Lacking information of the general quantum physics explanation

[ribod]

hi!

Every time i stumble upon quantum physics I get to the same example, where the subatomic particles (photons i suppose) behave like particles in a particle experiment, and waves in a wave experiment. Then the conclusion is that the particle becomes what the observer measures.

I'm just thinking the particle could be something else than a wave or particle? and these experiments just show that the particles can behave like both a wave and particle... the question that remains now is the missing information that explains why the observer matters.

The information normally supplied follows the logics like: does an orange have weight or colour? So first we measure if it falls to the ground when we release it... ok it does, so in this example, because we observe it falling down, it behaves like it has gravity...then next experiment, we observe the light, and conclude it has colour, because we were observing the colour... Obviously the orange has gravity and colour all the time, but we were just overlooking it in the experiments.

Please explain this

 

[tiny-tim]

hi ribod!

… The information normally supplied follows the logics like: does an orange have weight or colour? So first we measure if it falls to the ground when we release it... ok it does, so in this example, because we observe it falling down, it behaves like it has gravity...then next experiment, we observe the light, and conclude it has colour, because we were observing the colour... Obviously the orange has gravity and colour all the time, but we were just overlooking it in the experiments.

but colour and weight are not contradictory …

particle and wave are

 

[ZapperZ]

hi!

Every time i stumble upon quantum physics I get to the same example, where the subatomic particles (photons i suppose) behave like particles in a particle experiment, and waves in a wave experiment. Then the conclusion is that the particle becomes what the observer measures.

I'm just thinking the particle could be something else than a wave or particle? and these experiments just show that the particles can behave like both a wave and particle... the question that remains now is the missing information that explains why the observer matters.

The information normally supplied follows the logics like: does an orange have weight or colour? So first we measure if it falls to the ground when we release it... ok it does, so in this example, because we observe it falling down, it behaves like it has gravity...then next experiment, we observe the light, and conclude it has colour, because we were observing the colour... Obviously the orange has gravity and colour all the time, but we were just overlooking it in the experiments.

Please explain this

Before you get bogged down with this "particle-wave duality" based on pop-science knowledge, you might want to start by reading our FAQ in the General Physics forum. It might surprise you.

Zz.

 

[ribod]

zz, I'm not sure if you wanted me to read about whether light is a wave or particle. i did it at least, and yes it's satisfying that there is such a non contradictory theory. however that is not what my question is about.

in pop science they usually keep bringing up the same examples, with lacking information, and that is why I'm looking for this information. my question is about why the observer matters in quantum physics.

even if a particle and wave are opposites, does it mean that the experiments of quantum physics that point to the photons being both particles and waves are opposites? do the experiments cancel each other out? or do the experiments only show us that particles and waves are not opposites, at least in the way we describe a particle and a wave in a photon?

the way i have understood it is that there are two experiments not contradicting each other that show different properties of the photon. apparently there is even a theory that describes the particle having these characteristics. now where does the observer come into the picture? if the photon has a definite theory, how does the observer matter?