Are Particles Merely Waves in Disguise?

  • Thread starter Thread starter TheDonk
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Particle Wave
TheDonk
Messages
67
Reaction score
0
I'm sorry if this topic makes you cringe but I couldn't think of a good subject for what I want to ask/talk about.

First, are ALL particles thought to be waves and ALL waves thought to be particles? (don't say sound waves aren't particles because you know what kind of wave I mean :wink: )
I'm quite sure that this is true.

Secondly, are particles just an illusion? Where are particles needed in the explanation of anything fundamental? I'm sure you need them because people would realize pretty quick if you didn't, but I can't think of a reason. I say this because particles don't seem to have an absolute position. Are particles just waves that you look at from farther away in the way that Smilies look like circles even though they are made of square pixels and are just abstractions we invent? I'm quite sure I'm wrong but humor me and try to give simple reasons why.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
the reason for particles is because in the atomic/subatomic world, energy is quantized. As in, yes, while a smiley looks nice and smooth when you're looking far away (where you're sitting down) but look closer, it is made up of little indivisible bits of pixels.

So, in fact, particles are used as the quanta of each of the 4 forces we know of now. This is because these forces come in discrete packets. A suitable analogy would be a violin and a guitar. A guitar has frets while a violin doesn't, so, you can play notes which are minimum a semitone apart. Say, a F and an F#, you can't play any note in between them in a guitar, but a violin yes. (sorry if this is a little musical ...).

In the microscopic scale, energy don't come up smooth, thus particles are used as carrying each lump of energy. Yes, in a way, particles in the macroscopic scale behave like waves in the microscopic scale and vice versa.
 
So is the fact that we have always thought everything was made out of particles and that energy is quantized the only reasons that we still use particles in our fundamental description of the universe?
 
Last edited:
Thread 'Why is there such a difference between the total cross-section data? (simulation vs. experiment)'
Well, I'm simulating a neutron-proton scattering phase shift. The equation that I solve numerically is the Phase function method and is $$ \frac{d}{dr}[\delta_{i+1}] = \frac{2\mu}{\hbar^2}\frac{V(r)}{k^2}\sin(kr + \delta_i)$$ ##\delta_i## is the phase shift for triplet and singlet state, ##\mu## is the reduced mass for neutron-proton, ##k=\sqrt{2\mu E_{cm}/\hbar^2}## is the wave number and ##V(r)## is the potential of interaction like Yukawa, Wood-Saxon, Square well potential, etc. I first...
Toponium is a hadron which is the bound state of a valance top quark and a valance antitop quark. Oversimplified presentations often state that top quarks don't form hadrons, because they decay to bottom quarks extremely rapidly after they are created, leaving no time to form a hadron. And, the vast majority of the time, this is true. But, the lifetime of a top quark is only an average lifetime. Sometimes it decays faster and sometimes it decays slower. In the highly improbable case that...
I'm following this paper by Kitaev on SL(2,R) representations and I'm having a problem in the normalization of the continuous eigenfunctions (eqs. (67)-(70)), which satisfy \langle f_s | f_{s'} \rangle = \int_{0}^{1} \frac{2}{(1-u)^2} f_s(u)^* f_{s'}(u) \, du. \tag{67} The singular contribution of the integral arises at the endpoint u=1 of the integral, and in the limit u \to 1, the function f_s(u) takes on the form f_s(u) \approx a_s (1-u)^{1/2 + i s} + a_s^* (1-u)^{1/2 - i s}. \tag{70}...
Back
Top