Wave/particle duality: what exactly is a particle?

In summary, the wave/particle duality of quantum systems is a conundrum that is observed in two-slit experiments. The interference pattern seen in these experiments suggests that the quantum system behaves like a wave, but there are also observations that suggest it behaves like a particle. These include the individual, point-like marks on the screen and the quantization of energy transmitted/released. However, these effects are not exclusive to the two-slit experiment and are just consequences of the superposition principle in quantum mechanics. Therefore, any explanation for the two-slit experiment must also be consistent with other superposition experiments.
  • #1
birulami
155
0
One of the biggest conundrums is the wave/particle duality of quantum systems as it is observed in two-slit experiments.

The interference pattern seen in a two-slit experiment suggests that the quantum system is a wave. But what exactly makes us say that the quantum system also behaves like a particle? My partial answer is:
  1. On the screen behind the two slits we see individual, point-like marks very much like we would expect from a particle (imagine a little ball) hitting the screen, and certainly not from a wave front hitting the screen.
  2. With sufficiently capable detectors it can be shown that the energy transmitted/released while creating the mark is quantized, i.e. it cannot continuously made arbitrarily small, like could be expected from a wave amplitude.
My question: Are there other points worth noting that suggest to say that the quantum system behaves like a particle? Is it correct to say that we don't know that it is a particle, we only make observations and interpret them? The question would then be: apart from the two observations above, are there other, different observations suggesting particle?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
birulami said:
One of the biggest conundrums is the wave/particle duality of quantum systems as it is observed in two-slit experiments.

The interference pattern seen in a two-slit experiment suggests that the quantum system is a wave. But what exactly makes us say that the quantum system also behaves like a particle? My partial answer is:
  1. On the screen behind the two slits we see individual, point-like marks very much like we would expect from a particle (imagine a little ball) hitting the screen, and certainly not from a wave front hitting the screen.
  2. With sufficiently capable detectors it can be shown that the energy transmitted/released while creating the mark is quantized, i.e. it cannot continuously made arbitrarily small, like could be expected from a wave amplitude.
My question: Are there other points worth noting that suggest to say that the quantum system behaves like a particle? Is it correct to say that we don't know that it is a particle, we only make observations and interpret them? The question would then be: apart from the two observations above, are there other, different observations suggesting particle?

I think I've tried to stay away from more of these "wave-particle duality" issue lately. However, I think we need to be clear on something here that we do know for sure. The 2-slit experiment really is an illustration of the superposition principle in quantum mechanics. We need to be very clear of that, because this superposition principle permeates throughout QM, and it isn't just restricted to the two slit experiment. It just happens that the two-slit experiment illustrates it very well AND one of the results or consequences is that we can see the wave-like and particle-like behavior. When we apply such superposition principle in chemistry, we get the bonding-antibonding bonds, and when we apply it to the Delft/Stony Brook experiment, we get the coherence gap.

This clearly indicates that "top of the food chain" here is the superposition principle. The "wave-particle duality" (and I would argue that there really is no "duality" in QM - read the FAQ) is merely one of the many consequences of this principle. So focusing on it simply means that we are focusing on one of the consequences, rather than looking at the bigger picture. What this means is that if you come up with an "explanation" for the 2-slit experiment, while ignoring other superposition experiments, then your explanation is not universal and may not be valid. Only something that can be consistent with all of those experiments would be something that will be taken seriously, because the same principle applies to all of them.

Zz.
 
Last edited:
  • #3
birulami said:
The interference pattern seen in a two-slit experiment suggests that the quantum system is a wave. But what exactly makes us say that the quantum system also behaves like a particle? My partial answer is:
  1. On the screen behind the two slits we see individual, point-like marks very much like we would expect from a particle (imagine a little ball) hitting the screen, and certainly not from a wave front hitting the screen.
  2. With sufficiently capable detectors it can be shown that the energy transmitted/released while creating the mark is quantized, i.e. it cannot continuously made arbitrarily small, like could be expected from a wave amplitude.
My question: Are there other points worth noting that suggest to say that the quantum system behaves like a particle? Is it correct to say that we don't know that it is a particle, we only make observations and interpret them? The question would then be: apart from the two observations above, are there other, different observations suggesting particle?
Another central element of what is meant by "wave/particle duality" is that if you measure which slit it went through, then you no longer see an two-slit interference pattern on the screen, instead you get the sort of pattern you'd see if a wave was coming exclusively out of the single slit where you made the detection. So it's as if each position measurement "collapses" the wave to that single position, and then it spreads out again from there.
 
