New answers tagged

2

I agree with CuriousOne that you would be better off ditching both of these viewpoints and looking for something more modern. However, this is instructive because it does illustrate a common problem in QM education: many authors are invested in a particular interpretation, and present that interpretation (disingenuously, to my thinking) as the only correct ...


2

It's neither a classical wave nor a classical particle. I think any attempts to describe it as either of those need to be qualified like this. It might look like one or the other, but both are only approximations. The best theories we have describe quantum fields, and a particle is a field quantum. I don't really know how to describe a field quantum in ...


0

I think I understand what you are getting at. I will take my best shot. Particles are subatomic and waves of particles are classic physics. Quantum physics and classic physics do not agree. Einstein saw the power in matter while Tesla saw the power in empty space that was just proven with the Higgs Boson and Quantum Entanglement. Both are right or wrong, ...


6

Group 2 has some non-objectable contents (“for these other particles, we do not even have a seemingly concrete macroscopic property to associate with the wave”), but is otherwise inconsistent (“We arrive at the conclusion...”: how does the “conclusion” relate to the previous statement in any way?) and wrong in the main aspect with which you're concerned ...


9

There is no contradiction. This: "The de-Broglie wave and the particle are the same thing; there is nothing else. The real particle found in nature, has wave properties and that is a fact." is a more general statement. Note that it does not define what is "waving". It just states that the particle is characterized by a wave. This goes into the ...


0

I found the answer I was looking for in Chemistry S.E. As you can see it is not that impossible to have a picture of what you calculate. http://chemistry.stackexchange.com/questions/51568/what-is-the-reason-why-protons-and-electrons-do-not-collide/51576#51576


3

(the following answer is included essentially in "The Feynman LECTURES ON PHYSICS-Mechanics, Radiation & Heat ,Vol. 1, 26-3 Fermat's principle of least time.) Suppose you are at point A in the land and a screaming girl is at point B in the sea. You can run with a speed $\:v_{1}\:$ on the land greater than the speed $\:v_{2}\:$ you can swim in the ...


1

You are unlucky, because the microworld of electrons nuclei, atoms and molecules has been studied with mathematical models for over a hundred years and it is not open to hand waving hypothesis of the type: I would say electrons are very tiny containers of energy, which can contain between a minimum and a maximum of such energy, depending on how much energy ...


0

Imagine a billiard ball as it rolls on the flat billiard board in a straight line with constant velocity as expected. Then suddenly it changes direction. What happened? As you may think the billiard ball is not alone, there are other balls that collided with it. That's same situation with the wave function collapse. We are dealing with a partial system not ...


2

My 2 cents on it is that in QM (be it "standard" QM or QFT) one describes only the state of a particle. Having said that, the most general state for a single particle is indeed a wave packet. Now, if you localise certainly a particle at some point in time, then later on it will be associated with a spreading wave packet because of Heisenberg indeterminacy ...


6

A particle is not a wavepacket. And there are no particle states for interacting theories. We define particle states in QFT by expanding the free field into its Fourier modes and using these modes as creation/annihilation operators for particle states - the mode of momentum $p$ creates the particle state $\lvert p\rangle$ with momentum $p$. The Hilbert ...


0

With a classical wave model for light and a classical mechanics model for matter, the energy which is absorbed by one particle will be a function of the wave amplitude $E$. If we reduce the wave amplitude the absorbed energy $W$ will smoothly go to zero. In mathematical terms: $$ W(E\rightarrow0,\omega) \rightarrow 0 $$ If an electron requires a minimum ...


0

To answer this one by one, as it has to some extend been in the comments: 1.) Gravitational waves have all the usual properties that classical waves have. E.g. they can interfere etc. 2.) General relativity, the theory in which grav. waves are described, is a classical field theory. In that sense, grav. waves are a classical phenomenon. At the moment, ...



Top 50 recent answers are included