Do Atoms Literally Behave as Waves?

  • Thread starter Thread starter cj2222
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Atoms Waves
Click For Summary
Atoms exhibit both wave-like and particle-like behaviors, depending on the experimental context, as described by quantum mechanics. This duality is essential for understanding phenomena such as interference patterns observed in double-slit experiments, where even single particles like electrons can create patterns indicative of wave behavior. The principle of complementarity suggests that both descriptions are necessary for a complete understanding of quantum objects, which exist in a realm distinct from classical particles and waves. While atoms can often be treated as particles in chemical contexts, their wave properties become significant in specific experiments, revealing the limitations of classical mechanics. Ultimately, the behavior of quantum objects challenges traditional notions of particles and waves, necessitating a new framework for interpretation.
  • #31
It seems to me that you don't want to understand my arguments.

I do not care about your "wave", "oscillation", "particle", "jumping around" etc. These are just words sufficient to describe classical entities but insufficient for qm objects.

If you look at the formalism plus the experiments you will learn that you have to take into account "interference-like terms" of different states in a Hilbert spaces (or path integrals, if you like) in order to calculate (predict) the experimental result - even for single particle phenomena! And you will see that the formalism does not allow for an interpretation in purely classical terms, regardless if you call it "particle", "jumping", "oscillatory", "wave-like" or any thing else.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #32
tom.stoer said:
It seems to me that you don't want to understand my arguments.
If you set formalism above experiment and quantum weirdness is basic guideline for your thinking then it might be quite so.

tom.stoer said:
I do not care about your "wave", "oscillation", "particle", "jumping around" etc. These are just words sufficient to describe classical entities but insufficient for qm objects.

If you look at the formalism plus the experiments you will learn that you have to take into account "interference-like terms" of different states in a Hilbert spaces (or path integrals, if you like) in order to calculate (predict) the experimental result - even for single particle phenomena! And you will see that the formalism does not allow for an interpretation in purely classical terms, regardless if you call it "particle", "jumping", "oscillatory", "wave-like" or any thing else.
 
  • #33
zonde said:
If you set formalism above experiment and quantum weirdness is basic guideline for your thinking then it might be quite so.
I do not set formalism above experiment. I look at experimental results and at the (many many) attempts to explain them based on classical wording. As all these attempts failed so far, I accept that the formalism is sufficient to predict experimental results - being aware of the fact that it is notsufficient to provide an ontological explanation.

I do not know if such an ontological explanation will ever be available. But I am absolutely sure that we will not be able to find it using classical reasoning and wording and denying "quantum weirdness".
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 36 ·
2
Replies
36
Views
8K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
2K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
1K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
3K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 38 ·
2
Replies
38
Views
6K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
3K