3 ms·
There are no particles, only waves. I do not know how long it will take people to accept this because I think it effects their very psyche, realizing that there
by FollowingTheDao 2y ago
There are no particles, only waves. I do not know how long it will take people to accept this because I think it effects their very psyche, realizing that there is no mass outside of our observations.
The wave went through the slits, not the "wave function". There is no "quantum" because there is nothing to measure so there is no quantum physics.
The fact that we are quantifying things is the problem. When we look at everything as a whole which is effected by waves we will find the solution.
- oneshtein 2y agoBut waves are just group dynamics of particles, so there is no waves, just particles.
- FollowingTheDao 2y agoDo particles change back into waves? No.
- oneshtein 2y agoQuantum physics says: yes.
- soulofmischief 2y agoYes, you can reintroduce another beam splitter at the end and "lose" the path information, and provided you aren't measuring anywhere along the path, you get wave interference at the end even if you split the beam along two paths in the beginning. Look up the quantum eraser experiment.
- lmm 2y ago> But waves are just group dynamics of particles No. Group movement of particles is one medium in which waves can occur, but the concept is more fundamental and general. The waves described in the article are not in particles.
- rapht 2y agoProbably it's because I'm not a quantum physicist, but the argument boiling down to "the wavefunction is an object of a probability space not of physical space" seems to make the whole article moot. Can the "wavefunction" be anything else than a _representation_ of the particule(/wave)?... but then who could ever think that a representation would actually travel in space?