffraction patterns with particles upto the size of buckyballs . These are most definitely particles (60 atoms of carbon) - yet they can be shown to behave like waves.

 

http://www.univie.ac.at/qfp/research/matterwave/c60/index.html

But does this disprove my point,I can still argue that atoms are wave functions that look like particles.The electron in an atom is not a particle in orbit,and the nucleus could be confined waves,that look like a particle.

I can think of atoms as waves oscillating about a point of equilibrium.

I can argue that buckyballs can behave like waves,because their component parts are waves that look like particles.

Edited February 6, 2013 by derek w

[imatfaal]

Well if you are going to argue that all particles are in reality waves then there is no point in trying. I think - mostly from reading thread here - that the consensus is that wave nature and particle nature are both observable in quantum entities and trying to say that these entities are particles behaving as waves or waves that can manifest as particles is missing the point. They are quantum entities that behave and follow the rules of quantum mechanics - when you look for a particular nature you can find it, and when you seek wave-like characteristics you also find them.

[swansont]

question?Is it a case that it's possible to design an experiment and make a wave look like a particle,but it's not possible to make a particle look like a wave?

Because the energy of a wave can collapse to a single point.

 

Not classically.

[derek w]

Well if you are going to argue that all particles are in reality waves then there is no point in trying. I think - mostly from reading thread here - that the consensus is that wave nature and particle nature are both observable in quantum entities and trying to say that these entities are particles behaving as waves or waves that can manifest as particles is missing the point. They are quantum entities that behave and follow the rules of quantum mechanics - when you look for a particular nature you can find it, and when you seek wave-like characteristics you also find them.

True,Apart from going along with the consensus,that's not necessarily a good thing.