Back in the days when we used to discuss science here it was often said that quantum wave/particle thingies travel as a wave, but interact as a particle.

That seems to me to be a very reasonable, and un-mysterious, way to look at wave-particle duality, providing a perfectly reasonable explanation for the supposed mysteries of quantum behavior.

But these days when reading discussions of these matters I never see it put that way.

Why is that?

Is there something wrong with that description of quantum wave/particles?

The Rev Dodgson said:

Back in the days when we used to discuss science here it was often said that quantum wave/particle thingies travel as a wave, but interact as a particle.

That seems to me to be a very reasonable, and un-mysterious, way to look at wave-particle duality, providing a perfectly reasonable explanation for the supposed mysteries of quantum behavior.

But these days when reading discussions of these matters I never see it put that way.

Why is that?

Is there something wrong with that description of quantum wave/particles?

Yes I wouldn’t say that. Diffraction is an interaction but is wavelike.

dv said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

Back in the days when we used to discuss science here it was often said that quantum wave/particle thingies travel as a wave, but interact as a particle.

That seems to me to be a very reasonable, and un-mysterious, way to look at wave-particle duality, providing a perfectly reasonable explanation for the supposed mysteries of quantum behavior.

But these days when reading discussions of these matters I never see it put that way.

Why is that?

Is there something wrong with that description of quantum wave/particles?

Yes I wouldn’t say that. Diffraction is an interaction but is wavelike.

The observable diffraction bands are the combined effect of particle-like interactions though.

The Rev Dodgson said:

dv said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

Back in the days when we used to discuss science here it was often said that quantum wave/particle thingies travel as a wave, but interact as a particle.

That seems to me to be a very reasonable, and un-mysterious, way to look at wave-particle duality, providing a perfectly reasonable explanation for the supposed mysteries of quantum behavior.

But these days when reading discussions of these matters I never see it put that way.

Why is that?

Is there something wrong with that description of quantum wave/particles?

Yes I wouldn’t say that. Diffraction is an interaction but is wavelike.

The observable diffraction bands are the combined effect of particle-like interactions though.

I just don’t think it’s a meaningful point.

Probably more useful to consider that the wave aspects of low frequency e/m are more easily evident, and the particle aspects of high frequency e/m are more easily evident. Go tell someone making a microwave array that microwaves interact as a particle.
It’s a duality. The whole behaviour is subect to the same constraints.

dv said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

dv said:

Yes I wouldn’t say that. Diffraction is an interaction but is wavelike.

The observable diffraction bands are the combined effect of particle-like interactions though.

I just don’t think it’s a meaningful point.

Probably more useful to consider that the wave aspects of low frequency e/m are more easily evident, and the particle aspects of high frequency e/m are more easily evident. Go tell someone making a microwave array that microwaves interact as a particle.
It’s a duality. The whole behaviour is subect to the same constraints.

Do people who make microwave arrays not believe in photons then?

The Rev Dodgson said:

dv said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

The observable diffraction bands are the combined effect of particle-like interactions though.

I just don’t think it’s a meaningful point.

Probably more useful to consider that the wave aspects of low frequency e/m are more easily evident, and the particle aspects of high frequency e/m are more easily evident. Go tell someone making a microwave array that microwaves interact as a particle.
It’s a duality. The whole behaviour is subect to the same constraints.

Do people who make microwave arrays not believe in photons then?

probably. emr interacts with antennae as waves. or so i believe.

The Rev Dodgson said:

dv said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

The observable diffraction bands are the combined effect of particle-like interactions though.

I just don’t think it’s a meaningful point.

Probably more useful to consider that the wave aspects of low frequency e/m are more easily evident, and the particle aspects of high frequency e/m are more easily evident. Go tell someone making a microwave array that microwaves interact as a particle.
It’s a duality. The whole behaviour is subect to the same constraints.

Do people who make microwave arrays not believe in photons then?

They do. It just doesn’t mean anything to say that it’s interacting as a photon rather than a wave.

dv said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

dv said:

I just don’t think it’s a meaningful point.

Probably more useful to consider that the wave aspects of low frequency e/m are more easily evident, and the particle aspects of high frequency e/m are more easily evident. Go tell someone making a microwave array that microwaves interact as a particle.
It’s a duality. The whole behaviour is subect to the same constraints.

Do people who make microwave arrays not believe in photons then?

They do. It just doesn’t mean anything to say that it’s interacting as a photon rather than a wave.

It means that the bit of the wave that has interacted with a particle did so as a particle, following the quantum rules of how particles interact.

JudgeMental said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

dv said:

I just don’t think it’s a meaningful point.

Probably more useful to consider that the wave aspects of low frequency e/m are more easily evident, and the particle aspects of high frequency e/m are more easily evident. Go tell someone making a microwave array that microwaves interact as a particle.
It’s a duality. The whole behaviour is subect to the same constraints.

