2
$\begingroup$

Edit: What can be explained by wave-particle duality that cannot be explained by waves?

My understanding of the Standard Model is that what we observe as a particle is really a quantized wave packet, and that all particle phenomenon can be described in that way. This answer states that quantum fields are both wave-like and particle-like.

For example, at low intensities, light is detected as single particles. Can that not be explained by the wave interacting with the detector in such a way that the wave collapses to a point, which is necessarily quantized? In what way is the Standard Model not describable purely as waves in quantum fields?

Someone cited particle tracks through a bubble chamber as a reason why wave-only is insufficient. Can this not be described as quantized wave packets?

Improve this question
$\endgroup$
15
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ The question seems to be based on a presumed distinction between "particle" and "quantized wave packet." What is the distinction you have in mind? (The words that I put in quotation-marks are all overloaded in physics, so the intended meaning is not at all obvious from the words themselves.) $\endgroup$
    – Chiral Anomaly
    Commented Jun 18, 2021 at 20:24
  • $\begingroup$ When I read posts on SE or Wikipedia, it seems that the consensus is that electrons etc cannot be described purely as wave phenomenon. I may be conflating terms, but I think of 'particles' as solitons - a strongly localized self-reinforcing wave. And I thought particle behavior could be described purely in terms of quantized solitons in quantum fields. And that seems like a really straight forward way to explain superposition and all that. But people keep on saying, "No, it's really this mysterious wave-particle duality and photons are really particles and waves." $\endgroup$
    – Ethan Reesor
    Commented Jun 18, 2021 at 20:31
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ "No, it's really that this mysterious wave-particle duality means that photons have the properties of both particles and waves." is exactly right. It's meaningless to ask what is "really" going on as John Bell showed us thatt there is no (local) "reality." $\endgroup$
    – mike stone
    Commented Jun 18, 2021 at 22:28
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @mikestone In the context of Bell's theorem, 'realism' refers to the notion that there is some underlying hidden variable that explains the probabilistic behavior of quantum mechanics. It has nothing to do with ontology. In so much as the theorem is correct, in no way does it show that 'there is no (local) "reality"' in any ontological sense. It just asserts that local hidden variables theories are incorrect. $\endgroup$
    – Ethan Reesor
    Commented Jun 18, 2021 at 22:47
  • $\begingroup$ I would say it’s insufficient because you can’t explain what a light wave is other than billions of photons particles. You should ask the same question about particles. $\endgroup$
    – Bill Alsept
    Commented Jun 19, 2021 at 0:08

1 Answer 1

Reset to default
1
$\begingroup$

"No, it's really that this mysterious wave-particle duality means that photons have the properties of both particles and waves." is exactly right. It's meaningless to ask what is "really" going on as John Bell showed us that there is no (local) "reality."

As Mermin says: there are only correlations (between measurements) but there are no correlates (things that are correlated).

A persistent belief that there is some "reality" is the biggest block to understanding quantum mechanics.

Improve this answer
$\endgroup$
5
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ I am asking specifically, in what way is a wave-only explanation insufficient? I have zero interest in metaphysics or what "reality" is. I am asking, why can't it be explained as waves? You do not answer my question. $\endgroup$
    – Ethan Reesor
    Commented Jun 18, 2021 at 22:38
  • $\begingroup$ @Ethan Reesor: Because waves do not produce individual spots of light on a screen. $\endgroup$
    – mike stone
    Commented Jun 19, 2021 at 1:30
  • $\begingroup$ I've only scratched the surface of quantum mechanics, but I fail to see why a soliton wave in the photon field cannot explain individual spots of light, or why that behavior could not be explained by QM interactions forcing the wave to localize to a soliton upon detection. $\endgroup$
    – Ethan Reesor
    Commented Jun 19, 2021 at 1:40
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @Ethan Reeson. The QM wave Schroedinger equation is linear. There can be no solitons in Schroedinger waves. The waves with solitons result from quantizing non-linear theories whose waves interact, and whose waves are not the waves of the Schroedinger equation. $\endgroup$
    – mike stone
    Commented Jun 19, 2021 at 1:46
  • $\begingroup$ "The soliton model applied to the electrons can be extended to the electromagnetic field providing an unambiguous description for the photon." arxiv.org/abs/1612.00110 $\endgroup$
    – Ethan Reesor
    Commented Jun 19, 2021 at 2:26

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service and acknowledge you have read our privacy policy.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.