Reinterpreting Wave-Particle Duality: A New Perspective on Electrons and Protons

member 11137
I don't know where I can post my question that will certainly appear to be a kind of heresy or the proof of my naivity. We all have learned the duality between wave and associated particle (or the way around). Some particles are carrying an electric charge. This means in reality that if the vacuum "where" this particle-wave is propagating is seen as a kind of geometric neutral medium, then the thing which is propagating corresponds in fact equivalently to a kind of local polarisation... Well, here is the mental jump and probably the crazzy idea [related to an other thread: fermion + fermion = boson; (p+) + (e-) ---> H]: in which way could we interpret the electron as a negative charged surface going forward in the time and the proton as its positive charged back size surface? The distance in between would be the thickness of this propagating surface?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
I would like to know the validity of the following criticism of one of Zeilinger's latest papers https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2507.07756 "violation of bell inequality with unentangled photons" The review is by Francis Villatoro, in Spanish, https://francis.naukas.com/2025/07/26/sin-entrelazamiento-no-se-pueden-incumplir-las-desigualdades-de-bell/ I will translate and summarize the criticism as follows: -It is true that a Bell inequality is violated, but not a CHSH inequality. The...
I understand that the world of interpretations of quantum mechanics is very complex, as experimental data hasn't completely falsified the main deterministic interpretations (such as Everett), vs non-deterministc ones, however, I read in online sources that Objective Collapse theories are being increasingly challenged. Does this mean that deterministic interpretations are more likely to be true? I always understood that the "collapse" or "measurement problem" was how we phrased the fact that...
This is not, strictly speaking, a discussion of interpretations per se. We often see discussions based on QM as it was understood during the early days and the famous Einstein-Bohr debates. The problem with this is that things in QM have advanced tremendously since then, and the 'weirdness' that puzzles those attempting to understand QM has changed. I recently came across a synopsis of these advances, allowing those interested in interpretational issues to understand the modern view...

Similar threads

Back
Top