Do people who make microwave arrays not believe in photons then?

probably. emr interacts with antennae as waves. or so i believe.

Antaennae consist of lots of particles, that interact with the emr in photon sized bits.

The Rev Dodgson said:

JudgeMental said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

Do people who make microwave arrays not believe in photons then?

probably. emr interacts with antennae as waves. or so i believe.

Antaennae consist of lots of particles, that interact with the emr in photon sized bits.

do they?

JudgeMental said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

JudgeMental said:

probably. emr interacts with antennae as waves. or so i believe.

Antaennae consist of lots of particles, that interact with the emr in photon sized bits.

do they?

Which bit of that statement do you doubt?

I can’t see anything there that looks at all controversial.

The Rev Dodgson said:

JudgeMental said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

Antaennae consist of lots of particles, that interact with the emr in photon sized bits.

do they?

Which bit of that statement do you doubt?

I can’t see anything there that looks at all controversial.

the second bit. is this your assumption or is it what happens?

JudgeMental said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

JudgeMental said:

do they?

Which bit of that statement do you doubt?

I can’t see anything there that looks at all controversial.

the second bit. is this your assumption or is it what happens?

Well it’s not my assumption.

It’s the assumption of people who work with quantum mechanics, isn’t it?

The Rev Dodgson said:

JudgeMental said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

Which bit of that statement do you doubt?

I can’t see anything there that looks at all controversial.

the second bit. is this your assumption or is it what happens?

Well it’s not my assumption.

It’s the assumption of people who work with quantum mechanics, isn’t it?

the original contention was that engineers designing microwave arrays don’t think of particles because emr interacts with antennae as a wave. I would say the same for engineers designing electric motors. particles just wouldn’t come into it. quantum physicists probably look at it differently.

>quantum wave/particle thingies travel as a wave, but interact as a particle.

I wouldn’t say that’s an “explanation”, it’s just a description of wave/particle duality as observed in many experiments.

Here’s Wiki on the “ongoing conundrum”:

Alternative views

Wave–particle duality is an ongoing conundrum in modern physics. Most physicists accept wave–particle duality as the best explanation for a broad range of observed phenomena; however, it is not without controversy. Alternative views are also presented here. These views are not generally accepted by mainstream physics, but serve as a basis for valuable discussion within the community.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wave%E2%80%93particle_duality#Alternative_views

JudgeMental said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

JudgeMental said:

the second bit. is this your assumption or is it what happens?

Well it’s not my assumption.

It’s the assumption of people who work with quantum mechanics, isn’t it?

the original contention was that engineers designing microwave arrays don’t think of particles because emr interacts with antennae as a wave. I would say the same for engineers designing electric motors. particles just wouldn’t come into it. quantum physicists probably look at it differently.

OK, in that case I agree.

Most engineers don’t need to worry about quantum stuff for their daily work.

But if they are thinking about quantum stuff in their spare time they would think about quantum interactions.

Bubblecar said:

>quantum wave/particle thingies travel as a wave, but interact as a particle.

I wouldn’t say that’s an “explanation”, it’s just a description of wave/particle duality as observed in many experiments.

Here’s Wiki on the “ongoing conundrum”:

Alternative views

Wave–particle duality is an ongoing conundrum in modern physics. Most physicists accept wave–particle duality as the best explanation for a broad range of observed phenomena; however, it is not without controversy. Alternative views are also presented here. These views are not generally accepted by mainstream physics, but serve as a basis for valuable discussion within the community.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wave%E2%80%93particle_duality#Alternative_views

Thanks Mr. Car. I’ll have a read later.

Well, I’ve said my piece and I don’t think I’ve more to add. I wish you well in your endeavours.

dv said:

Well, I’ve said my piece and I don’t think I’ve more to add. I wish you well in your endeavours.

ditto.

The thing to remember about duality and quantum mechanics is that the following statement also holds true if you think you don’t understand it…

“If you think you understand quantum mechanics, you don’t understand quantum mechanics.”

The Rev Dodgson said:

Back in the days when we used to discuss science here it was often said that quantum wave/particle thingies travel as a wave, but interact as a particle.

That seems to me to be a very reasonable, and un-mysterious, way to look at wave-particle duality, providing a perfectly reasonable explanation for the supposed mysteries of quantum behavior.

But these days when reading discussions of these matters I never see it put that way.

Why is that?

Is there something wrong with that description of quantum wave/particles?

> Why is that?

Because everybody knows the Copenhagen interpretation.

It’s only the weird and controversial alternatives to Copenhagen that get discussed.

Last I heard, there was a survey of conference attendees about which interpretation of quantum mechanics they believed. The Copenhagen interpretation was still by far the most popular, with slightly more than half the conference attendees accepting it. The others were split between at least four other alternative interpretations.

mollwollfumble said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

Back in the days when we used to discuss science here it was often said that quantum wave/particle thingies travel as a wave, but interact as a particle.