  • #4
birulami said:
One of the biggest conundrums is the wave/particle duality of quantum systems as it is observed in two-slit experiments.

The interference pattern seen in a two-slit experiment suggests that the quantum system is a wave. But what exactly makes us say that the quantum system also behaves like a particle? My partial answer is:
  1. On the screen behind the two slits we see individual, point-like marks very much like we would expect from a particle (imagine a little ball) hitting the screen, and certainly not from a wave front hitting the screen.
  2. With sufficiently capable detectors it can be shown that the energy transmitted/released while creating the mark is quantized, i.e. it cannot continuously made arbitrarily small, like could be expected from a wave amplitude.

Neither of these effects are really tied to the two-slit experiment. You see the same things you've listed above whether you have slits or apertures or just a light shining on a photographic plate.

With regard to your second item, we understand enough about the atomic properties of matter to know that chemical transitions cannot be driven to completion unless there is enough enough energy, whether that energy is supplied by a "particle" or a "wave". The minimum detection threshold therefore is consistent with ordinary wave energy incident on a detector. It doesn't let you draw any clear conclusions about whether the light energy is quantised.

Your first point is a bit different. The point-like nature of the marks on the screen is often compared to the diffuse nature of wave energy; people conclude that it is not possible for something spread out as thinly as a wave to concentrate its energy on something as small as an atom. This thinking is based on a misunderstanding of electromagnetic theory. In fact, a classical antenna can have an effective cross section much bigger than its physical dimensions. The ability of a tiny receiving element to "suck in" energy from a wide cross-sectional area is a consequence of classical antenna theory. So you can't infer from the dots on the screen that light is quantised.

Marty
 
  • #5
Greenstein and Zajac's book "The Quantum Challenge" argues that the key property of "particles" is that they cannot be detected in two locations at the same time. Imagine sending a light beam through a beamsplitter that divides it into two separate paths, with separate detectors at the ends. If you prepare the light so as to ensure that it consists of single-photon states (which is not easy!) you find that the detectors never register in coincidence. That is, each photon always goes one way or the other, never both.
 
  • #6
birulami said:
One of the biggest conundrums is the wave/particle duality of quantum systems as it is observed in two-slit experiments.

This is really not a conundrum once one adopts the point of view that "particles" are simply quanta of fields (as one does in quantum field theory.)
 
  • #7
birulami said:
One of the biggest conundrums is the wave/particle duality of quantum systems as it is observed in two-slit experiments.

ZapperZ has pointed out previously (I lost the reference but it is probably in the FAQ) that the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle leads to the double slit results. In other words, "wave-particle duality" is just another face of the HUP.
 
  • #8
Greenstein and Zajac's book "The Quantum Challenge" argues that the key property of "particles" is that they cannot be detected in two locations at the same time.
I wholeheartedly agree with that! And I'd add that the HUP does not account for that fact.
 
  • #9
Personally, I think the main culprit in misunderstandings about "wave/particle duality" is the idea that the concept of particle must come along with the concept of trajectory. I echo jtbell and peter0302 in pointing out that the crucial aspect of a "particle" is that it is a quantum that shows up in one place only, but I'll take it a step further to point out this property has nothing to do with trajectories-- it is not that they have a trajectory that prevents them from being in two places at once, it is that they are particles. As soon as we allow that we can have particles that are not ruled by trajectories (which are nothing but short-wavelength limits of waves), but rather are ruled by wave mechanics, all problems vanish. One can call that a "duality" if they wish, but it is more like a partnership with clearly separate roles.
 
