Subatomic particles can be seen as either a particle/wave depending on the experiment.Have I missed something?
People seem confused and unable to explain this apparent paradox. But aren't particles 'objects' and waves 'actions'? The sea is made of 'particles' of water which move in and way that we call 'waves'. This is not a paradox at all. Have I totally not understand this? Do 'particles' and 'waves' have totally different meanings in physics?
Answers:
It's only a paradox if you think of particles and waves as distinct entities, which in quantum terms they aren't - they're waveparticles. This is somewhat unintuitive, but the UC Berkeley lecture video in the source below contains the clearest explanation I've seen yet.
What you mean you don't know? Duhhhh, well if you don't know, I'm not going to tell you.
The difference is that the particles of water make up waves together. One particle (electron) can be a wave all by itself. Or a particle. Maybe you are seeing something I'm not, but I just want to make sure you understand the difference in your analogy
No it is not a paradox. If you understand what makes the waves and what moves the particles then you already know the answer. I do not know of anything that does not move.
Why anything moves is the real question.
Waves and particles are terms from our "mid-scale" universe, applied in this case to things too small for us to get our head round intutitively. So a lightwave or photon are not directly analogous to your wave at sea.
actually de Broglie postulated tat all particles can behave as waves and vice versa.
the wavelength of objects= planks const/(mass*velocity)
.
as u can see .
since planks const is in the order of 10^-34...
huge or even small particles dont hav significant wavelenght.
even u and i hav a wavelenght of around10^-36 if we are moving at 10 ms^-1.
but for sub atomic particles .
this is significant
The problem with your analogy is light. Light does not need a medium to travel through, however it can behave as both a particle and as a wave. Like wise, radio waves do not need a medium to travel through. That is how we can broadcast signals from earth into space for someone standing on the moon to receive.
There is actually something called "string theory" that attempts to link the two ideas. It says that the uinivese might be made up of vibrating "strings" that exist in many dimensions, perhaps more than the 4 that we know. Our perceptions of particles and waves may simply be the properties inherant to these strings.
When talking about the sea it is a lot of particles making up waves, in the deepest reaches of physics it is waves making up particles which is another kettle of fish
What is the theory of relativity and how does it work?
how do u accelerate a proton .?
How high can rotary aircraft go before losing lift due to air density?
Is Snow Wet?
Is there any limit to how small some thing can be.?
Strange ladybird?
i would like to find a cheap source of enviromentally friendly heating/electricity for a warehouse?
Does anybody know how to do Reverse Percentages?
Answers:
It's only a paradox if you think of particles and waves as distinct entities, which in quantum terms they aren't - they're waveparticles. This is somewhat unintuitive, but the UC Berkeley lecture video in the source below contains the clearest explanation I've seen yet.
What you mean you don't know? Duhhhh, well if you don't know, I'm not going to tell you.
The difference is that the particles of water make up waves together. One particle (electron) can be a wave all by itself. Or a particle. Maybe you are seeing something I'm not, but I just want to make sure you understand the difference in your analogy
No it is not a paradox. If you understand what makes the waves and what moves the particles then you already know the answer. I do not know of anything that does not move.
Why anything moves is the real question.
Waves and particles are terms from our "mid-scale" universe, applied in this case to things too small for us to get our head round intutitively. So a lightwave or photon are not directly analogous to your wave at sea.
actually de Broglie postulated tat all particles can behave as waves and vice versa.
the wavelength of objects= planks const/(mass*velocity)
.
as u can see .
since planks const is in the order of 10^-34...
huge or even small particles dont hav significant wavelenght.
even u and i hav a wavelenght of around10^-36 if we are moving at 10 ms^-1.
but for sub atomic particles .
this is significant
The problem with your analogy is light. Light does not need a medium to travel through, however it can behave as both a particle and as a wave. Like wise, radio waves do not need a medium to travel through. That is how we can broadcast signals from earth into space for someone standing on the moon to receive.
There is actually something called "string theory" that attempts to link the two ideas. It says that the uinivese might be made up of vibrating "strings" that exist in many dimensions, perhaps more than the 4 that we know. Our perceptions of particles and waves may simply be the properties inherant to these strings.
When talking about the sea it is a lot of particles making up waves, in the deepest reaches of physics it is waves making up particles which is another kettle of fish
The answers post by the user, for information only, UKQnA.com does not guarantee the right.