That seems to me to be a very reasonable, and un-mysterious, way to look at wave-particle duality, providing a perfectly reasonable explanation for the supposed mysteries of quantum behavior.

But these days when reading discussions of these matters I never see it put that way.

Why is that?

Is there something wrong with that description of quantum wave/particles?

> Why is that?

Because everybody knows the Copenhagen interpretation.

It’s only the weird and controversial alternatives to Copenhagen that get discussed.

Last I heard, there was a survey of conference attendees about which interpretation of quantum mechanics they believed. The Copenhagen interpretation was still by far the most popular, with slightly more than half the conference attendees accepting it. The others were split between at least four other alternative interpretations.

But The Copenhagen Interpretation does not say that
quantum wave/particle thingies travel as a wave, but interact as a particle.
and it does say stuff about the importance of “observation” that is weird and controversial.

Most people (and I’m specifically including TRD) seem to interpret particle as something akin to a tiny billiard ball. That makes understading wave/particle duality very difficult. One of the problems I’ve always had with QM is that early researchers had to use existing terminology to describe completely new concepts (eg “particle” and “probability”, both of which have completely different meaning in QM to the rest of the world.)

The Rev Dodgson said:

Back in the days when we used to discuss science here it was often said that quantum wave/particle thingies travel as a wave, but interact as a particle.

That seems to me to be a very reasonable, and un-mysterious, way to look at wave-particle duality, providing a perfectly reasonable explanation for the supposed mysteries of quantum behavior.

But these days when reading discussions of these matters I never see it put that way.

Why is that?

Is there something wrong with that description of quantum wave/particles?

We’re all about Quantum Field Theory now, Quantum Mechanics is old hat.

The following text was wrangled together by me and ChatGPT, as I was having trouble typing a reply to your question on my own Rev.

All mistakes contained therein are solely C-GPT’s fault :).

Also, I wouldn’t really say I have a good understanding of this myself, so it may be that my prompting to GPT has led to an answer that is totally off base and worthy of ridicule. I present it mostly to give you an idea of areas you might follow up in to help answer your questions.

In Quantum Mechanics (QM), wave-particle duality is primarily described through the wave function, which is a mathematical object that characterizes the probability distribution of a particle’s properties, such as position or momentum. The wave function evolves according to the Schrödinger equation, and it exhibits wave-like behavior, such as interference and diffraction.

In QM, particles are treated as point-like entities that can be described by wave functions, which can be superposed (combined) to exhibit interference effects. The wave function provides information about the probability of finding the particle in different states when a measurement is made. However, QM does not explicitly address the underlying structure or origin of particles.

On the other hand, Quantum Field Theory (QFT) extends the framework of QM to incorporate fields. In QFT, particles are viewed as excitations or quanta of underlying quantum fields. These fields permeate all of space and time and are described by mathematical equations known as field equations, such as the Klein-Gordon equation or the Dirac equation.

In QFT, the concept of wave-particle duality is manifested in the interaction between particles and fields. The fields can be quantized, meaning they can be broken down into discrete quanta or excitations, which correspond to particles. These particles are treated as entities that can propagate through space and interact with other particles through their associated fields.

The mathematical formalism of QFT allows for the description of both particles and their interactions in a unified manner. It incorporates principles of quantum mechanics and special relativity, enabling the treatment of particles and fields in a relativistically consistent way.

In summary, while both QM and QFT address wave-particle duality, QM focuses on the probabilistic behavior of particles described by wave functions, while QFT incorporates fields as the fundamental entities and treats particles as excitations or quanta of these fields. QFT provides a more comprehensive framework for describing particles and their interactions, incorporating both quantum mechanics and the principles of special relativity.

esselte said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

Back in the days when we used to discuss science here it was often said that quantum wave/particle thingies travel as a wave, but interact as a particle.

That seems to me to be a very reasonable, and un-mysterious, way to look at wave-particle duality, providing a perfectly reasonable explanation for the supposed mysteries of quantum behavior.

But these days when reading discussions of these matters I never see it put that way.

Why is that?

Is there something wrong with that description of quantum wave/particles?

We’re all about Quantum Field Theory now, Quantum Mechanics is old hat.

The following text was wrangled together by me and ChatGPT, as I was having trouble typing a reply to your question on my own Rev.

All mistakes contained therein are solely C-GPT’s fault :).

Also, I wouldn’t really say I have a good understanding of this myself, so it may be that my prompting to GPT has led to an answer that is totally off base and worthy of ridicule. I present it mostly to give you an idea of areas you might follow up in to help answer your questions.