Last edited:
  • #10
jtbell said:
Greenstein and Zajac's book "The Quantum Challenge" argues that the key property of "particles" is that they cannot be detected in two locations at the same time. Imagine sending a light beam through a beamsplitter that divides it into two separate paths, with separate detectors at the ends. If you prepare the light so as to ensure that it consists of single-photon states (which is not easy!) you find that the detectors never register in coincidence. That is, each photon always goes one way or the other, never both.

This is the best operative definition of particle-like behaviour I've ever red till now. Thank you, jtbell.
 
  • #11
jtbell said:
Greenstein and Zajac's book "The Quantum Challenge" argues that the key property of "particles" is that they cannot be detected in two locations at the same time. Imagine sending a light beam through a beamsplitter that divides it into two separate paths, with separate detectors at the ends. If you prepare the light so as to ensure that it consists of single-photon states (which is not easy!) you find that the detectors never register in coincidence. That is, each photon always goes one way or the other, never both.

Hi,

just a question on translation. In french, we distinguish "particle" from "corpuscule". Is there any french-speaker who knows translation of "corpuscule" ?
 
  • #12
jtbell said:
Greenstein and Zajac's book "The Quantum Challenge" argues that the key property of "particles" is that they cannot be detected in two locations at the same time. Imagine sending a light beam through a beamsplitter that divides it into two separate paths, with separate detectors at the ends. If you prepare the light so as to ensure that it consists of single-photon states (which is not easy!) you find that the detectors never register in coincidence. That is, each photon always goes one way or the other, never both.

lightarrow said:
This is the best operative definition of particle-like behaviour I've ever red till now. Thank you, jtbell.

The only caveat here is that you are putting a detector in each path, and therefore will have one or the other being detected, which points to a "particle-like" behavior. If you do not have any detector in the path, then the "particle" definition of Greenstein and Zajac fails, i.e. the photon DOES take both paths simultaneously. So in essence, by using the beamsplitter and checking the which-way path is not the same setup as using the beamsplitter but not checking any.

I've mentioned this paper before but it bears mentioning again:

T.L. Dimitrova and A. Weiss, Am. J. Phys. v.76, p.137 (2008).

They did a very elegant demonstration of the Mach-Zehnder interferometer with single photons and did really neat stuff to it.

Zz.
 
  • #13
ZapperZ said:
The only caveat here is that you are putting a detector in each path, and therefore will have one or the other being detected, which points to a "particle-like" behavior. If you do not have any detector in the path, then the "particle" definition of Greenstein and Zajac fails, i.e. the photon DOES take both paths simultaneously. So in essence, by using the beamsplitter and checking the which-way path is not the same setup as using the beamsplitter but not checking any.
Certainly, if you set up the experimental conditions so as to get the "which path information", then a single photon will behave particle-like and you will surely detect it in one or the other; I didn't notice that the setting was to get such information.
I've mentioned this paper before but it bears mentioning again: T.L. Dimitrova and A. Weiss, Am. J. Phys. v.76, p.137 (2008). They did a very elegant demonstration of the Mach-Zehnder interferometer with single photons and did really neat stuff to it.
Zz.
It's a pity I don't have access to such magazines.
 
  • #14
Barmecides said:
In french, we distinguish "particle" from "corpuscule". Is there any french-speaker who knows translation of "corpuscule" ?
I would guess the word you are looking for is "quantum", but I don't know the French usage. I agree that making such a distinction would clear up a lot of semantic confusion, a confusion that I feel is at the heart of awkward "duality" language. Would we have the problem if people referred to "wave/quantum duality"?
 
  • #15
ZapperZ said:
The only caveat here is that you are putting a detector in each path, and therefore will have one or the other being detected, which points to a "particle-like" behavior.
Right, this is the crucial issue. We define the concept of a particle because it is a vastly useful classical concept. We cannot think "quantum mechanically" because our brain cannot enter into a superposition in order to understand one, so instead we are constantly forcing quantum systems to behave classically when we try to understand them. Then we puzzle over "duality"! We're looking in the mirror and blaming reality for the way we combed our hair.
 
