Possible explanation for the wave-particle duality ?

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the concept of wave-particle duality, exploring potential explanations for this phenomenon. Participants examine the implications of the uncertainty principle, probability fields, and the nature of wave functions, with references to the double-slit experiment and its interference patterns.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Debate/contested
  • Conceptual clarification

Main Points Raised

  • One participant proposes that the wave phenomenon is due to a probability field of a particle's possible paths rather than the particle itself interfering.
  • Another participant notes that wave functions are complex numbers, which complicates their interpretation as probability distributions.
  • A later reply questions whether the complexity of wave functions invalidates the initial explanation or simply makes it harder to validate.
  • One participant references established knowledge from the 1960s regarding interference, emphasizing that it is the probability amplitudes that interfere, not the particles themselves.
  • Another participant expresses uncertainty about the implications of their initial thought, comparing the perception of wave-particle duality to a blurred image viewed from a moving car.
  • There is a discussion about the relationship between wave-particle duality and other phenomena, such as the structure of electron shells.
  • Participants discuss the significance of wavelength in the context of the double-slit experiment and its effect on interference patterns.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express various viewpoints, with no consensus reached on the validity of the initial explanation or the implications of wave functions being complex. Multiple competing views remain regarding the nature of wave-particle duality and its interpretation.

Contextual Notes

Some participants reference established concepts in quantum mechanics, while others express uncertainty about their understanding of these concepts. The discussion includes assumptions about the nature of observation and its impact on the perception of particles and waves.

  • #91
probert84 said:
Because that would explain why energy is quantized.

Energy is not always quantized.

But aside from that your logic escapes me.

First, before going any further, exactly what do you think energy is and why is it conserved?

Modern physics knows the answer to that, and when you do you realize a statement like you made is nonsensical, but before going any further let's pin down what you think it is.

Thanks
Bill
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #92
Under which circumstance is it not quantized ?

My definition of energy would be something like this:

<<Personal speculation deleted>>
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #93
probert84 said:
Under which circumstance is it not quantized ?
Typically the energy of bound states are quantized, but the energy of free states are not quantized. So, for example, a hydrogen atom has a whole series of quantized energy levels, but once you add enough energy to separate the electron from the proton (ionization) the energy is no longer quantized.

probert84 said:
My definition of energy would be something like this:

<<Personal speculation deleted>>
With that, this thread is closed.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 36 ·
2
Replies
36
Views
8K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 58 ·
2
Replies
58
Views
6K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
5K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
1K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
4K
  • · Replies 22 ·
Replies
22
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K