I did look it up , but couldn't find anything that explains this in a simple manner.
Here's the problem. You are somehow stuck in your mind, that something that has been described as a "particle" must have a "mass".I did look it up , but couldn't find anything that explains this in a simple manner.
Just to add to the answers already given. The real issue is that math can not be translated in many aspects into the English language. The math is a language of its own that describes a photon. But trying to describe this using another “basis” - English..... it doesn’t translate.I did look it up , but couldn't find anything that explains this in a simple manner.
Well, it is actually pretty simple. By definition of mass (in units where c=1): ##m^2=E^2-p^2##. And for a photon ##E=p##. So by substitution ##m^2=p^2-p^2=0##I did look it up , but couldn't find anything that explains this in a simple manner.
And that is the problem part of your earlier post that @weirdoguy was pointing out when he said ……I said " If you want to read more, go search for Wave-Particle duality online.". ?
Agreed,iIt's not part of quantum or classical physicsWave-particle duality is not part of modern quantum physics! Your whole post is very misleading.
##p## is the momentum of a particle.Thanks , but what is p here?
##p## is momentum. So in units where c=1 mass is defined as ##m^2=E^2-p^2## meaning that the square of the mass is equal to the square of the energy minus the square of the momentum. This is the definition of mass.Thanks , but what is p here?
If you study QM, then the behaviour of a particle (an electron, say), is described by the quantum theory. This is a single theory, with one concept of an electron and one governing equation (Schroedinger equation).Why is it no longer a practical approach if you don’t mind me asking?
Why is it no longer a practical approach if you don’t mind me asking?
@MoreAndMore wave-particle dualism is part of the old quantum theory that died around 1924-26. It was replaced by modern quantum physics that 'starts' with nonrelativiatic quantum mechanics, Schreodinger equation, Dirac formalism, etc. Simply there is no place for it in that formalism.
Why not?So technically is an electron a particle?
The simplest possible answer is that the expectations that led you to your question are flawed. You may expect nonzero mass to be a property necessary for the existence of a particle, likewise for a nonzero size. When the word particle is used by a physicist it has a meaning that differs from other meanings. There are particles that appear to have zero mass and there are particles that appear to have zero size.I did look it up , but couldn't find anything that explains this in a simple manner.
MUCH better to say that an electron is a quantum object. "particle" has connotations of a classical particle (a little billiard ball) that are misleading to the beginner. Alternatively you could say it is a "quantum particle" but that's awkward and mildly incomplete. Quantum object is the true description.So technically is an electron a particle?