Last edited:
  • #16
ZapperZ said:
If you do not have any detector in the path, then the "particle" definition of Greenstein and Zajac fails, i.e. the photon DOES take both paths simultaneously. So in essence, by using the beamsplitter and checking the which-way path is not the same setup as using the beamsplitter but not checking any.
How can you leap to such a conclusion that it "does take both paths simultaneously"? The only thing we can say is that it has an equal probability of taking both paths and its final destination is determined by the superposition of all the possible paths it could have taken, calculated as a wave. Even in a double slit experiment where no attempt is made to register "which slit," the quanta are never detected at more than one location at once.

There's also no experimental support to assert that particles have no trajectories. The fact that they are always seen at one and only one place at a time, and the fact that nothing has ever been observed to travel faster than light, both support the inference that the particles did travel in one continuous path for their entire journey. All we can say with certainty is that our ability to _predict_ that path that is governed by the wavefunction and superposition.
 
  • #17
Ken G said:
Personally, I think the main culprit in misunderstandings about "wave/particle duality" is the idea that the concept of particle must come along with the concept of trajectory. I echo jtbell and peter0302 in pointing out that the crucial aspect of a "particle" is that it is a quantum that shows up in one place only, but I'll take it a step further to point out this property has nothing to do with trajectories-- it is not that they have a trajectory that prevents them from being in two places at once, it is that they are particles. As soon as we allow that we can have particles that are not ruled by trajectories (which are nothing but short-wavelength limits of waves), but rather are ruled by wave mechanics, all problems vanish. One can call that a "duality" if they wish, but it is more like a partnership with clearly separate roles.


I agree, but will go one step more with a two-part question:

1. How does one compute the probability of a particle trajectory in QM?

2. How does one compute the probability of a "particle" being at points x and y at the same time t?

Regards,
Reilly
 
  • #18
peter0302 said:
How can you leap to such a conclusion that it "does take both paths simultaneously"?

Then go argue with Dirac. He foolishly insisted the the photon "interferes with itself". If you think otherwise, please publish your paper. And while you're at it, please write a rebuttal to the Delft/Stony Brook and Tony Leggett's papers for insisting that the supercurrent in those SQUIDs experiment are flowing in opposite directions simultaneously.

Zz.
 
  • #19
reilly said:
1. How does one compute the probability of a particle trajectory in QM?

2. How does one compute the probability of a "particle" being at points x and y at the same time t?
Points taken, those are manifestly not the way we construct quantum mechanics.
 
  • #20
peter0302 said:
Even in a double slit experiment where no attempt is made to register "which slit," the quanta are never detected at more than one location at once.
And when you detect them, which slit did their trajectory take them through? We all know this is unknowable if interference is being exhibited, so why hang onto something unknowable simply because we liked it at the classical level?
There's also no experimental support to assert that particles have no trajectories.
To which I would put the same question. We have to stop seeing ourselves in our science, and let nature do the talking as much as possible, or the result is some ugly "duality" idea.
The fact that they are always seen at one and only one place at a time, and the fact that nothing has ever been observed to travel faster than light, both support the inference that the particles did travel in one continuous path for their entire journey.
The source of causality in wave mechanics is manifest to that theory, it does not require "a continuous path". Indeed, it seems likely that if causality is ever violated, it will be due to a wave property not a trajectory-- apologies to FTL enthusiasts.
All we can say with certainty is that our ability to _predict_ that path that is governed by the wavefunction and superposition.
All we can say with certainty is that our ability to predict... is all we have.
 
  • #21
ZapperZ said:
Then go argue with Dirac. He foolishly insisted the the photon "interferes with itself". If you think otherwise, please publish your paper. And while you're at it, please write a rebuttal to the Delft/Stony Brook and Tony Leggett's papers for insisting that the supercurrent in those SQUIDs experiment are flowing in opposite directions simultaneously.
Zz.
First off, Zapper, your attitude makes people not want to be here. I hope that's not your goal.

