4 ms·
Why not say "when solving problem X, we can approximate it as a particle" or "when solving problem Y, we can approximate it as a wave"?
by vanderZwan 6y ago
Why not say "when solving problem X, we can approximate it as a particle" or "when solving problem Y, we can approximate it as a wave"?
- amelius 6y agoBecause someone might come up with a problem that is a bit like X and a bit like Y.
- the_other 6y agoThat sounds like an excellent opportunity to test both the models, and perhaps to develop a third.
- maxnoe 6y agoWe already have, its called QED and is the most preise physical theory ever created and tested. Theoretical predictions agree with experiment inside the statistical uncertainties which are now at the 15th or so decimal digit. The problem is, people still want to map the mathematical description of how light and particles behave of QED to common sense analogies and that just does not work. There is no commonly known and understood thing that lends itself as a working analogy.
- el_don_almighty 6y agoThe French called this the "le principe Donny et Marie," based on some research from the mid 70's for some reason. Oooh la la, those hot pants!
- lurquer 6y agoHmmm... that post was a little bit HackerNews-ish, and a little bit Reddit-ish. I’m going to simultaneously upvote and downvote you.
- vanderZwan 6y agoHow is that different from saying "this problem cannot be approximated these ways"?
- andreareina 6y agoHow do you know a priori which kind of problem it is? Wave or particle are interpretations we attach to the results of applying the Schrodinger equation.
- vanderZwan 6y agoSo if I understand your point correctly, approximations are a priori simplifications of problems, while we are talking about after-the-fact interpretations here, and therefore they are not the same? That sounds logical, thank you.