Is Wave Particle Duality Relevant to Everyday Objects Like Baseballs?

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the relevance of wave-particle duality to everyday objects, specifically baseballs. Participants explore the implications of wave-particle duality in quantum mechanics, its applicability to macroscopic objects, and the conceptual challenges it presents. The conversation touches on theoretical aspects, counterarguments, and interpretations of quantum mechanics.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Exploratory

Main Points Raised

  • One participant notes that every moving object, including a baseball, has wave properties, suggesting a wavelength derived from momentum, but questions the relevance of this wavelength for macroscopic objects.
  • Another participant disputes the concept of wave-particle duality, claiming it is not part of any accepted physical theory.
  • A request for a summary of current well-accepted theories and their counterarguments indicates a desire for clarity on the topic.
  • One participant argues that quantum entities are neither particles nor waves, emphasizing the confusion arising from classical comparisons and suggesting that the models are context-dependent.
  • Concerns are raised about discussing the wavelength of a baseball, with one participant labeling such discussions as "silly" due to the minuscule scale of the wavelength compared to detectable limits.
  • Another participant challenges the dismissal of discussing baseball wavelengths, arguing that it could be seen as anti-science to disregard concepts simply because they are difficult to measure.
  • A related question is posed about the existence of a minimum wavelength and its implications for the size of objects, suggesting a complexity in the relationship between size and wavelength.
  • One participant reiterates that wave-particle duality is primarily a pedagogical tool for explaining electromagnetic radiation, asserting that modern scientists do not switch between models for light as it has a unified description in quantum mechanics.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express a range of views on wave-particle duality, with some rejecting its validity and others defending its relevance in quantum mechanics. There is no consensus on the applicability of wave-particle duality to macroscopic objects like baseballs, and the discussion remains unresolved.

Contextual Notes

Participants highlight limitations in the discussion, including the challenges of reconciling classical and quantum descriptions, the scale of wavelengths compared to measurement capabilities, and the conceptual difficulties in understanding quantum entities.

ArielGenesis
Messages
238
Reaction score
0
I just learned formally about wave particle duality in the class today.

wave length = plank's constant/momentum

my teacher said that every moving object has a wave properties with wave length as described. So a baseball flying in a game would have a wave length of about 10^-30. Is it true and, does every wave also have an object in resembelence or only electromagnetic one.

Sorry for my poor english and thanks in advance.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Oh no, not this subject again. Asking such question in here will (probably) lead to a dispute from which no clear conclusion can be drawn.

Here i go: there's no such thing as "wave-particle duality". It isn't part of any formalism of any possible physical theory, at least accepted theories.


Daniel.
 
Well, then can someone at least summarze for me what is the current well accepted theory and their counter-argument.

Its like i had missed a whole lot of hot discussions since I left the forum about a year ago...
 
Here's my take. entities described by quantum mechanics are neither particles nor waves. There is no classical object to make a comparison with and this leads to a lot of confusion. The quantum objects can be labeled with things like momenta and wavelength, and one can go back and forth between the two via planks constant but reconciling an EM wave and a photon is still tough. Think of the two pictures (particle and wave) as separate models. In certain circumstances one is closer to reality than the other, but neither accurately describes reality. Its up to the scientist to choose which to use in specefic instances.

One "law" that you can keep in mind is that quantum objects travel as waves (or with the wave characteristics of a quantum object dominant) and interact as particles (or with the particle characteristics of a quantum object dominant)
 
The reason it is silly to talk about the wavelength of of a baseball is that (these clowns) assert that it is a trillion times smaller then minimum length that the (currently) most precise measurements can detect.
 
Crosson said:
The reason it is silly to talk about the wavelength of of a baseball is that (these clowns) assert that it is a trillion times smaller then minimum length that the (currently) most precise measurements can detect.
I really don't follow you.
So because we cannot detect it with our instruments it is silly to talk about it, and those who do ought to be called clowns? :confused:
That sounds like anti-science to me.
 
I have a similar question along this line. If I remember correctly there is a minimum size in the universe, which also leads to a minimum wave length. I remember it being derived from plank's constant. Anyways if there is a minimum wave length then this would seem to presume a maximum size or at least tend to say that not all objects have 1 wave length but instead be some sort of sum of the wavelengths of the system that makes the ball?
 
Allday said:
Here's my take. entities described by quantum mechanics are neither particles nor waves. There is no classical object to make a comparison with and this leads to a lot of confusion. The quantum objects can be labeled with things like momenta and wavelength, and one can go back and forth between the two via planks constant but reconciling an EM wave and a photon is still tough. Think of the two pictures (particle and wave) as separate models. In certain circumstances one is closer to reality than the other, but neither accurately describes reality. Its up to the scientist to choose which to use in specefic instances.

One "law" that you can keep in mind is that quantum objects travel as waves (or with the wave characteristics of a quantum object dominant) and interact as particles (or with the particle characteristics of a quantum object dominant)

Wave-particle duality is basically only used to explain electromagnetic radiation to laymen. Modern scientists do not shift back and forth between the models as light has one description within quantum mechanics.

The so called "law" you stated may be useful to laymen, but yet again, quantum physics does not separate light into several models depending on the situation to my knowledge.

The wavelength of a baseball is much too small compared to its size that it is silly to take it into account. For an electron, however, the size is much closer to its quantum mechanical wavelength and as a result, one needs to take it into account in areas such as why electrons does not crash into the nucleus of an atom.

I believe that both the wave-particle phenomena and why electrons does not crash into the nucleus is covered in a sticky in general physics.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 38 ·
2
Replies
38
Views
6K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 19 ·
Replies
19
Views
7K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
3K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
4K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
4K