Second, a photon "interfering with itself" does not mean that it went through both slits. It only means that the two possibilities, one that it went through the left slit, the other the right, interfere with one another to alter the probable places where the ONE PHOTON will end up detected. "Went through both slits" is an interpretation, not a fact.

Third, rather than be saracstic, perhaps you could explain the Delft/Leggett paper or point those unenlightened of us toward an explanation of it? Sounds interesting.
 
  • #22
Ken G said:
And when you detect them, which slit did their trajectory take them through?
We can narrow it down to two possibilities. Doesn't mean they're both right.

We all know this is unknowable if interference is being exhibited, so why hang onto something unknowable simply because we liked it at the classical level?
Why eliminate possibilities that need not be eliminated? They may lead to new ideas. Why look for ways to break the light barrier if we know it can't be broken?

Why do scientists look at QM with tunnel vision?

The source of causality in wave mechanics is manifest to that theory, it does not require "a continuous path". Indeed, it seems likely that if causality is ever violated, it will be due to a wave property not a trajectory-- apologies to FTL enthusiasts.
Indeed it will. If causality is ever disproven, I will have to give up trajectories. But fortunately for me, that hasn't happened yet.

All we can say with certainty is that our ability to predict... is all we have.
And it's all we ever will have if everyone shares your viewpoint.
 
  • #23
peter0302 said:
First off, Zapper, your attitude makes people not want to be here. I hope that's not your goal.

Second, a photon "interfering with itself" does not mean that it went through both slits. It only means that the two possibilities, one that it went through the left slit, the other the right, interfere with one another to alter the probable places where the ONE PHOTON will end up detected. "Went through both slits" is an interpretation, not a fact.

Nope, not when there's only one photon at a time in the apparatus. Secondly, a 1-photon interference is different than a 2-photon interference, which almost never happen[1]. But you would have known that, wouldn't you, for you to say the above. So it's puzzling why you still are confused by it.

And my attitude is commensurate with the amount of effort you put into understand the physics AND somehow able to question on how I can be taken seriously. You might want to consider YOUR attitude and how you responded to what I said. I will point out that this is not something I made up. Did you even bother looking at the references that I've given before writing your replies?

Third, rather than be saracstic, perhaps you could explain the Delft/Leggett paper or point those unenlightened of us toward an explanation of it? Sounds interesting.

This has been posted all over this forum and I've made repeated references to them.

These are the papers that clearly show the Schrodinger Cat-type states (alive+dead, and not alive or dead). All the relevant details are there and anyone interested should read them. Also included is the reference to a couple of review articles which are easier to read, and the reference to two Leggett's papers, who was responsible in suggesting this type of experiments using SQUIDs in the first place. Again, the papers have a wealth of citations and references.

The two experiments from Delft and Stony Brook using SQUIDs are:

C.H. van der Wal et al., Science v.290, p.773 (2000).
J.R. Friedman et al., Nature v.406, p.43 (2000).[ArXiv version can be found here]

Don't miss out the two review articles on these:

G. Blatter, Nature v.406, p.25 (2000).
J. Clarke, Science v.299, p.1850 (2003).

However, what I think is more relevant is the paper by Leggett (who, by the way, started it all by proposing the SQUIDs experiment in the first place):

A.J. Leggett "Testing the limits of quantum mechanics: motivation, state of play, prospects", J. Phys. Condens. Matt., v.14, p.415 (2002).

A.J. Leggett "The Quantum Measurement Problem", Science v.307, p.871 (2005).

Knock yourself out.

Zz.

[1] L. Mandel Rev. Mod. Phys. 71, S274 (1999).
 
Last edited:
  • #24
Nope, not when there's only one photon at a time in the apparatus. Secondly, a 1-photon interference is different than a 2-photon interference, which almost never happen[1]. But you would have known that, wouldn't you, for you to say the above. So it's puzzling why you still are confused by it.
You're not even addressing what I said. I never said anything about 2-photon interference. I've been talking about 1-photon interference this whole time. 1-photon interference, 1 electron interference, etc. They generate an interference PATTERN as they accumulate, but they are still detected one at a time.