In Quantum Mechanics (QM), wave-particle duality is primarily described through the wave function, which is a mathematical object that characterizes the probability distribution of a particle’s properties, such as position or momentum. The wave function evolves according to the Schrödinger equation, and it exhibits wave-like behavior, such as interference and diffraction.

In QM, particles are treated as point-like entities that can be described by wave functions, which can be superposed (combined) to exhibit interference effects. The wave function provides information about the probability of finding the particle in different states when a measurement is made. However, QM does not explicitly address the underlying structure or origin of particles.

On the other hand, Quantum Field Theory (QFT) extends the framework of QM to incorporate fields. In QFT, particles are viewed as excitations or quanta of underlying quantum fields. These fields permeate all of space and time and are described by mathematical equations known as field equations, such as the Klein-Gordon equation or the Dirac equation.

In QFT, the concept of wave-particle duality is manifested in the interaction between particles and fields. The fields can be quantized, meaning they can be broken down into discrete quanta or excitations, which correspond to particles. These particles are treated as entities that can propagate through space and interact with other particles through their associated fields.

The mathematical formalism of QFT allows for the description of both particles and their interactions in a unified manner. It incorporates principles of quantum mechanics and special relativity, enabling the treatment of particles and fields in a relativistically consistent way.

In summary, while both QM and QFT address wave-particle duality, QM focuses on the probabilistic behavior of particles described by wave functions, while QFT incorporates fields as the fundamental entities and treats particles as excitations or quanta of these fields. QFT provides a more comprehensive framework for describing particles and their interactions, incorporating both quantum mechanics and the principles of special relativity.

Thanks, I will give your thoughts and ChatGPT’s spelling mistakes due consideration before replying.

The Rev Dodgson said:

Back in the days when we used to discuss science here it was often said that quantum wave/particle thingies travel as a wave, but interact as a particle.

That seems to me to be a very reasonable, and un-mysterious, way to look at wave-particle duality, providing a perfectly reasonable explanation for the supposed mysteries of quantum behavior.

But these days when reading discussions of these matters I never see it put that way.

Why is that?

Is there something wrong with that description of quantum wave/particles?

The state of a quantum entity depends on how it was prepared or measured. As I see it, the notion of wave-particle duality is a simplification of the notion that a quantum entity can be prepared or measured with a definite momentum, making it a sinusoidal waveform, or it can be prepared or measured with a definite position, making it a Dirac delta waveform. A quantum entity can be prepared or measured in other ways, but the notion of definite position is a very classically familiar notion, and momentum is the conjugate variable to position. Thus, the notion of wave-particle duality is the notion that a sinusoidal waveform and a Dirac delta waveform are Fourier transform duals of each other. It should be noted that a sinusoidal waveform is a superposition of Dirac delta waveforms, and a Dirac delta waveform is a superposition of sinusoidal waveforms.

The idea that a quantum entity travels as waves but detected as particles is a somewhat simplified and slightly inaccurate version of what I said above. Travelling as waves does suggest a definite momentum, and detected as particles does suggest a definite position. But it does distort the notion of what a quantum entity is, for example suggesting that it can only travel as waves or only detected as particles.

KJW said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

Back in the days when we used to discuss science here it was often said that quantum wave/particle thingies travel as a wave, but interact as a particle.

That seems to me to be a very reasonable, and un-mysterious, way to look at wave-particle duality, providing a perfectly reasonable explanation for the supposed mysteries of quantum behavior.

But these days when reading discussions of these matters I never see it put that way.

Why is that?

Is there something wrong with that description of quantum wave/particles?

The state of a quantum entity depends on how it was prepared or measured. As I see it, the notion of wave-particle duality is a simplification of the notion that a quantum entity can be prepared or measured with a definite momentum, making it a sinusoidal waveform, or it can be prepared or measured with a definite position, making it a Dirac delta waveform. A quantum entity can be prepared or measured in other ways, but the notion of definite position is a very classically familiar notion, and momentum is the conjugate variable to position. Thus, the notion of wave-particle duality is the notion that a sinusoidal waveform and a Dirac delta waveform are Fourier transform duals of each other. It should be noted that a sinusoidal waveform is a superposition of Dirac delta waveforms, and a Dirac delta waveform is a superposition of sinusoidal waveforms.

The idea that a quantum entity travels as waves but detected as particles is a somewhat simplified and slightly inaccurate version of what I said above. Travelling as waves does suggest a definite momentum, and detected as particles does suggest a definite position. But it does distort the notion of what a quantum entity is, for example suggesting that it can only travel as waves or only detected as particles.

The notion of “travelling as waves” isn’t really accurate though.

The waveform function is a mathematical object. It tells you the probability of a fundamental particle existing at a particular point in the space and time phase space. Classical notions don’t map on to quantum events in anything but a metaphorical sense.

esselte said:

KJW said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

Back in the days when we used to discuss science here it was often said that quantum wave/particle thingies travel as a wave, but interact as a particle.

