Wave-particle duality of atoms and molecules

In summary: The exact nature of the relationship between waves and particles is still an open question. That would be dependent on the precision of your measurements. You could, at least in principle, get infinitely sharp values on observables.Your eyes are too crude to notice quantum artefacts and behavior(tennis balls, etc) but with high precision instruments, the quantum nature of objects is easier to see.
  • #36
DesertFox said:
2) You said "At some point"... And what is that point? Where is it? It is not "proven" threshold? OK
You have the same issue in classical mechanics. When you drop a bouncy ball onto a hard floor its momentum reverses. So, what happens to conservation of momentum?

The theory says that the Earth's momentum changes by the same amount in the opposite direction. But, that is untestable as it's impossible to isolate the Earth from other impacts or the effects of other gravitaional bodies in the solar system; not to mention actually identifying and monitoring the motion of the Earth's centre of mass.

Instead, we test conservation of momentum where it can be tested and infer that the law holds even where it is impossible to verify directly.
 
  • Like
Likes dextercioby, mattt, vanhees71 and 1 other person
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #37
DesertFox said:
The "technical challenge" sets the limit beyond which we can't say meaningfully if Quantum Theory is still valid or gets invalid.

Wittgenstein: “Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent.”
How do you come to this conclusion? Condensed-matter physics is very successful in describing the properties of all kinds of macroscopic objects, using quantum theory. In fact already the stability of matter around us were completely incomprehensible without quantum theory.
 
  • #38
DesertFox said:
2) You said "At some point"... And what is that point? Where is it? It is not "proven" threshold? OK
Another point worth making is that a theory does not necessarily depend on its fundamentals being tested directly in all circumstances. Instead, these fundamentals are raised to the status of postulates and the theory and its predictions are developed from there. The point being that if the fundamentals are wrong in some way then some false prediction will emerge from the theory. In that sense, QT does not does not hinge on being able to prove, for example, the UP for all macroscopic objects.

Instead, as mentioned above, QT explains the properties of macroscopic objects - by explaining fundamental chemistry and states of matter etc. And the theory is tested, for example, in the development of modern electronics and more recently quantum computers. Those are the real tests of the theory.

Likewise, there are experiments like the Muon g2 experiment that do probe the limits of our current understanding of QT and may posssibly lead to an extension or revision of the theory.

The question of whether billiard balls may or may not produce an interference pattern, for example, is something of a wild goose chase in terms of the experimental physics. That's probably not where an insight into the limitations of the theory is likely to be found.
 
  • Like
Likes mattt and vanhees71
  • #39
PeroK said:
Another point worth making is that a theory does not necessarily depend on its fundamentals being tested directly in all circumstances. Instead, these fundamentals are raised to the status of postulates and the theory and its predictions are developed from there. The point being that if the fundamentals are wrong in some way then some false prediction will emerge from the theory. In that sense, QT does not does not hinge on being able to prove, for example, the UP for all macroscopic objects.
But it's very simple to prove the UP for all macroscopic objects since the uncertainties of observable due to, e.g., thermal motion, usually are much larger than the bounds given by QT. This is not surprising since the thermal-equilibrium state is just a special case of a quantum state, described by the corresponding statistical operators (given by the various "ensembles", microcanonical, canonical, and grand canonical).
PeroK said:
Instead, as mentioned above, QT explains the properties of macroscopic objects - by explaining fundamental chemistry and states of matter etc. And the theory is tested, for example, in the development of modern electronics and more recently quantum computers. Those are the real tests of the theory.

Likewise, there are experiments like the Muon g2 experiment that do probe the limits of our current understanding of QT and may posssibly lead to an extension or revision of the theory.
I don't think that if this or another experiment confirms finally really some deviations from the predictions of the Standard Model implies that the fundamentals of Q(F)T are wrong. It rather hopefully hints to "new physics beyond the Standard Model", e.g., the existence of other than the known elementary particles, preferably hinting at the solution of the question, what the "Dark Matter" is make of needed to describe many astronomical and cosmological observations within the "Standard Model of Cosmology".
PeroK said:
The question of whether billiard balls may or may not produce an interference pattern, for example, is something of a wild goose chase in terms of the experimental physics. That's probably not where an insight into the limitations of the theory is likely to be found.
That's for sure true ;-).
 

Similar threads

  • Quantum Physics
2
Replies
36
Views
2K
  • Quantum Physics
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • Quantum Physics
Replies
17
Views
2K
  • Quantum Physics
2
Replies
58
Views
4K
Replies
8
Views
927
  • Quantum Physics
Replies
10
Views
2K
Replies
39
Views
7K
Replies
17
Views
3K
Replies
6
Views
1K
  • Quantum Physics
Replies
10
Views
2K
Back
Top