And my attitude is commensurate with the amount of effort you put into understand the physics AND somehow able to question on how I can be taken seriously. You might want to consider YOUR attitude and how you responded to what I said. I will point out that this is not something I made up. Did you even bother looking at the references that I've given before writing your replies?
As others have pointed out, we don't all have access to those journals.

I thought this forum was supposed to be about teaching people about physics, not attacking them for not knowing as much as you do. I'm amazed that you're not only acknowledging but also trying to justify your attitude, which has been called out time and again by people here. You've hijacked many threads of innocent questions with your confrontational tone without justification. There's simply no excuse to act this way in a forum like this. Perhaps that works in a room full of PhDs but it should have no place here and if this is the type of forum where these sorts of attacks are condoned and encouraged then it's somewhere I don't want to be.
 
Last edited:
  • #25
peter0302 said:
You're not even addressing what I said. I never said anything about 2-photon interference. I've been talking about 1-photon interference this whole time. 1-photon interference, 1 electron interference, etc. They generate an interference PATTERN as they accumulate, but they are still detected one at a time.

This is what you wrote:

peter0302 said:
Second, a photon "interfering with itself" does not mean that it went through both slits. It only means that the two possibilities, one that it went through the left slit, the other the right, interfere with one another to alter the probable places where the ONE PHOTON will end up detected. "Went through both slits" is an interpretation, not a fact.

At best, what you just said here even has less of a ground to even be called an "interpretation". Why? Because you have no citation to back that what you just described is an interpretation shared by others. What I had just said has been used MANY times, and by several different prominent physicist. In fact, the AJP article I cited earlier said this:

The puzzling fact that a two-path alternative for each photon prevents it from reaching the detector, while blocking one of the paths leads to a revival of the clicks, is most intriguing for beginning students. This experiment is well suited for illustrating this remarkable quantum mechanical effect, which can be explained only if we assume that each photon simultaneously takes both paths A and B; that is, each photon, in the phrasing of Dirac, "interferes with itself."

and I haven't even started on questioning what you meant by "alter the probable places". I don't even think I want to go there.

As others have pointed out, we don't all have access to those journals.

Ignorance is not a valid excuse. If you don't have the sources, then don't come in here and accuse me of making things up that aren't already part of the standard view. I at least respect people enough to include valid references. You have provided ... er... NONE! All you have done is spew things off the top of your head and somehow think it is as valid as what I've cited. You call this "learning"?

I thought this forum was supposed to be about teaching people about physics, not attacking them for not knowing as much as you do. I'm amazed that you're not only acknowledging but also trying to justify your attitude, which has been called out time and again by people here. You've hijacked many threads of innocent questions with your confrontational tone without justification. There's simply no excuse to act this way in a forum like this. Perhaps that works in a room full of PhDs but it should have no place here and if this is the type of forum where these sorts of attacks are condoned and encouraged then it's somewhere I don't want to be.

It is about "teaching", but not if you confuse your imagination with what is commonly accepted. You have done this several times. Note that nowhere in what you have replied to me were you ASKING for anything. Rather, not only were you simply stating YOUR interpretation of it without any valid citation, you decided that your unsupported view is sufficient to be used as a contradiction to what I wrote. Instead, you aimed your attack to something that you thought was "my conclusion".

This isn't learning. You were not trying to learn anything, but rather perpetuate your own view of what is going on without justification. If you think I was "attacking" you, maybe you need to first read what you wrote. I only replied in kind.

Zz.
 
Last edited:
  • #26
I disagree with the language of the AJP article. I think that it is too broad a statement to say anything "can be explained ONLY" if we assume the photon went through both slits. That's an interpretation, not a fact.

