Wave-Particle Duality: Questions & Answers

[ZapperZ]

So it turns out it isn't Bohr's statement.
If people like you keep a check on the material presented on such sites, we won't have to take in the whole lot of crap they give.
Thanks a lot

Mr V

I'm sorry, but we have had this "complain" before. Read the many differnt threads on the problems with Wikipedia that have already been discussed on here. You KNOW fully well the intrinsic fault of the system that you use. It is your own fault for not caring the quality of the information that you are receiving. To blame us for not correcting the wrong info that you are reading is utterly ridiculous.

It is YOUR responsibility to pay attention to the nature of the source. It is time that you take the responsibility for your own actions and not blame it on someone else.

Zz.

 

[Mr Virtual]

If you hold Bohr's view so dearly, do you also still hang on to the Bohr's model of the atom?

I knew this was coming! Do I still believe bohr's model? Of course not

 

[Mr Virtual]

It is your own fault for not caring the quality of the information that you are receiving. To blame us for not correcting the wrong info that you are reading is utterly ridiculous

Oh MY! I am not complaining! You misunderstood me. What I meant was that there should be people like you, not that you should be there to handle everything.
I was only complementing cristo's help to make me understand that what I read was wrong. That's all. No offence was intended.

 

[cristo]

I was only complementing cristo's help to make me understand that what I read was wrong.

I'm not sure that I did help you understand. If you read my post again I said that the quote is attributed to Bohr. At the bottom of that article is the reference to the article in which (I presume) it is attributed to him. However, since I do not have the priveledges at home, I cannot view that article, and so cannot comment further.

 

[Mr Virtual]

And, of course, from now on I will keep a check on the validity of what I am reading on the net.
Thanks

 

[Mr Virtual]

I'm not sure that I did help you understand. If you read my post again I said that the quote is attributed to Bohr. At the bottom of that article is the reference to the article in which (I presume) it is attributed to him. However, since I do not have the priveledges at home, I cannot view that article, and so cannot comment further.

Oh all right. Let's leave it here. Can we get back to my questions? There are still a few of them which have not been answered yet. If you could help, then that would be a great help.

 

[Proof.Beh]

3. Copenhagen interpretation that Bohr formulated and championed, is not the only way to look at what QM is telling us. Bohr didn't live to see many of the others and the various ways of looking at QM.

The biggist wrong in QM that Bohr perpetrated it was publication him idea about PHILOSOPHIC advocacy from CI and it pervert everyboddy at understanding of QM concepts. Of course HUB is quite similar it also.

Thanks.
-------------------
Formulate Realities.

 

[sluser]

There's a free, well written book on foundations of QM

The book is by Bacciagaluppi and Valentini, called "Quantum Theory at the Crossroads".

There's an emphasis on pilot-wave formulations of quantum mechanics, especially the contributions of de Broglie. :

http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/quant-ph/pdf/0609/0609184v1.pdf


One of the quotes from the book:

* p. 291 There is no longer a definitive, widely-accepted interpretation of quantum mechanics; it is no longer clear who was right and who was wrong in October 1927.

 

[Anonym]

The book is by Bacciagaluppi and Valentini, called "Quantum Theory at the Crossroads".

Thank you for the ref. I appreciate you courage to read 537 pages.

Notice, however, that “Let us build us a tower, whose top may reach unto heaven; and let us make us a name (Genesis 11: 3-7) was simply wrong idea, therefore, the outcome.

I believe that God does NOT play Dice with the universe.

I think more precise quotation is:

Der Herr Gott würfelt nicht!
(God casts the die, not the dice)

Regards, Dany.

P.S. Zz, what happens here at PF? How Proof. Beh will respond, if he wants to?

 

[quetzalcoatl9]

please understand that the rationale behind the Bohr camp's philosophy makes a great deal of sense tho as well, IMHO

in fact, Mr Virtual, if you let go of your notion of particles then many of your questions will be resolved. you are trying to understand microscopic phenomena from a macroscopic perspective - on what basis do you think this _should_ work? who is really expecting _what_ from nature? that was Bohr's main point, or even more succinctly Dirac's comment of "shut up and calculate". the fact of the matter is that classical physics was failing at describing molecular phenomena, Bohr and friends were not out to screw scientific philosphy.

in all of known human history, the explanation of microscopic phenomena was a "first"...why complain if it looks different than you say it should? that's my main point. much hubub is made about QM by those who really don't understand it (and, usually, have never studied it).

there are very sound reasons to providing the abstractions present in our modern understanding of QM. Dirac presents them most clearly, IMHO.

 

[premagg]

The answer to first question is that light has wave character also and you can calculate the wavelength by de-bgorlie hypothesis \=h/p.This will exactly give you the wavelength of light.During interfernce,the wave character is playing the role.I mean you cannot think that a photon is interfering with a photon.
2)particle is just a classical word for things with point area and a mass.fermions are QM things with half integral spins.Particle is not wave ,It has wave character.Wave is not enerrgy,it carries energy due to its motions.Yes,particle can be considered as a chunk of energy by einstein formula m=E/c²

 

[reilly]

Mr.Virtual -- If you take a 1st year grad level QM course, or equivalent thereof, you'll find most of your questions answered -- in fact, these questions have been around for almost a century, and very sophisticated answers and arguments abound in the literature.

Regards,
Reilly Atkinson

 

[Mr Virtual]

Thanks for your advice. It's been around two months since I last posted anything under this topic. I was only interested in getting some explanation on things that are taken as granted at our level (at school level, I mean). But if you say that without doing a grad course, it's difficult to understand, I will leave it for now.

Thanks again

regards
Mr V

 

[Xeinstein]

I read this in Wikipedia

There is no quantum world. There is only an abstract physical description. It is wrong to think that the task of physics is to find out how nature is. Physics concerns what we can say about nature

Wow! What an illuminating statement. Does every physicist think like that- keep on finding mathematical answers without having a clue as to what it practically implies, or how it happens in reality?

As Murray Gell-Mann once said, “Niels Bohr brainwashed a whole generation of physicists into believing that the problem [of interpreting quantum theory] was solved fifty years ago.