B Understanding Waves, Particles and Probabilities

Click For Summary
Wave-particle duality is explained through quantum mechanics by modeling particles, like electrons, with a wavefunction that represents a probability distribution in space. This distribution resembles a wave, accounting for the wave aspect of duality, while the particle aspect emerges during interactions. Classical physics previously categorized light as a wave and electrons as particles, but experiments revealed their dual behavior. Quantum mechanics does not inherently include wave-particle duality as a fundamental concept; rather, it provides a unified framework that describes both behaviors. Understanding this model clarifies the relationship between probability waves and particle interactions in quantum theory.
geordief
Messages
224
Reaction score
50
TL;DR
Am I getting close to a basic understanding of probability waves?
In the ongoing quantum interpretations and foundations thread vanahees71 explained to me that the wave particle duality has been explained by the model where the position of a particle is calculated according to a probability distribution traveling in space.

Am I understanding this correctly.The probability distribution has the same shape as a wave and that accounts for the wave part of the wave-particle duality?

And the particle part is when an interaction actually takes place?

Or am I nowhere near understanding this still?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
geordief said:
Am I understanding this correctly.The probability distribution has the same shape as a wave and that accounts for the wave part of the wave-particle duality?
Roughly, yes.
geordief said:
And the particle part is when an interaction actually takes place?
The wave looks like a particle when the width of wave is small. Interaction can be a part of the reason why this happens, but it's not that simple.
 
  • Like
Likes topsquark and geordief
geordief said:
Summary: Am I getting close to a basic understanding of probability waves?

In the ongoing quantum interpretations and foundations thread vanahees71 explained to me that the wave particle duality has been explained by the model where the position of a particle is calculated according to a probability distribution traveling in space.

Am I understanding this correctly.The probability distribution has the same shape as a wave and that accounts for the wave part of the wave-particle duality?

And the particle part is when an interaction actually takes place?

Or am I nowhere near understanding this still?
Classical physics involves two seemingly different physical things: particles and waves. It was assumed that some things were particles (e.g. electrons) and some things were waves (e.g light).

Then certain experiments were carried out that appeared to show light behaving like a particle (photoelectric effect) and electrons behaving like waves (electron diffraction). This was called wave-particle duality.

QM explains wave-particle duality by modelling an electron using a wavefunction. This single model explained both its particle-like and wave-like behaviour.

QM itself doesn't have wave-particle duality as part of the theory. And, indeed, some popular QM textbooks (e.g. Griffiths and Sakurai) either mention it only as a historical footnote or not at all.
 
  • Like
Likes topsquark and geordief
An antilinear operator ##\hat{A}## can be considered as, ##\hat{A}=\hat{L}\hat{K}##, where ##\hat{L}## is a linear operator and ##\hat{K} c=c^*## (##c## is a complex number). In the Eq. (26) of the text https://bohr.physics.berkeley.edu/classes/221/notes/timerev.pdf the equality ##(\langle \phi |\hat{A})|\psi \rangle=[ \langle \phi|(\hat{A}|\psi \rangle)]^*## is given but I think this equation is not correct within a minus sign. For example, in the Hilbert space of spin up and down, having...

Similar threads

  • · Replies 36 ·
2
Replies
36
Views
7K
  • · Replies 25 ·
Replies
25
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 34 ·
2
Replies
34
Views
3K
  • · Replies 19 ·
Replies
19
Views
6K
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K