That seems to me to be a very reasonable, and un-mysterious, way to look at wave-particle duality, providing a perfectly reasonable explanation for the supposed mysteries of quantum behavior.

But these days when reading discussions of these matters I never see it put that way.

Why is that?

Is there something wrong with that description of quantum wave/particles?

The state of a quantum entity depends on how it was prepared or measured. As I see it, the notion of wave-particle duality is a simplification of the notion that a quantum entity can be prepared or measured with a definite momentum, making it a sinusoidal waveform, or it can be prepared or measured with a definite position, making it a Dirac delta waveform. A quantum entity can be prepared or measured in other ways, but the notion of definite position is a very classically familiar notion, and momentum is the conjugate variable to position. Thus, the notion of wave-particle duality is the notion that a sinusoidal waveform and a Dirac delta waveform are Fourier transform duals of each other. It should be noted that a sinusoidal waveform is a superposition of Dirac delta waveforms, and a Dirac delta waveform is a superposition of sinusoidal waveforms.

The idea that a quantum entity travels as waves but detected as particles is a somewhat simplified and slightly inaccurate version of what I said above. Travelling as waves does suggest a definite momentum, and detected as particles does suggest a definite position. But it does distort the notion of what a quantum entity is, for example suggesting that it can only travel as waves or only detected as particles.

The notion of “travelling as waves” isn’t really accurate though.

The waveform function is a mathematical object. It tells you the probability of a fundamental particle existing at a particular point in the space and time phase space. Classical notions don’t map on to quantum events in anything but a metaphorical sense.

“ It tells you the probability of a fundamental particle existing at a particular point in the space and time phase space.”

But how do you know that?

If it is mathematically described as a wave, why can’t it be a wave?

KJW said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

Back in the days when we used to discuss science here it was often said that quantum wave/particle thingies travel as a wave, but interact as a particle.

That seems to me to be a very reasonable, and un-mysterious, way to look at wave-particle duality, providing a perfectly reasonable explanation for the supposed mysteries of quantum behavior.

But these days when reading discussions of these matters I never see it put that way.

Why is that?

Is there something wrong with that description of quantum wave/particles?

The state of a quantum entity depends on how it was prepared or measured. As I see it, the notion of wave-particle duality is a simplification of the notion that a quantum entity can be prepared or measured with a definite momentum, making it a sinusoidal waveform, or it can be prepared or measured with a definite position, making it a Dirac delta waveform. A quantum entity can be prepared or measured in other ways, but the notion of definite position is a very classically familiar notion, and momentum is the conjugate variable to position. Thus, the notion of wave-particle duality is the notion that a sinusoidal waveform and a Dirac delta waveform are Fourier transform duals of each other. It should be noted that a sinusoidal waveform is a superposition of Dirac delta waveforms, and a Dirac delta waveform is a superposition of sinusoidal waveforms.

The idea that a quantum entity travels as waves but detected as particles is a somewhat simplified and slightly inaccurate version of what I said above. Travelling as waves does suggest a definite momentum, and detected as particles does suggest a definite position. But it does distort the notion of what a quantum entity is, for example suggesting that it can only travel as waves or only detected as particles.

How do we know that the idea “it can only travel as a wave” is a distortion of what a quantum entity is?

The Rev Dodgson said:

If it is mathematically described as a wave, why can’t it be a wave?

If it has a definite momentum, it is a sinusoidal wave. To say that a wave is just a probability distribution of particles is to place undue bias on the notion of particles, and to ignore that a quantum state is multifaceted.

KJW said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

If it is mathematically described as a wave, why can’t it be a wave?

If it has a definite momentum, it is a sinusoidal wave. To say that a wave is just a probability distribution of particles is to place undue bias on the notion of particles, and to ignore that a quantum state is multifaceted.

Who said that “ a wave is just a probability distribution of particles “?

The Rev Dodgson said:

esselte said:

KJW said:

The state of a quantum entity depends on how it was prepared or measured. As I see it, the notion of wave-particle duality is a simplification of the notion that a quantum entity can be prepared or measured with a definite momentum, making it a sinusoidal waveform, or it can be prepared or measured with a definite position, making it a Dirac delta waveform. A quantum entity can be prepared or measured in other ways, but the notion of definite position is a very classically familiar notion, and momentum is the conjugate variable to position. Thus, the notion of wave-particle duality is the notion that a sinusoidal waveform and a Dirac delta waveform are Fourier transform duals of each other. It should be noted that a sinusoidal waveform is a superposition of Dirac delta waveforms, and a Dirac delta waveform is a superposition of sinusoidal waveforms.

The idea that a quantum entity travels as waves but detected as particles is a somewhat simplified and slightly inaccurate version of what I said above. Travelling as waves does suggest a definite momentum, and detected as particles does suggest a definite position. But it does distort the notion of what a quantum entity is, for example suggesting that it can only travel as waves or only detected as particles.

