Atoms and particles have waves

[elas]

I believe I am correct in saying that atoms and particles have waves that can be both predicted and observed (if not please tell me) but, is there a mathematical explanation for the cause of these waves?

 

[Gonzolo]

Yes, particles have a wave nature, just like light and waves have a particle nature. It is more of a postulate in quantum mechanics. It's like saying the speed of light is c and constant in relativity. No real cause, it just "is" because that is what is observed experimentally.

 

[marlon]

The concept of waves in QM was introduced in order to explain mathematecally the behaviour of two elektronbeams passing through a wall with two openings. One calculates the probability to "see" a particle when one opening is closed. Let's say it is P_1. Then we do the same when the other opening is closed and we get probabilty P_2. The probabilty to see a particle when the two openings are open is NOT P_1 + P_2 as predicted by classical statistics. This probability is (a_1 + a_2)² when these a-numbers are the amplitude of a wave. Hence the wave-vision.

Keep in mind that fysics describes nature, it does not tell how nature has to work ! So these waves are introduced in order to match the experiments and nothing more !

regards
marlon

 

[elas]

On Theory Development PF I posted my concept of fundamental particle structure based on vacuum force. Trying to justifly my claim using radii did not succeed, but using electron orbitals produced an unexpected wave pattern. I can now develope this discovery with some hope of making progress.
Like all the nutcases on Theory Developement I am probably wrong, but keeping in touch with current teaching and standards (sanity?) helps to maintain a sensible course and for that I thank you both.

 

[so-crates]

I believe I am correct in saying that atoms and particles have waves that can be both predicted and observed (if not please tell me) but, is there a mathematical explanation for the cause of these waves?

"have waves" would not really be the right way to say it. As another poster above said, its better to say that atoms "have a wave nature". This means that if you perform an experiment like double slit diffraction, you will observe effects that can only be explained in terms of wave.

In theory, everything from molecules and proteins, to marbles and baseballs has a wave nature, but if you calculate the wavelength of large objects it is so small as to be undetectable.

 

[elas]

its better to say that atoms "have a wave nature".

I agree that this is a much better statement,and it is exactly what I hope to demomstrate next on Theory Development PF but that will take another week or so to do in outline and I am probably not sufficiently skilled to complete the work for atoms with more than three or four electrons; but, ever hopeful I have ordered a book from the library on atomic structure.

 

[Nenad]

the wavellength of anything is:
\lambda = \frac{h}{p}