Take the 2-minute tour ×
Physics Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for active researchers, academics and students of physics. It's 100% free, no registration required.

This question is more a philosophical question than a physics one. When we appreciate particle physics we study that in order to explain some experimental results we have to introduce a new particle (for instance thinking about neutrinos). This is obviously true but I just want to ask you: is there a wave interpretation of this results? I mean, consider for example the so-called sea quarks, which coming up as a mixture of different quarks, if I describe this processes in a wave model can I see this as an interference of wave function? I am not sure that this question is clear. generalizing, why do not we study subnuclear physics both in particle and wave model, as quantum mechanics suggest?

share|improve this question
    
"Why do not we study subnuclear physics both in particle and wave model" - But we do! –  Lagerbaer May 9 at 22:17
    
As I can see, not in a completely way! –  LC7 May 9 at 22:18
1  
Well, for quarks and other subatomic processes, physicists use quantum field theory, which contains the wave model in the way Feynman diagrams work. As you mention, there are indeed interference processes, since the paths in the Feynman diagrams have a phase and can thus interfere constructively or destructively. –  Lagerbaer May 9 at 22:20
1  
Let me add that when a particle physicist talks about a particle, they implicitly mean that it's a quantum particle and thus also a wave and also a quantum field. They most certainly don't treat it as a classical particle. –  Lagerbaer May 9 at 22:21
    
Ok probably I don't have enough notion to discuss about this topic. I just study subnuclear physics and see just the particle interpretation. Thank you! –  LC7 May 9 at 22:24

Your Answer

 
discard

By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.