Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

B Non dualistic particles

  1. Apr 10, 2016 #1
    Hello, could you please help me with this question?
    What particles do NOT have a dualistic character?
    Thank you for your answer.
     
  2. jcsd
  3. Apr 10, 2016 #2
    As in wave/particle dualistic nature (not in the classical sense, though)? I would think none.

    Micro, and in principle macro, systems are all quantum mechanical.
     
  4. Apr 10, 2016 #3
    Normally "dualistic" would refer to wave / particle duality but the question makes no sense since all particles are dual in that sense.

    Only way the question seems sensible, that I can see, is if "dualistic character" refers to antiparticles. Thus the electron has "dualistic character" because it has an antiparticle, the positron.

    In that case the elementary particles which are their own antiparticle are photon, Z boson, Higgs boson, and graviton if it exists. Also if Majorana was right, neutrinos.

    On the other hand, maybe these could be called dualistic, because they are their own antiparticle? If so all the other particles are the non-dualistic ones.
     
  5. Apr 11, 2016 #4

    vanhees71

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    2016 Award

    Since 1925 it's clear that there is no wave-particle duality. So the answer is: none! ;-)).
     
  6. Apr 11, 2016 #5
    What happened in 1925?
     
  7. Apr 11, 2016 #6

    vanhees71

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    2016 Award

    The modern form of quantum theory, still valid today, has been found by Heisenberg, Schrödinger, Dirac, and others!
     
  8. Apr 11, 2016 #7
    Thank you very much!
     
  9. Apr 11, 2016 #8
    Difraction is the bending of wave rays when they meet an obstacle to propagation .

    Suppose an wave propagating in a medium until it meet a slit in an opaque barrier.

    In June 2011 canadian scientist Aephraim Steinberg measured momentum and position of a photon, verifying that it comported itself as an wave even when passing by just on slit.

    In 1924, Louis DeBroglie made an important discovery. Considering Einstein's relation

    lambda = h/p ( is Plank's constant and p is momentum),

    he demonstraded that the relation faculted the determination of the wave length of any material object. For this equation he earned the Nobel prize in 1929. The hypothesis was confirmed in 1927 by Clinton Davisson and Lester Germer.

    Yet the habit of treating with corpuscles hinders until today that people understand that DeBroglie really has demonstrated particles inexistence. There is no duality, as generally affirmed, but only waves. A wave, as the photon, that manifests itself in a limited space, will seem to the observer a particle.

    In June 2011 the canadian scientist Aephraim Steinberg measured one photon both position and momentum, verifying that it behaves as an wave even when it traverses just one single slit (http://phys.org/news/2011-06-quantum-physics-photons-two-slit-interferometer.html).

    Without minimize the importance of Prof. Steinberg's brilliant experiment, we could say that some works are not rigorously necessary.

    Fernando Arthur Tollendal Pacheco – fernandoarthur@gmail.com
    Fernando Antônio Bezerra Tollendal Pacheco - ftollendal@gmail.com
    Brasilia (DF) - Brazil
     
  10. Apr 11, 2016 #9
    I was just wondering the other day whether it was theoretically possible to reconstruct from what direction light travels using its detected momentum. The article, however, doesn't mention the finding demonstrating anything about waves. I'm really interested in this. But when I clicked on the journal article, I can view only the abstract. Is there any way you can lend me your copy of the journal article to read if you have it?
     
  11. Apr 11, 2016 #10
    I'm lovin' it! Is this a modern interpretation or did DeBroglie consciously put forth the above?
     
  12. Apr 11, 2016 #11

    vanhees71

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    2016 Award

    I'd put it in a different way. There are neither classical particles nor classical fields but only quantum fields together with the Born rule intepreting quantum states in a probabilistic way. Only this description is free of inconsistencies.
     
  13. Apr 11, 2016 #12

    Nugatory

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    Definitely a modern interpretation... I wouldn't bet on de Broglie recognizing it himself.
     
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook

Have something to add?
Draft saved Draft deleted



Similar Discussions: Non dualistic particles
Loading...