The notion of “travelling as waves” isn’t really accurate though.

The waveform function is a mathematical object. It tells you the probability of a fundamental particle existing at a particular point in the space and time phase space. Classical notions don’t map on to quantum events in anything but a metaphorical sense.

“ It tells you the probability of a fundamental particle existing at a particular point in the space and time phase space.”

But how do you know that?

If it is mathematically described as a wave, why can’t it be a wave?

It’s not really a wave. It’s a wave function. It’s not a wave rolling up on a beach, or the ripples in a lake radiating from the position where the rock one threw lands in the lake.

The Rev Dodgson said:

How do we know that the idea “it can only travel as a wave” is a distortion of what a quantum entity is?

Because a quantum state can be prepared in a variety of ways, not all of which are waves. We usually use lasers to create our photons for experiments and lasers create coherent waves (that is their nature).

esselte said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

esselte said:

The notion of “travelling as waves” isn’t really accurate though.

The waveform function is a mathematical object. It tells you the probability of a fundamental particle existing at a particular point in the space and time phase space. Classical notions don’t map on to quantum events in anything but a metaphorical sense.

“ It tells you the probability of a fundamental particle existing at a particular point in the space and time phase space.”

But how do you know that?

If it is mathematically described as a wave, why can’t it be a wave?

It’s not really a wave. It’s a wave function. It’s not a wave rolling up on a beach, or the ripples in a lake radiating from the position where the rock one threw lands in the lake.

OK, obviously not a wave on the surface of a body of water, but how do we know it isn’t a wave in “the fabric of the universe”, whatever that is?

esselte said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

esselte said:

The notion of “travelling as waves” isn’t really accurate though.

The waveform function is a mathematical object. It tells you the probability of a fundamental particle existing at a particular point in the space and time phase space. Classical notions don’t map on to quantum events in anything but a metaphorical sense.

“ It tells you the probability of a fundamental particle existing at a particular point in the space and time phase space.”

But how do you know that?

If it is mathematically described as a wave, why can’t it be a wave?

It’s not really a wave. It’s a wave function. It’s not a wave rolling up on a beach, or the ripples in a lake radiating from the position where the rock one threw lands in the lake.

We ‘know it” because applying the wave function gives predictive results that accord with observed reality. We don’t really know. We can only say if we treat it in this way we can derive mathematical results that accord with observational results.

esselte said:

esselte said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

“ It tells you the probability of a fundamental particle existing at a particular point in the space and time phase space.”

But how do you know that?

If it is mathematically described as a wave, why can’t it be a wave?

It’s not really a wave. It’s a wave function. It’s not a wave rolling up on a beach, or the ripples in a lake radiating from the position where the rock one threw lands in the lake.

We ‘know it” because applying the wave function gives predictive results that accord with observed reality. We don’t really know. We can only say if we treat it in this way we can derive mathematical results that accord with observational results.

That sounds like a pretty good reason why it could be a wave to me.

The Rev Dodgson said:

KJW said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

If it is mathematically described as a wave, why can’t it be a wave?

If it has a definite momentum, it is a sinusoidal wave. To say that a wave is just a probability distribution of particles is to place undue bias on the notion of particles, and to ignore that a quantum state is multifaceted.

Who said that “ a wave is just a probability distribution of particles “?

That’s how the double-slit experiment presents itself… what is detected are points that are distributed as a diffraction pattern. The points are the individual photon particles and the diffraction pattern is nothing more than the collection of those particles. My point is that is just because of the way it is measured.

KJW said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

How do we know that the idea “it can only travel as a wave” is a distortion of what a quantum entity is?

Because a quantum state can be prepared in a variety of ways, not all of which are waves. We usually use lasers to create our photons for experiments and lasers create coherent waves (that is their nature).

I’m still missing the point here I’m afraid.

But I’m off to investigate how quantum waves hold concrete together, or not as the case may be.

KJW said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

KJW said:

If it has a definite momentum, it is a sinusoidal wave. To say that a wave is just a probability distribution of particles is to place undue bias on the notion of particles, and to ignore that a quantum state is multifaceted.

Who said that “ a wave is just a probability distribution of particles “?

That’s how the double-slit experiment presents itself… what is detected are points that are distributed as a diffraction pattern. The points are the individual photon particles and the diffraction pattern is nothing more than the collection of those particles. My point is that is just because of the way it is measured.

But that is consistent with waves interacting at points, isn’t it?

The Rev Dodgson said:

KJW said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

Who said that “ a wave is just a probability distribution of particles “?

That’s how the double-slit experiment presents itself… what is detected are points that are distributed as a diffraction pattern. The points are the individual photon particles and the diffraction pattern is nothing more than the collection of those particles. My point is that is just because of the way it is measured.

