What Happens to My Wave-Like Nature When Driving at Half the Speed of Light?

SublimeGD
Messages
12
Reaction score
0
Say I was to somehow get in a car and drive at half the speed of light or so... my wave-like nature would show up right? What do you think this would look like from my perspective? from an observers perspective? What does it even mean to acquire a wavelength. What kind of wave do I become, transverse, longitudinal, Schroedinger-esque? Does it happen to my body as a whole, or to my individual particles?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
If you were driving at half the speed of light ( with respect to the ground ) you would certainly look a bit different to someone standing by the roadside, but you will not 'become a wave'. If we accept wave-particle duality, you are a wave already !

The wave function that describes particles ( as in quantum mechanics) for your whole self would be a combination of the waves describing your constituent particles and so on.
This wave probably does not have actual physical existence, because it is in a mathematical space.
 
I would like to know the validity of the following criticism of one of Zeilinger's latest papers https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2507.07756 "violation of bell inequality with unentangled photons" The review is by Francis Villatoro, in Spanish, https://francis.naukas.com/2025/07/26/sin-entrelazamiento-no-se-pueden-incumplir-las-desigualdades-de-bell/ I will translate and summarize the criticism as follows: -It is true that a Bell inequality is violated, but not a CHSH inequality. The...
I understand that the world of interpretations of quantum mechanics is very complex, as experimental data hasn't completely falsified the main deterministic interpretations (such as Everett), vs non-deterministc ones, however, I read in online sources that Objective Collapse theories are being increasingly challenged. Does this mean that deterministic interpretations are more likely to be true? I always understood that the "collapse" or "measurement problem" was how we phrased the fact that...
This is not, strictly speaking, a discussion of interpretations per se. We often see discussions based on QM as it was understood during the early days and the famous Einstein-Bohr debates. The problem with this is that things in QM have advanced tremendously since then, and the 'weirdness' that puzzles those attempting to understand QM has changed. I recently came across a synopsis of these advances, allowing those interested in interpretational issues to understand the modern view...
Back
Top