Ignorance is not a valid excuse. If you don't have the sources, then don't come in here and accuse me of making things up that aren't already part of the standard view. I at least respect people enough to include valid references. You have provided ... er... NONE! All you have done is spew things off the top of your head and somehow think it is as valid as what I've cited. You call this "learning"?
Wow! With each post you're demonstrating my point more and more. I didn't accuse you of making anything up. All I asked you was how you could leap to such a powerful conclusion that you affirmatively know the photons go through both slits? If you read an accusation into that then that's your issue, not mine.

This isn't learning. You were not trying to learn anything, but rather perpetuate your own view of what is going on without justification. If you think I was "attacking" you, maybe you need to first read what you wrote. I only replied in kind.
I'll say it again. Wow. Ok, in the future I'm going to refrain from reading your posts or directing any comments toward your posts. Unfortunately the board won't let me block a "mentor."
 
  • #27
peter0302 said:
I disagree with the language of the AJP article. I think that it is too broad a statement to say anything "can be explained ONLY" if we assume the photon went through both slits. That's an interpretation, not a fact.

Then write a rebuttal!

Wow! With each post you're demonstrating my point more and more. I didn't accuse you of making anything up. All I asked you was how you could leap to such a powerful conclusion that you affirmatively know the photons go through both slits? If you read an accusation into that then that's your issue, not mine.

And you didn't read what *I* wrote! I didn't say it was MY interpretation. It is a popular interpretation of the superposition principle as currently practiced in physics! The electron existing in two different locations in a H2 bonding-antibonding state, the supercurrent going in opposite directions in those SQUID experiment, etc. Haven't I wrote this already and given the appropriate references?

I'll say it again. Wow. Ok, in the future I'm going to refrain from reading your posts or directing any comments toward your posts. Unfortunately the board won't let me block a "mentor."

Whatever. It is a red herring to deflect from the FACT that you haven't been able to give even a single valid reference to back your own "preferences" or "interpretation". Instead, you decided to cloud the issue by attacking me. I had spent time and effort giving you the exact sources to back what I had written. One would think that someone who is interested in "learning" would have taken those and see if he/she could get their hands on those and figure them out. Instead, what thanks do I get? Even more attacks. I can understand it if I simply spew things off and instead of giving references simply brush you off by saying "Because I said so". Even I would get PO when someone acts like that. But I didn't do that, did I? I had to go digging into several different posts on here and gave you exactly what you asked for. It is you, however, that brushed off my requests for something to back what you had claimed.

You have produced a wrong "interpretation" that is not supported by any valid references. Period. This is a misinformation.

Zz.
 

1. What is wave/particle duality?

Wave/particle duality is a concept in quantum mechanics that describes how particles can exhibit both wave-like and particle-like properties.

2. How does wave/particle duality affect our understanding of matter?

Wave/particle duality challenges our traditional understanding of matter as purely particle-like objects. It suggests that matter can also behave as waves, which can have multiple positions and momenta at the same time.

3. What exactly is a particle?

A particle is a small, localized object that has a definite position and momentum. However, according to wave/particle duality, particles can also exhibit wave-like behavior and have a range of possible positions and momenta.

4. Can something be both a wave and a particle at the same time?

Yes, according to wave/particle duality, particles can behave as both waves and particles simultaneously. This is known as the principle of superposition.

5. How is wave/particle duality related to the uncertainty principle?

The uncertainty principle states that it is impossible to know both the position and momentum of a particle with complete certainty. This is because particles exhibit both wave-like and particle-like behavior, making it impossible to accurately measure both properties at the same time.

Similar threads

  • Quantum Physics
2
Replies
36
Views
1K
  • Quantum Physics
2
Replies
38
Views
2K
  • Quantum Physics
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • Quantum Physics
Replies
4
Views
250
  • Quantum Physics
Replies
17
Views
1K
  • Quantum Physics
Replies
9
Views
1K
  • Quantum Physics
2
Replies
58
Views
4K
  • Quantum Physics
Replies
22
Views
914
Replies
1
Views
561
  • Quantum Physics
Replies
34
Views
2K
Back
Top