I would say that "wave" and "particle" are two models of a quantum field excitation. It comes down to the mathematics. Sometimes the mathematics of waves is more convenient, other times the mathematics of particles. I think it was Erwin Schrödinger who advanced a matrix model (I could be wrong), but it was quite unpopular.
@Soothfast said"Waves" and "particles" are metaphors. So are "strings." Like the grid lines on a map: they help us to navigate, but they are our own projections, not really there in nature.
I would say that "wave" and "particle" are two models of a quantum field excitation. It comes down to the mathematics. Sometimes the mathematics of waves is more convenient, other times the mathematics of particles. I think it was Erwin Schrödinger who advanced a matrix model (I could be wrong), but it was quite unpopular.
Physicists have long since given up on the idea that particles are little billiard balls with macro-familiar properties such as size or shape or smoothness or a definite location. "Particles" are quanta of measurable change, emphasis on measurable. And that means: wholly a function of our measuring instruments.
@moonbus saidSo for you it comes down to not good enough instruments. The art of instrumentation really exploded in the past few years like stuff needing cryopumps, cheaper means to get to 1 K happens and all of a sudden low temperature research blossoms in that field.
"Waves" and "particles" are metaphors. So are "strings." Like the grid lines on a map: they help us to navigate, but they are our own projections, not really there in nature.
Physicists have long since given up on the idea that particles are little billiard balls with macro-familiar properties such as size or shape or smoothness or a definite location. "Particles" a ...[text shortened]... mphasis on measurable. And that means: wholly a function of our measuring instruments.
So if the present growth of science allowed to continue in 20 or 30 years we will have a lot better picture of all of it, including wave/particle arguments.
@sonhouse saidNo, for me it comes down to models. Some models have more explanitory power than others.
So for you it comes down to not good enough instruments. The art of instrumentation really exploded in the past few years like stuff needing cryopumps, cheaper means to get to 1 K happens and all of a sudden low temperature research blossoms in that field.
So if the present growth of science allowed to continue in 20 or 30 years we will have a lot better picture of all of it, including wave/particle arguments.
@moonbus saidUntil you run into good old Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle.....Do you think these kind of fundamental limits are just because WE are not advanced enough or would that kind of thing even stymy a god?
No, for me it comes down to models. Some models have more explanitory power than others.
@sonhouse saidIt is an article of 'faith', for want of a better word, to think that reality is fixed and determinate.
Until you run into good old Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle.....Do you think these kind of fundamental limits are just because WE are not advanced enough or would that kind of thing even stymy a god?
Even our best instruments (the large hadron collider at Cern, for example, or the Webb telescope) must deliver output in some form which we can see, hear, taste, smell, or touch. We could not interpret any other mode of measured output. But there is no reason to think that the universe is limited to existing in the five sensory modes with which we are familiar. What the underlying reality is, apart from our perceptions, is unknown and unknowable. And this means, ultimately, that we do not know that there IS any underlying reality apart from pure phenominalism.
We observe regularities, that is beyond doubt. But time and time again, we mistake our own gyrations for the harmony of the spheres. Some patterns are just there, but they don't do anything and they don't mean anything--think of the patterns of sand dunes on a beach when viewed from a great height. Other patterns are really there, and they do do something--think of seasons, and of how certain plants grow in some seasons and not in others. Whereas other patterns are solely our own interpretations, they have only such-much as validity or meaning as we invest in them--think of constellations in the sky (Scorpio, Orion, Capricorn) etc.
KellyJay links to authors, often reputable scientists, who claim there is information and error checking going on inside DNA, and that only some grand intelligence could have put it there. In a sense he is right--only, he and they are wrong about who is responsible. WE are, in every case. We IMAGINE there is information inside DNA, we project informational models into DNA, because that is how WE think.
Would an omniscient being know the position and velocity of every particle in the universe, simultaneously and for all time? No. Particles don't exist; they are only one of OUR models, next to 'waves' and 'strings.' 'Particles' belong to the map, not the territory.
@moonbus saidBTW, on another note, a theory bunch, not sure which one, but may have solved the Hubble Tension where two different techniques gives different expansion rates of the universe and their theory is magnetic fields in the early universe skewed some data so next step is independent verification.
It is an article of 'faith', for want of a better word, to think that reality is fixed and determinate.
Even our best instruments (the large hadron collider at Cern, for example, or the Webb telescope) must deliver output in some form which we can see, hear, taste, smell, or touch. We could not interpret any other mode of measured output. But there is no reason to think t ...[text shortened]... one of OUR models, next to 'waves' and 'strings.' 'Particles' belong to the map, not the territory.
@sonhouse saidSounds intriguing. Got a link ?
BTW, on another note, a theory bunch, not sure which one, but may have solved the Hubble Tension where two different techniques gives different expansion rates of the universe and their theory is magnetic fields in the early universe skewed some data so next step is independent verification.