That's a cool video and says it much better than I did. Part of QM is intuitive and rational, but the rest is weirder than anything a fevered brain could imagine.
Can a particle be a wave?Essentially i was wondering if it was related to physical spin, papabravo said yes, someonesdad said no...
The notion is that an object like the electron with spin behaves like things with angular momentum. So you can see why papabravo said what he did -- it's a classical notion and perhaps pedagogically useful. But you have to also reconcile it with the fundamental fact that there is nothing there that is "spinning" in the classical sense. The electron is essentially a point particle. The other key notion, as pointed out on that lovely web page, is that the spin is quantized -- for electrons, it only comes in two flavors. How would you reconcile that with a classical viewpoint? A spinning golf ball, for example, can have a continuous spectrum of angular momentum values, both in magnitude and direction. Not so in the quantum world. That's why these quantum facts are so hard for us to grok -- they're not part of everyday experience. But they're extremely well-established experimental facts.Essentially i was wondering if it was related to physical spin, papabravo said yes, someonesdad said no...
would does a bear $#!7 it the woods be a good reply??Can a particle be a wave?
I guess it depends on your definition of "know". Science wants to "understand", but you must admit that when you scan over the efforts of the last few millenia is that it is inherently a descriptive discipline. Observed behaviors get codified in mathematical descriptions which get more sophisticated over time via generalizations, new notions, and unifications. They feed off each other too. For example, Lagrange and Hamilton formulated mechanics in new ways that let people attack problems they couldn't deal with before -- but they didn't really add any new physics (I'll waffle on the variational principles and Noether's theorems a bit). These formulations led to new things like field theories and the Schrodinger equation. But, at the heart of things, they're still descriptive -- i.e., they're used to make predictions about how things will behave.Soooo, long story short, we don't know.
Correct?
The wave associated with a particle is called a "Matter wave" or De Broglie wave" and its all around with any material objects but it only have significance in case of microscopic particals (at quantum level ).Notic Matter waves are different than Electromagnetic waves.Many people have confusion over this at first but they are not the same.if i understand this one correctly, everything is vibrating, in large masses it is simply irrelevant, it becomes prominent on the quantum level
Actually, it does happen, for precisely the reason Papabravo states. The first Schrodinger equation problem the atomic physics student usually sees attacked after the free particle is the square potential well problem (and the related problem, the infinite potential well, also known as the particle in a box problem). The particle in a box problem is one of the few quantum problems that can be solved analytically. For the particle in a box, the spatial part of the wave functions are sinusoids of position, the quantum number, and the width of the box. So there are points inside the box where the wave function is zero and, thus, where you could not find the particle. This is distinctly different than the classical case, where the distribution function inside the potential well is just a constant.Wave functions are complex functions of time and space. The implication of a wave function with a value 0 would describe a place and time where the electron could not be. If it is not there and can't ever be there then why would we ever be interested in "there and then"
In short I don't think a wave function with a 0 value is possible. I could be wrong, but I don't think so.