0

Maybe is a dumb question, but I was always confused about the wave-particle duality, what if particles are just an interpretation of our brains? is that possible? that everything is actually a wave, and in just scenarios those waves acts like our concept of particle?

Asking it in another way: do we need particles? as a real thing? or the universe could be just waves and nothing else?

Enrique
  • 241
  • 2
    Related and possibly a duplicate: Do photons truly exist in a physical sense or are they just a useful concept like $i = \sqrt{-1}$? – John Rennie Jan 18 '20 at 13:50
  • Does this answer your question? Do photons truly exist in a physical sense or are they just a useful concept like $i = \sqrt{-1}$? – BioPhysicist Jan 18 '20 at 13:56
  • Have a look in my answer to a similar question here https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/53959/wave-particle-duality/53970#53970 also at this bubble chamber picture http://cds.cern.ch/record/39471?ln=en – anna v Jan 18 '20 at 14:17
  • Quantum mechanical entities are called particles because they leave a footprint like a classical particle, see the single electron at a time double slit https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double-slit_experiment#Interference_of_individual_particles . It is only in accumulation of observations of particles with the same energy in the same boundry conditions that the wave nature appears. – anna v Jan 18 '20 at 14:28
  • What is the difference between "exist" and "really exist"? – WillO Jan 18 '20 at 15:13
  • @WillO I mean if we can create a mahematical model with only waves, without requiring the concept of "particle" anywhere (or what is the same describe the concepto of particle as some type of wave, like wave packet etc) – Enrique Jan 18 '20 at 15:19
  • @Enrique It should be the other way around. You can explain or derive any phenomenon with a particle theory but wave theory only explains some. – Bill Alsept Jan 18 '20 at 16:27
  • This paper may be of interest: “There are no particles, there are only fields” – G. Smith Jan 19 '20 at 02:20
  • The fundamental objects in any quantum field theory are, of course, quantum fields. Particles are just excitations of the fields. – G. Smith Jan 19 '20 at 02:26
  • @G.Smith the “fields” are billions of coherent photons (particles). – Bill Alsept Jan 19 '20 at 04:16
  • @Enrique The concept of particle, even elementary particle, comes from nature. Look at the bubble chamber pictures and tell me if those are not the traces of what we would call classical particles, like a sand particle. https://hst-archive.web.cern.ch/archiv/HST2005/bubble_chambers/BCwebsite/index.htm . I was writing an answer on those lines when the question was made duplicate. Also the single electron spots on the screen shout "particle" – anna v Jan 19 '20 at 06:49
  • and please understand that the wave nature of quantum mechanicae entities is not in space and time, but in the probability of being at a spot in space and time.. i.e the probability for the electron in the double slit experiment to be at the specific (x,y) of the screen – anna v Jan 19 '20 at 06:55
  • @BillAlsept That isn’t true according to mainstream physics. – G. Smith Jan 19 '20 at 17:40
  • @G.Smith So if the field is not made up of coherent photons then what? It is possible to build a particle theory but the light wave theory has nothing to back it. No one even tries to offer a physical description. You might as well say spiritual theory, because it relies on faith. – Bill Alsept Jan 19 '20 at 17:44
  • 1
    @BillAlsept Quantum field theory — which, as the name says, is a theory of quantum fields — is an extremely accurate and well-verified physical theory that has absolutely nothing to do with spiritualism or faith. It explains particles and their behavior without particles being the fundamental objects of the theory. QFT is, in fact, the basis for the Standard Model of mainstream particle physics. – G. Smith Jan 19 '20 at 20:59
  • @G.Smith you are right QM absolutely explains particles. It’s light waves that have no explanation. Just saying light wave doesn’t make it something real. You need to at least make an attempt to describe what it is. On the other hand particle theories explain and derive everything. Why kick the can down the road with this unaccountable idea of light waves when you have particles. QM math IS the math of a particle theory. And more importantly you can describe a particle theory but you cannot describe a light wave theory. Where would you begin without photons. – Bill Alsept Jan 19 '20 at 20:59
  • 1
    @BillAlsept I only discuss mainstream physics, and comments are not the place to have discussions, so I am not going to respond further. – G. Smith Jan 19 '20 at 21:02
  • @G.Smith yeah that’s usually the response. Thanks anyway But for the record you haven’t discussed main stream ideas because you haven’t explain what a lightwave is and you can’t. – Bill Alsept Jan 19 '20 at 21:03

0 Answers0