Waves/Particles

OP here, I just saw this thread..

>>7843901

.. And I have to say I'm disappointed with the level of discussion. Is /sci/ a serious discussion board? I assumed it was.

> Is /sci/ a serious discussion board?

>>7845400

>>7838087

>>7845374

No.

>>7845948
The general gist is that things are not intuitive. You are trying to map something that happens at a completely different scale to something you can relate to like a wave.

The reason waves to you behave a certain way is because of lots of observation and matching waves to a certain pattern.

When you talk about things at a very small scale they don't behave along the same patterns as at bigger scales. So you can't match their actions to any known pattern you can think of.

Your entire set of logical patterns breaks down.

The problem isn't if it's a wave or particle. It's neither. The problem is your inability to adapt your "rational thinking" to a different scale where things don't behave the same at all.

Stop trying to map the actions at a small scale to the actions of things at a different scale where the rules/laws/probabilities are completely different.

There is nothing less logical about quantum mechanics, the only difference is you are used to different patterns.

>>7846010
tldr

Everything is about patterns and not real "rules"
When we switch to something less related to the common patterns you have always seen it seems "illogical"
The only thing illogical is your own misunderstanding that the patterns you are used to have some sort of truth to them that is not present in quantum mechanics.
Quantum mechanics is actually completely logical and straightforward if you just look at it through an open mind and not rely on existing patterns.

>>7845957
Try to start some serious discussion if you are so inclined, by all means.

Dont know. An energy point could certainly be formed by the interference of a multitude of inchoherent waves, the energy point, then interferes with other energy points to string form fundamental particles. Or not.

>>7846010
>>7846018

Thank you, anon. You've actually made me realise a fundamental flaw in my "world-view" due to me forgetting the obvious...

While I fully understand that our rules, models, metaphors, and concepts of reality should not be confused with "actual" reality, on any scale, I hadn't treated QFT with the same scrutiny and had mistaken it for an actual description of the fabric of our Universe. Obviously, it goes deeper.

Touche.

Back to the drawing board..

>>7846125
TL;DR, ITT: I've realised Waves are only the tip of the iceberg and that we can NEVER accurately describe the fabric of the Universe.

And I thought that I was getting somewhere. The rabbit-hole is endless...

>>7846132
>>7846125

Maybe this analogy works

You are used to seeing HERDS of things moving around. They have a clear direction, momentum, and slow down or speed up in the same ways.
You are used to seeing FLOCKS of things, they move with a pattern and land or take off together.

Now, you are looking at an individual ANIMAL for the first time ever. Is it a FLOCK or is it a HERD? Well sometimes it sort of does things like a FLOCK, and sometimes it moves like a HERD, which is it? Is the ANIMAL a FLOCK or a HERD?

>>7846270

So wait, you are suggesting that they are neither waves nor particles but a completely different form of existence that human can not comprehend yet?

Or are you suggesting that they are indeed waves or particles but humans are as yet incapable of discerning between them?

>>7846125
don't be suckered into their bullshit popsci bro
>le quantum meme

>>7846303
Humans comprehend them. Watch some lectures/read some books m8.

Most of the modern world is based off technology created using quantum mechanics. It's entirely predictable by scientists. That's why it's science.

The reason normal things seem rational to you is because you see them a lot. Hence you build up pattern recognition for those things. You simply do not have enough experience seeing things at the quantum level to build up those same patterns.


The feeling of it "making sense" has nothing to do with understanding it. Before the theory of gravity people still expected things to fall towards the ground. Because they had years of life seeing that same pattern of things falling.

It didn't all the sudden make sense after theory of gravity. You are mistaking your own sense of what is normal or your expectations of how things work with science. Which is a very common mistake.

Anyway, you should stop thinking about it and actually watch lectures or read books on it before discussing further as you seem to be wasting time on stupid things.