But that is consistent with waves interacting at points, isn’t it?

If one removes the detection screen from the double-slit experiment, the resulting quantum state is the diffraction pattern. But the detection screen measures the location of individual photons, so the diffraction pattern becomes a collection of individual spots. It wasn’t a collection of individual spots without the detection screen. This is counterfactual indefiniteness.

It’s worth noting that a coherent wave from a laser has an indefinite number of photons, and that a state containing a definite number of photons (a Fock state) is incoherent.

The Rev Dodgson said:

esselte said:

esselte said:

It’s not really a wave. It’s a wave function. It’s not a wave rolling up on a beach, or the ripples in a lake radiating from the position where the rock one threw lands in the lake.

We ‘know it” because applying the wave function gives predictive results that accord with observed reality. We don’t really know. We can only say if we treat it in this way we can derive mathematical results that accord with observational results.

That sounds like a pretty good reason why it could be a wave to me.

In quantum mechanics it can be treated as a wave because the mathematical wave function exhibits physical wave-like behaviours such as diffraction and interference. But work done with the large hadron collider has demonstrated that Quantum Mechanics is just a limited description of Quantum Field Theory. The detection of the Higgs boson was basically the definitive proof that QFT is accurate. QM is a limited description of QFT in the same way that Newtonian gravity is a limited description of general relativity. It’s not wrong per se, it’s just not complete. It describes observational reality accurately, but only if you don’t look too closely. QFT supersedes the idea of the QM physical wave with field interactions. The wave functions that describe these field interactions do not exhibit physical wave-like behaviours in the way that QM wave functions do. The appearance of a wave moving through space in QM is analogous to the appearance of two masses attracting each other by Newtonian notions of gravity. It looks like that is what is happening, but in reality the waves are actually the result of field interactions and the attraction is actually the result of curvature in space-time.

esselte said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

esselte said:

We ‘know it” because applying the wave function gives predictive results that accord with observed reality. We don’t really know. We can only say if we treat it in this way we can derive mathematical results that accord with observational results.

That sounds like a pretty good reason why it could be a wave to me.

In quantum mechanics it can be treated as a wave because the mathematical wave function exhibits physical wave-like behaviours such as diffraction and interference. But work done with the large hadron collider has demonstrated that Quantum Mechanics is just a limited description of Quantum Field Theory. The detection of the Higgs boson was basically the definitive proof that QFT is accurate. QM is a limited description of QFT in the same way that Newtonian gravity is a limited description of general relativity. It’s not wrong per se, it’s just not complete. It describes observational reality accurately, but only if you don’t look too closely. QFT supersedes the idea of the QM physical wave with field interactions. The wave functions that describe these field interactions do not exhibit physical wave-like behaviours in the way that QM wave functions do. The appearance of a wave moving through space in QM is analogous to the appearance of two masses attracting each other by Newtonian notions of gravity. It looks like that is what is happening, but in reality the waves are actually the result of field interactions and the attraction is actually the result of curvature in space-time.

“The wave functions that describe these field interactions do not exhibit physical wave-like behaviours in the way that QM wave functions do.”

Oh good.

Can you give me an observed example of these fields not exhibiting physical wave-like behaviours?

I think this link gives a good description of the current consensus (or what the current consensus seems to be to an uneducated person like me):

A Quora answer

Having read that I’d like to amend my statement of how these things work (and limit it to photons for now):

Photons are waves that under some circumstances interact with particles at a point.

And that seems consistent with the observational evidence to me.

What if you stop a photon of light that was moving as a wave, does it become a particle then ?

Tau.Neutrino said:

What if you stop a photon of light that was moving as a wave, does it become a particle then ?

How do you stop it?

If it is absorbed it is converted into thermal energy (at a point).

If you somehow slow it down to zero velocity, I imagine it is converted to a standing wave, but I don’t know.

I share your interest in this subject Rev but I must say i think you’re quibbling with words about an understanding that is almost entirely mathematical. I’d bet that a description of the mechanism that you’d question could be entirely rephrased and meet your full approval with both being entirely consistent with the scientific consensus.

The Rev Dodgson said:

esselte said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

That sounds like a pretty good reason why it could be a wave to me.

In quantum mechanics it can be treated as a wave because the mathematical wave function exhibits physical wave-like behaviours such as diffraction and interference. But work done with the large hadron collider has demonstrated that Quantum Mechanics is just a limited description of Quantum Field Theory. The detection of the Higgs boson was basically the definitive proof that QFT is accurate. QM is a limited description of QFT in the same way that Newtonian gravity is a limited description of general relativity. It’s not wrong per se, it’s just not complete. It describes observational reality accurately, but only if you don’t look too closely. QFT supersedes the idea of the QM physical wave with field interactions. The wave functions that describe these field interactions do not exhibit physical wave-like behaviours in the way that QM wave functions do. The appearance of a wave moving through space in QM is analogous to the appearance of two masses attracting each other by Newtonian notions of gravity. It looks like that is what is happening, but in reality the waves are actually the result of field interactions and the attraction is actually the result of curvature in space-time.

