Do Atoms Literally Behave as Waves?

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

Atoms and molecules exhibit dualistic behavior, acting as both particles and waves depending on the experimental context. Notably, the C60 molecule has been successfully demonstrated to show wave-like properties through double-slit experiments, confirming the wave-particle duality of quantum objects. The principle of complementarity, introduced by Niels Bohr, asserts that both descriptions are necessary to fully understand quantum phenomena. The discussion emphasizes that while atoms generally behave in a particle-like manner, their electronic properties are inherently wave-like, particularly in quantum mechanics.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of quantum mechanics principles, particularly wave-particle duality.
  • Familiarity with the double-slit experiment and its implications for quantum behavior.
  • Knowledge of the principle of complementarity as proposed by Niels Bohr.
  • Basic grasp of the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle and its relevance to quantum measurements.
NEXT STEPS
  • Explore the implications of wave-particle duality in quantum mechanics.
  • Study the double-slit experiment in detail, focusing on its historical significance and experimental setups.
  • Investigate the concept of complementarity and its applications in quantum theory.
  • Learn about Bose-Einstein condensates and their unique quantum properties.
USEFUL FOR

Students and professionals in physics, particularly those focusing on quantum mechanics, as well as educators seeking to clarify the complexities of wave-particle duality and its foundational experiments.

  • #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
4K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 38 ·
2
Replies
38
Views
6K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
3K