- #1
- 17
- 2
I did look it up , but couldn't find anything that explains this in a simple manner.
I did look it up , but couldn't find anything that explains this in a simple manner.
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.
If you want to read more, go search for Wave-Particle duality online.
I never said that wave-particle duality was "part of modern quantum physics". I said " If you want to read more, go search for Wave-Particle duality online.". ?Wave-particle duality is not part of modern quantum physics! Your whole post is very misleading.
I said " If you want to read more, go search for Wave-Particle duality online.". ?
Wave-particle duality is not part of modern quantum physics! Your whole post is very misleading.
Thanks , but what is p here?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##
Thanks , but what is p here?
trying to advice the OP to go read up of wave-particle duality is bad advice,
as it is likely to lead them down the path of believing that it is still a practical approach.
Dave
##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?
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.
So technically is an electron a particle?If you study QM, then the behaviour of a particle (an electron, say), is described by the quantum theory.
Why not?So technically is an electron a particle?
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?
I'm guessing, from a QM perspective, because a photon does not have a position operator.Why would a photon not be a particle either?