Well it isn't up to us to prove you wrong, you have made a prediction of what exists when there is no observer, and now you need to back it up with some evidence in support of it. We can never prove you wrong, so there is no point in that! It is for you to prove it right! Is this somehow 'loosely' similar to Schrodinger's Cat? The whole idea of is it dead or not? My teacher said that he was using maximum and minimum points using calculus in work related to this? Is that just Quantum Mechanic, or does calculus relate to the cat in the box.No. When there is no observer, particles behave like little green women. Prove me wrong...
The past doesn't provide any certainty for the future. I don't know how you came about that prediction. Think about it, what major discoveries have been made in the field of particle physics in the past 30 years? As far as I am aware the only BIG contribution is neutrino mass....Remember and know that in a 100 years 90% of what the experts are saying now will be considered silly and perhaps even ignorant...
No, refer to my post earlier. There it isn't a mechanism by which it switches from being a particle at some time to being a wave at another time. The problem is that you are trying to apply classical concepts to a quantum mechanical object. Fundamentally, there isn't any wave/particle duality. As I said, there is a single formalism which explains how the electron behaves.I think a good point to note is that something can be a wave and a particle at the same time, it is either a wave or a particle but different experiments result in different results.
Sorry I may have put it poorly. I meant that something like a photon has wave and particle properties depending on the situation. This may still be incorrect though, but I have heard the photon being called a "Wave-icle"No, refer to my post earlier. There it isn't a mechanism by which it switches from being a particle at some time to being a wave at another time. The problem is that you are trying to apply classical concepts to a quantum mechanical object. Fundamentally, there isn't any wave/particle duality. As I said, there is a single formalism which explains how the electron behaves.
The point being made is that we have to constantly review and reconsider our ideas that we think,presently, as being absolutely true. Our laws and ideas are in constant flux. The question of wave/particle duality still exists and it would seem normal that with a "fresh" brain examining things that question should indeed come up.The past doesn't provide any certainty for the future. I don't know how you came about that prediction. Think about it, what major discoveries have been made in the field of particle physics in the past 30 years? As far as I am aware the only BIG contribution is neutrino mass.
I agree with you basically and as I remember from a book I read about Einstein's life he agrees also. But that doesn't mean that what's happening when we don't measure isn't important in figuring out what is really happening. I think that is what we're after; what really is happening. Formalisms are nice and they work but sometimes not very helpful in imagining what is happenning. Because things are very small doesn't mean that no reality exists. Nature is rather continuous with no sudden jumps to "wierdness". Perhaps, and more likely, things are more complicated and we had hoped and we haven't quite figured out what is happening even though we know how to work with it, a little like gravity.No everything is a particle, the wavefunction behaves like a wave. You can only classify things by what you measure them to do, when you measure something its in one place and one place only. What happens when you dont measure is irrelevent.
Well, weirdness is a relative term really. You learn how things should behave by observing the way they do behave, if you then encounter something thats different that implies the rules you were using were not complete or dont abstract well to both situations that doesnt mean you just throw up your hands and go play in the sunshine, you just need to rework things =)If nature becomes as you are suggesting then "all bets are off" and we can forget the idea of science as we know it.
That isn't a valid requirement. A phase transition is a well-known phenomenon. In thermodynamics, a first order phase transition is an abrupt change, where one or more state variable can be discontinuous. In another example, a superconducting phase transition is where the resistivity also changes abruptly.I agree with your assessment of how we see things,( judge whether it is weird or not), but the point was "jump" to weirdness. I would like to believe that nature tends to be more continuous rather than not. For example, how evolution worked,(is working), or how a ball travels in gravity.
"Objects like electrons"? What does that mean? Exactly what kind of an "object" is an electron?Now, in quantum mechanics, objects like electrons may show certain properties which we label as wave-like in some situations, and properties we label as particle-like in other situations, but there is a *single formalism* which we use to describe the electron.
Really?There really isn't any "duality" conundrum.
Yeah...but aren't these predictions kind of ad hoc equations?It just turns out that, using this single formalism, objects like electrons are predicted to show wave-like behaviour in some cases, and particle-like behaviour in other cases.