04-02-2015, 02:41 PM
meridannight Wrote:[MENTION=20947]MikeW[/MENTION], i'm way past my bedtime, and i'm only gonna address this right now: it's because the elementary particles (and even smaller molecules, actually) behave both like a wave and a particle (which is NOT wave). they are definitely particles, but they are also waves. both. but not both at the same time. <---this little part is the crucial part here to understand. (and the wave associated with them is the probability wave).Well, for sure I've heard this, but I don't fully understand … which is one of the reasons I'm interested in this subject as well.
i want to get back to you on the rest of your post, but i'll do it tomorrow.
So… lets start at the very beginning:
1: What is a "particle"?
I know what a grain of sand is: It's a hard little object made of stone, shell or bone -- and when my mind thinks "particle" it thinks of something small and hard like a grain of sand. But science tells me that this "hard little object" is made up of much smaller little things called molecules. Billions of them. And these molecules are made of yet much smaller things called atoms. A quick google suggests that there are somewhere around 1,000,000,000,000,000,000 atoms to a grain of sand. That's a lot of "something" to put in what, to me, is already a very small container.
Science also tells me that these atoms are made of VERY VERY much smaller things called sub-atomic "particles" and THIS is what we're asking about right now. I've even been told the names and some of the properties of these sub-atomic "particles." BUT… we're now talking about something that is beyond my imagining. After all (science tells me) an "atom" is MOSTLY EMPTY SPACE. So… my tiny grain of sand is made up of 1,000,000,000,000,000,000 atoms that are themselves 99.9% empty space. Science says that if an atom's nucleus is the size of a period [ . ] then the electron cloud around it is some 5 meters away! And that the electron is so small that it hardly has any "mass" at all.
Science also tells me that these atoms are made of VERY VERY much smaller things called sub-atomic "particles" and THIS is what we're asking about right now. I've even been told the names and some of the properties of these sub-atomic "particles." BUT… we're now talking about something that is beyond my imagining. After all (science tells me) an "atom" is MOSTLY EMPTY SPACE. So… my tiny grain of sand is made up of 1,000,000,000,000,000,000 atoms that are themselves 99.9% empty space. Science says that if an atom's nucleus is the size of a period [ . ] then the electron cloud around it is some 5 meters away! And that the electron is so small that it hardly has any "mass" at all.
WELL DUH!
SO… for me… at this point… I'm like… WELL THEN… why think of it as "mass" AT ALL? Ok, so, it exhibits *some* qualities which are "mass like" and it exhibits some qualities that are "wave like" -- but why insist on using words like "mass," "particle," "wave," (we haven't gotten to defining what 'mass' or 'wave' are either here) -- why insist on using words that may be useful in classical physics at our macro-level of the universe to describe "munchkins" at this sub-atomic level?
I would take this even further and not only toss out concepts like "mass" but I'd toss out ALL our macro-univers scale concepts including "space" and "time" as well. I mean, seriously, how long does it take an electron to orbit its nucleus? And how is it that this "orbiting" a "something" (which you, yourself, above posit as a conglomerate of other 'quarks') can happen in a "space" that is so unimaginably small -- and yet be comprised of 99.9 percent "space" itself?
IOW, if we're going to look inside Schrödinger's box and one of the first things we notice is that the very act of LOOKING 'collapses' whatever is going on into an 'event' that had, prior to our observation, only been a potentiality in a conceivably infinite multi-verse -- why wouldn't it occur to us that THE CONCEPTS WE BRING WITH US WHEN WE OPEN THAT BOX ARE THE VERY CONCEPTS WE'RE PROJECTING INTO IT? First there is a cat, then there isn't, then there is -- because "cat" is a property of OUR experience, not this sub-atomic scale of "events".
Why not step back and say, "Oh, far out, it's sorta like mass and wave but isn't really EITHER ONE!"... wouldn't that be a more *accurate* and less of a limiting force on the observation?
.