“The wave functions that describe these field interactions do not exhibit physical wave-like behaviours in the way that QM wave functions do.”

Oh good.

Can you give me an observed example of these fields not exhibiting physical wave-like behaviours?

It’s interesting to me that your post following the quoted one, the quora answer, mentions both the Bell Inequality experiments and the Nobel prize winning local Space Isn’t Real paper, because those would have been the experiments I would point you to that support my contention.

But I’m well out of my comfort zone here. My last couple of posts from the previous evening are drunk-posting, and I’m not at all sure what I said was accurate. I was kind of hoping someone like KJW or Mollwolfumble would correct me and educate us both, but Moll seems to not really know and KJW is on some other level that neither of us really understand.

The simple answer to your question, “Why do you see less talk about waves being the motion and particles being the interaction” is that QFT has superseded the QM understanding of these phenonomena. Asking for proof that QFT doesn’t incorporate the physical wave analogy that QM suggests isn’t t really a meaningful question. QFT does away with the concepts of waves and particles entirely. Both are just manifestations of the quantum fields. That’s why people aren’t really talking about waves and particles any more. Various experiments conducted on the LHC offer proof that QFT is real.

esselte said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

esselte said:

In quantum mechanics it can be treated as a wave because the mathematical wave function exhibits physical wave-like behaviours such as diffraction and interference. But work done with the large hadron collider has demonstrated that Quantum Mechanics is just a limited description of Quantum Field Theory. The detection of the Higgs boson was basically the definitive proof that QFT is accurate. QM is a limited description of QFT in the same way that Newtonian gravity is a limited description of general relativity. It’s not wrong per se, it’s just not complete. It describes observational reality accurately, but only if you don’t look too closely. QFT supersedes the idea of the QM physical wave with field interactions. The wave functions that describe these field interactions do not exhibit physical wave-like behaviours in the way that QM wave functions do. The appearance of a wave moving through space in QM is analogous to the appearance of two masses attracting each other by Newtonian notions of gravity. It looks like that is what is happening, but in reality the waves are actually the result of field interactions and the attraction is actually the result of curvature in space-time.

“The wave functions that describe these field interactions do not exhibit physical wave-like behaviours in the way that QM wave functions do.”

Oh good.

Can you give me an observed example of these fields not exhibiting physical wave-like behaviours?

It’s interesting to me that your post following the quoted one, the quora answer, mentions both the Bell Inequality experiments and the Nobel prize winning local Space Isn’t Real paper, because those would have been the experiments I would point you to that support my contention.

But I’m well out of my comfort zone here. My last couple of posts from the previous evening are drunk-posting, and I’m not at all sure what I said was accurate. I was kind of hoping someone like KJW or Mollwolfumble would correct me and educate us both, but Moll seems to not really know and KJW is on some other level that neither of us really understand.

The simple answer to your question, “Why do you see less talk about waves being the motion and particles being the interaction” is that QFT has superseded the QM understanding of these phenonomena. Asking for proof that QFT doesn’t incorporate the physical wave analogy that QM suggests isn’t t really a meaningful question. QFT does away with the concepts of waves and particles entirely. Both are just manifestations of the quantum fields. That’s why people aren’t really talking about waves and particles any more. Various experiments conducted on the LHC offer proof that QFT is real.

I’ll have a think about that.

Probably best if I leave the answer until tomorrow :)

Just read this on Quora:

“What is the difference between the wave-particle duality and quantum field theory?
“Wave particle duality” isn’t as “specific” to a particular theory as “quantum field theory” is. Wave particle duality is the general idea that when dealing with quantum entities you sometimes see them behave as waves and sometimes as particles – it really depends on how you interact with them. This is an effect associated with quantum field theory, but also with “basic quantum mechanics,” which is a non-relativistic version of quantum theory. You can use basic quantum mechanics to treat many situations, but only in cases where speeds are low compared to the speed of light and no particles are created or destroyed. That doesn’t mean it’s not useful – for many many things it’s all you need.

On the other hand, when speeds are high or particles are created/destroyed, you need the full machinery of quantum field theory. It’s fully compatible with special relativity and we think of it as an exactly precise theory. The “simplest” quantum field theory, called quantum electrodynamics, routinely makes predictions to like 12–14 decimal places that match up perfectly with experiment. We have no reason to believe that this match won’t continue as our ability to make finer experimental measurements continues to improve.

So, you’re really talking about the “same general stuff” with both of these references – it’s just that one of them is a vague “effect” and the other is a precise specific theory.”