Are electrons wave or a particle?

[Albrecht]

The energy levels of electrons

These are fully explained by the requirement of de Broglie for the phase fit of the pilot wave of the electron in it's orbit. It does not require a Schroedinger equation where the amplitude is a probability amplitude.

the probailty of finding a particle in a certain point for a start the Schroedinger wave equation is key to QM

This probability is only an interpretation of the Schroedinger equation. There is no direct experimental proof that this interpretation is correct.

 

[jcsd]

The probalistic interpretaion is important in QM, I just find your die-hard support of De Broiglie's interpretation strange since it's not beeen taken seriously by itself for years.

 

[Albrecht]

The probabilistic interpretation of QM was in fact a matter of "zeitgeist" (spirit of the age) for more than 70 years. I know of several persons (physicists of international reputation among them) who have a different opinion but do not dare to say this in public.

Nobody wants to share the fate of de Broglie.

But on the other hand I have the impression that time is going to change in respect to this.

We have in history examples of such situations. The proof of John von Neumann about the inconsistency between QM and a deterministic world was heavily discussed for 30 years, but nobody noticed the logical error in the beginning of it. Until John Bell came.

And ealier and worse: the law of free fall of Aristotle was believed for 2000 years, before Galilei showed in a very easy way that this law was logically impossible.

There is more of this. And we still live in the same world.

 

[Tom D]

"dear reader,
i have an interesting question. Are electrons waves or particle? Electrons act as a particle when electricity passes through a conductor but according to quantum physics electrons are waves, if you do the two slit experiment with electrons the result will be that electrons are waves.

-benzun"


I can't remember which book, but one of the most helpful pieces of advice I read concerning atoms, 'elementary' particles and more than 3 spatial dimentions is to realize that these things do not in any way relate to anything else we could possibly directly experience or imagine-- and the best way to have some understanding is to make do with a metaphor but never forget that any description or model we use is just that and not the actuality itself.
If it helps someone model an electron as a wave to achieve a result but it also helps achieve another result by using a particle model, then either/both will do.However, the actuality is that an electron is something that we don't know what it is.
This (forgotten name, sorry ) goes on to say that if you are in doubt as to whether a metaphor or true description can be applied, then try changing the name of what you want to a fantasy name and describe it then see if it changes your perception of it. If your perception is changed, then the original could be described as it actualy is. If you have lost no meaning by using fantasy name, then a metaphor is the best you can do.
e.g. if you think of a brick, change its name to say, "hoopydoopy".
Describe it.It's mass is 200g. It's dimensions are 100mm,70mm and 60mm. It's a solid cuboid. There is one precisely 1 m in front of me et. etc. Hoopydoopy sounds wrong, brick sounds right.
If you think of an electron, change its name to say, hoopydoopy".
Describe it.It's mass is ...eV. It's dimensions are..er...unspecific. It has no defined shape. There is a probability amplitude of one being somewhere between a and b etc etc. Hoopydoopy sounds no more odd than electron so we can not decribe it other than a model or abstract values of measurements.
An all-knowing being could no more describe these things to us as we could describe a fish to a garden snail--it just doesn't have the language, experience or perceptive abilities ( all related ? )to catch on.
I know this seems a bit stupid and barmy, but try it out and you'll see what I mean.

 

[selfAdjoint]

Marvelous, Tom. And even down in the gears of QED, with the density matrices and Feynman propagators, that's still metaphor. A metaphor with the property of supporting arithmetic calculations. But it doesn't "explain" anything.

 

[Albrecht]

But it doesn't "explain" anything.

Why are we willing to exept, not to understand physics?

A close friend and co-worker of Werner Heisenberg (the German physicist Von Weizsäcker) has once said in a speech: If a physicist these days still tries to understand physics, he does not have the maturity to work on the physical field.

Do we really have the chance for a further development of physics if we accept such a statement/believe?

 

[Tom D]

I think it's an unreasonable pessimism in the abilities of people.
If we learn that we can not ( yet, but who knows what abilities human brains may evolve ) hope to 'picture' ,say, an electron in it's 'true form' then we have understood that an electron is not visible , which is still learning. The mathematical models ( metaphors ) still allow us to understand the electron better than before applying the descriptions ( measurements ).
Only a religious-inspired all-knowing being would know all physics , which is infinite in scope ( or, the models are, even if the universe is not ) but we can always learn more aand understand more without limit even if we never reach the final 'truth', which may not be a constant truth.
Perhaps our communication and minds will develop to take our understanding to realms beyond our current imagination, but I believe those descendant of ours will still find their understanding is yet not full.

 

[Tom D]

A simple way to think of ( non-rotational ) non-movement and movement in spacetime at small and large velocities without considering mass is this:
Essentially, all things relatively translate (move) through spacetime at 'velocity' C = speed of light in vacuam.This velocity is shared between space and time such that the sum of the translation distance in space + translation distance in time = C.
So the slower something moves, the more time it experiences.
Staionary objects experience 'maximum' time.
Faster objects experience less time.
Light ( velocity C ) experiences no time which is why they have'infinite' lifetime.
As for clocks, a stationary ( to us ) observer sees a fast spaceship's clock as slow and his/her clock is normal, but the captain sees that the observer's clock is also slow, as both have the same relative speed, while captian also sees his clock is normal.
Two spaceships in formation see each other's clocks as normal.

{edit:} the above applies to constant motion.
Anyone please explain what happens to spacetime during acceleration (+ve and -ve) both for -ve and +ve velocities of the spaceship e.g. the spaceship +vely accelerates away from earth, -vely accelerates to standstill,does not turn around but uses reverse thrust and -vely accelerates toward Earth, then +vely accelerates to a standstill back on the launchpad.

 

[Albrecht]

Essentially, all things relatively translate (move) through spacetime at 'velocity' C = speed of light in vacuam.This velocity is shared between space and time such that the sum of the translation distance in space + translation distance in time = C.

Congratulations! You are the first one who has found this up to now (besides myself).

Do you realize the consequences?

If you understand time as the internal motion within an object, the conclusion is, that the innermost parts of our matter move permanently with the speed of light c.

This in turn explains special relativity. I.e. a physical understanding of relativity, in contrast to Einstein, who has created a so called "geometrized" theory of relativity.

I have worked this out and put it into the web:
http://www.ag-physics.org/relat

... and, by the way, you will also find a link to a site about the electron which shows to which extend an electron can be understood classically. In contrast to all what you find in textbooks about QM.
http://www.ag-physics.org/electron

 

[Karl G.]

According to the de Broglie equation, all particles have 'wavelike' properties. So to say that an electron is a particle or a wave is really inaccurate - it is both. Furthermore, the Schrodinger equation states that the exact position of an electron is probabalistic until measurement, and represents a 'superposition of states'. This makes the concept concept of an electron represented by a wave, particle, or anything even more chimerical. In my view, we shouldn't worry 'what' an electron is. Representing it as an abstract, quantum state, while not descriptive of what an electron 'looks' like, accurately describes all of its properties.

 

[jtbell]

Congratulations, I think you have just set a PF record by reviving a thread after over five years and four months.