Wave vs. Particle-Like Behavior

[peter0302]

I really don't want to give the moderators any more justification to lock this thread than they already have, but I disagree that my statement is theological. What I'm saying is that a simple theory is more likely to be correct, and therefore I personally favor theories involving small numbers of axioms to theories that just happen to fit the experimental data with no underlying understanding of why.

 

[CaptainQuasar]

... I disagree that my statement is theological. What I'm saying is that a simple theory is more likely to be correct...

You said "Only an intelligent being could design rules so complex and disjointed." I think you've made my point for me. But I don't think it's a reason to close the thread, I just think it's a reason to stop saying "QM cannot be true and accurate because it doesn't fit my aesthetics for what scientific theory should be like."

 

[peter0302]

"Only an intelligent being could design rules so complex and disjointed."

If the rules cannot be simplified to simpler, more fundamental postulates? Yes, I stand by that statement. If you look at the evolution of every physical system, be it cosmological, biological, or what have you, what we see again and again are very simple rules being applied across vast scales of space and/or time to create the complexity that exists today. The idea that there is extraordinary complexity at the most fundamental of levels runs counter to our experience in other areas of science.

And for the record, I never said QM cannot be true and accurate. I said QM doesn't tell us the whole story.

 

[CaptainQuasar]

Yes, I stand by that statement.

But do you stand by the assertion that it isn't theological?

And for the record, I never said QM cannot be true and accurate. I said QM doesn't tell us the whole story.

You're correct. I'm sorry, I mischaracterized what you were saying.

 

[peter0302]

You're right, I should stop at "simpler rules are more likely to be correct" and leave my subjective belief as to why out of it. :)

 

[Tanja]

I didn't follow the whole converstion and I'm pretty ill, right now. My conclusions could ground on a fever delusion.

Looking back to the equation of motion could help.

1.) Particles move according to the solutions of the Hamilton function H(p,q;t) = pv-L(q,v;t) with L the Lagrangian. The differential equations to be solved are dH/dq = dv/dt, -dH/dv = dq/dt and dH/dt =- dL/dt.
The equations are solved for space coordinates.
2.) Maxwell's equations are solved for the electric and magnetic field vector E and B. Because of the form (second derivative in space and in time) the solution consitst of sinand cosin (or written as an exponential).
3.) Schrödinger equation is solved for something with no physical meaning \Psi leading to a probability. (second derivative in space and one in time). Must also lead to a wavefunction but in the complex domain.

It depends on the potential and the specific equation of motion you have to use to describe potentials actions.

Probably it has been mentioned in a previous reply: de Broglie found out that each particle can be seen as a wave through the connection E = \hbar \omega and p = \hbar \k. That's like building a bridge between Lagrange and Maxwell. Another bridge between Schrödinger and Lagrange could be the density of states.

 

[colorSpace]

In quantum physics, the particle or wavicle, can be seen as a 'wavepacket' of waves that cancel each other out except where the particle is, AFAIK, probably what Tanja says above. The remaining wave segments which don't cancel each other out then explain how the wavicle is "smeared out" in probability over a range of positions or impulses. So these waves are not like classical waves, they do not reflect a certain classical state. In regards to a classical state, the uncertainty remains even when described as a wave.

(The interference pattern can be seen only with multiple photons, even though each photon's probabilities are determined by it.)

[Edit added:] Meaning, whether a photon behaves more like a particle or like a wave in a specific situation, it still won't have a certain position and impuls, not even in terms of a wave. It will be either here or there when measured, rather than distributed over the area like a classical wave.