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

I Sorry but it's wave particle duality again...

  1. Jun 9, 2017 #1
    https://www.nature.com/search?journal=nphys&q=wave particle duality&page=1

    When people come to this forum enquiring about the concept of wave particle duality the usual advice seems to be based on the idea that the concept is outdated and has historical interest only.
    The problem is that many of the people who make those enquiries probably look at other sources of information and many of those sources seem to suggest that wave particle duality is not outdated at all and is still being actively researched. A quick google search will show that to be the case. just one example of this can be shown by clicking on the link above.
    It seems that people get contradictory information and that can only lead to confusion.
    Thank you
     
  2. jcsd
  3. Jun 9, 2017 #2

    PeroK

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper
    Gold Member

  4. Jun 9, 2017 #3
    I'm not sure I like the implications of your post PeroK. I'm not sure what you mean but it's easy to interpret your post as being dismissive and somewhat rude.
    Let me rephrase my post which is based on the possible reactions of people, not me, who come here for advice. Those people are often told here that wave particle duality is an outdated concept. That's fine and the people should be grateful for that advice. But those self same people often look elsewhere and find that duality is still being discussed. That can be confusing so what's wrong with me pointing that out?
     
  5. Jun 9, 2017 #4

    PeroK

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper
    Gold Member

    You've pointed it out before. And before that. And before that.

    Time to move on.
     
    Last edited: Jun 9, 2017
  6. Jun 9, 2017 #5

    Nugatory

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    The problem of contradictory information on the internet is unfortunately beyond our power to fix.
    Someone following the links in your google search will become unconfused when they see that the linked articles are not using the phrase "wave-particle duality" in the popular sense. If we do a broader search that includes popular sources, then the sad fact is that many of these popular sources are confusing. I don't have any better ideas than to explain that the popular sources are unreliable and to provide pointers to better explanations.
     
  7. Jun 9, 2017 #6

    Demystifier

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    It is my impression that the term "wave-particle duality" is used only by experimentalists as a means to make their technical experimental work more interesting to a wider community (that is, to sell it in high impact journals such as Nature Physics), and not by theoreticians who really want to better understand the principles of quantum mechanics.
     
  8. Jun 9, 2017 #7
    Yes I have pointed it out before but my enquiry about duality being discussed elsewhere had been overlooked. In the previous thread I provided a link to Nature Journals which referred to duality. But the thread was then closed for moderation. I never did get any replies as to why such a prestigious journal should be amongst those numerous sources that referred to duality. The thread was eventually re opened but my link had been removed.I had been stopped in my enquiries then and now it seems you are trying to stop me by telling me to "move on".
     
  9. Jun 9, 2017 #8

    Demystifier

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    @Dadface does my post #6 make sense to you?
     
  10. Jun 9, 2017 #9
    Thank you. A big problem with the Nature and other non pop science articles is getting access to them. Since they refer to duality in "the non popular sense" it might be helpful to get a definition of what duality actually is.
     
  11. Jun 9, 2017 #10
    Yes post six does make sense and thank you. My main interest is experimental physics and most references I've seen to duality refer to experimental work.
     
  12. Jun 9, 2017 #11
    @Dadface, looking at the search result you post in #1, as far as I can see, the only hit you got that actually related to "wave particle duality" was the first hit, for a 2014 paper; the other hits are for individual words and not the full phrase. So why not look at that first hit to see what that paper is about?

    Go to this page - https://arxiv.org/abs/1501.03713 - and you can download the full PDF via this link: https://arxiv.org/pdf/1501.03713.pdf

    If you (and others in this thread) read the paper, you may be able to discuss whether and how it supports your claim that wave-particle duality, as such, is "still being actively researched."
     
  13. Jun 9, 2017 #12

    Demystifier

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    Well, I am a theorist and I can say that wave-particle duality does not make much sense from a theoretical point of view. I hope that some experimentalist can help you more about the experimental perspective.
     
  14. Jun 9, 2017 #13

    ftr

    User Avatar

    So what is your view then of these fundamental entities? Neither wave nor particle, or what. Just the mathematics, correct. What is particle, hydrogen atom maybe?
     
  15. Jun 9, 2017 #14

    Demystifier

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    See my https://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0609163 Sec. 2.
     
  16. Jun 9, 2017 #15

    DrClaude

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    This is also my take on it. I think it is sloppy language.

    I had a theoretician colleague who would also cringe every time he heard someone talk about "quantum jumps."
     
  17. Jun 9, 2017 #16

    ftr

    User Avatar

    quote from your paper
    "If any known interpretation of QM respects a kind of wave-particle duality, then it is the Bohmian interpretation."
    I see a hint of contradiction with the myth statment.
    1. What is your view of QFT then considering electron as zero dimensional.
    2. Does BM consider electron as a lump or a Dirac delta.
     
  18. Jun 9, 2017 #17

    Demystifier

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    1. I don't understand the question.
    2. What do you mean by lump?
     
  19. Jun 9, 2017 #18

    Paul Colby

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    I was trained as an experimentalist and I approve this message. There is much quantum hype.
     
  20. Jun 9, 2017 #19

    vanhees71

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    2016 Award

    It's really annoying that particularly in Nature, which is a journal with a very high reputation, still admits the use of such sloppy language, but you can't help it. If I'd have been the referee, I had tried to fight against it. I've not yet reviewed articles for Nature, but for other journals it works.

    Again, there's no need for wave-particle duality anymore since 1926, and one shouldn't use the phrase anymore. I think we have discussed that of course one can describe everything said in the first link in the search results in #1

    http://www.nature.com/nphys/journal/v10/n4/full/nphys2931.htm

    in terms of modern QED without any reference to a classical-particle picture. There's no other quantum which is less adequate described as a classical particle than the photon. It doesn't even admit to define a position observable etc. etc. We have discussed this indeed endlessly in this forum.
     
  21. Jun 9, 2017 #20

    Nugatory

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    There is no rigorous definition. When someone who knows what they're talking about uses the term "wave-particle duality", they're generally making an informal reference to some position measurement - a particle is something with a reasonably well-known position. However, the phrase is pretty much meaningless when taken out of context.
     
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook




Similar Discussions: Sorry but it's wave particle duality again...
  1. Wave Particle Duality (Replies: 4)

Loading...