Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

I Can particles exist without duality?

  1. Nov 18, 2016 #1
    Does Duality serve any other purpose than preventing investigators from fully understanding the framework of our reality?
     
    Last edited: Nov 18, 2016
  2. jcsd
  3. Nov 18, 2016 #2

    Simon Bridge

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper
    Gold Member
    2016 Award

    What do you mean by "duality" here (there is more than on kind), or "framework of reality"?
    Guess you could mean "wave particle duality", but there is no such thing outside secondary school, and pop sci tv shows (and sci fi).
    Used to be a thing, it was an attempt to help investigators understand part of the physical world, and it actually did help investigators get that better understanding... aaand science moved on.
    Still don't know what you mean by the other thing... and is the color of the text supposed to mean something?
     
  4. Nov 18, 2016 #3
    Yes, wave particle duality. I want to know if there is a natural reason for it to exist.

    The color thing is just an embarrassing mistake, I fixed it.

    framework = being able to understand quantum fully ..without mystery
     
  5. Nov 18, 2016 #4

    Simon Bridge

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper
    Gold Member
    2016 Award

    I just explained that "wave particle duality" does not exist... but maybe you are thinking of something else. What do you understand by this?

    In general the natural reason for physical models to exist is that Nature behaves that way.
    Unless you mean something else by "natural reason"... please be precise.
     
  6. Nov 18, 2016 #5
    It doesn't exist? Did I miss a memo somewhere? Doesn't the double slit experiment prove that it does?

    I'm asking to go deeper than "cause, that's just the way it is". Lots of things have a purpose, maybe this magical particle-wave has one other than driving scientist crazy for the last 100 years.
     
  7. Nov 18, 2016 #6
    Scientists make models which explain measurable things, then test them.
    How is this preventing investigation of reality, have you a better idea?
     
  8. Nov 18, 2016 #7
    They are not allowed to measure ..that's the problem.

    I have a theory, but I'm scolded on this site whenever I mention it.
     
  9. Nov 18, 2016 #8

    Simon Bridge

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper
    Gold Member
    2016 Award

    no it doesnt. the results are well understood using statistics.

    ... what do you mean by "purpose"? You keep using vague terms in non-standard contexts you can pseudoprove anything.

    nonsense... scientists are allowed to do any measurement they like... this is how scientific theories get support, or are disproved.

    ... get it peer reviewed and published first, and you wont get scolded.
    I suggest you learn how QM works first though.
     
  10. Nov 18, 2016 #9
    Statistics that help you sleep at night ..even though you know it doesn't explain the real question.

    purpose! Yes, like: "do I have a purpose in life?" I want some positive feadback on duality, cause the only thing I can think of is negative.

    Yes, they can do the measurement and then let the quantum scale laugh in their face

    Are you offering to review it? haha
     
    Last edited: Nov 18, 2016
  11. Nov 18, 2016 #10

    Nugatory

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    Apparently so - the notion of wave-particle duality was abandoned when the modern mathematical form of quantum mechanics was discovered in the 1920s. You won't find it in any textbook written in the past half-century or more, except perhaps as a historical footnote.
    No, as that experiment is also consistent with the modern formalism.

    The way to do that is to work your through a serious textbook and learn what quantum mechanics really is.
     
  12. Nov 18, 2016 #11

    Nugatory

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    As those thread is based on mistaken assumptions about what the theory is and says, we can close it.
     
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook