Do Atoms Literally Behave as Waves?

  • Context: Undergrad 
  • Thread starter Thread starter cj2222
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Atoms Waves
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the behavior of atoms and quantum objects, specifically whether they literally behave as waves or if this is merely a mathematical representation due to observational limitations. Participants explore the dual nature of quantum objects, including atoms and electrons, and the implications of this duality in various experimental contexts.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Debate/contested
  • Technical explanation

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants question whether the wave behavior of atoms is a literal characteristic or a mathematical necessity due to observational constraints.
  • Others propose that referring to 'quantum objects' avoids the binary classification of particles and waves, suggesting that atoms can exhibit both behaviors depending on the experimental setup.
  • It is noted that even large molecules, such as C60, display wave properties, with specific reference to their behavior in double-slit experiments.
  • One participant emphasizes that while quantum mechanics suggests everything has wave-like properties, atoms generally exhibit more particle-like behavior due to their relatively stable positions in space.
  • Another participant discusses the principle of complementarity, asserting that both wave and particle descriptions are necessary to fully understand quantum phenomena, particularly in experiments like the single-slit experiment with electrons.
  • There is mention of the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle, which complicates the predictability of individual particle behavior post-experiment.
  • Some participants express that the confusion arises from human cognitive limitations in conceptualizing quantum behavior, rather than the nature of quantum objects themselves.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on whether atoms literally behave as waves or particles, with no consensus reached. Some argue for the literal wave behavior, while others assert the particle nature, indicating a complex interplay between the two that depends on measurement context.

Contextual Notes

The discussion highlights the limitations of classical mechanics in interpreting quantum phenomena and the unresolved nature of how quantum objects can be simultaneously described as both waves and particles.

  • #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

Undergrad "Wave-particle duality" and double-slit experiment
  • · Replies 36 ·
2
Replies
36
Views
8K
Undergrad What do the wave functions of real particles look like?
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
2K
Undergrad Material Waves and Wave Functions
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K
Undergrad How does EM wave geometrical attenuation affect atomic absorption?
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
Undergrad About the position of electrons (uncertainty)
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
4K
High School Can someone please explain to me the motion of an electron?
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
3K
High School Frequency of an EM wave in Classical and Quantum Physics
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
Undergrad Do atoms recoil when emitting a photon?
  • · Replies 38 ·
2
Replies
38
Views
7K
High School How Are 2D Standing Waves Extended to 3D in Quantum Mechanics?
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
Undergrad General solution of the hydrogen atom Schrödinger equation
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
3K