So what kind of evidence could convince you?You know what happens when we "assume" (makes a donkey out of you and me :-). Other people are equally certain that other interpretations are right. I (and most others at PF) am agnostic, waiting for convincing evidence. Let's revisit the issue in 10 years. If it turns out the evidence supports your view, I'll be very happy to admit it.
This is not a place for interpretations, but an objective yes or no question: do particles have simultaneously both natures, or only one at the time?
Claiming that only one leaves us with many questions which are not only unanswered, but also seem impossible to answer (e.g. due to Rydberg atoms), like the conditions and mechanisms for switching the nature, the problem with objectively smeared indivisible elementary charge ...
All these issues seem to vanish (?) if accepting that they are simultaneously both. Additionally, particles are similar to solitons, for which having internal clock (periodic process) generating a coupled wave is quite natural (e.g. breathers).
Do you have any experimental evidence against particles being simultaneously both: corpuscles (e.g. indivisible elementary charge) and coupled waves?
If not, please explain your agnosticism: between being satisfied with lack of answers, requiring controversial and experimentally unsupported smearing of elementary charge ... and a view which allows to provide them?
It is happening right now as resolution of experiments starts allowing us to look inside the quantum probability clouds, like 50pm resolution of electron microscope or the photos of orbitals above.That's true. There's a "huge sociological inertia in physics" throughout, not just QM. Major "paradigm shifts" will occur one of these decades.
We now need to break this "sociological inertia" so that physicists start asking questions about details and dynamics hidden behind the probability clouds - instead of just being satisfied with "shut up and calculate" and lots of unanswered questions.
I have very mixed feelings about this topic, I have looked closer at it only because considering electron trajectory could make it non-negligible ... also the high tritium release from volcanoes seems highly suspicious: it decays in 12 years to He3, and fission is extremely ineffective in producing tritium ... and there are lots of serious people and institutions (e.g. NASA, US Navy, MIT) claiming observation of such effects: <off topic reference removed>Unfortunately that "Low Energy Nuclear Reactions" (i.e. "Cold Fusion") stuff is considered "fringe" physics. Certainly not convincing.
Indeed superposition of elementary charges leads to many questions and problems.I think the same way that elementary charge of electron can't be smeared out or divided.
But I could not get clear answer if there is or there isn't mathematical framework for describing Coulomb potential of charged particles in superposition.
Here is my attempt at finding that out: https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/quantum-superposition-of-coulomb-potential.886213/
From stevendaryl's answer I sort of conclude that there is no such thing. On the other hand DrClaude says that delocalized charges is nothing unusual.
For example there is this huge 1um Rydberg molecule ( http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/2016/aug/25/giant-two-atom-molecules-are-the-size-of-bacteria ) - imagine there is a charged particle flying nearby, how its trajectory would be affected by this bond electron?
Last edited by a moderator: