1. hi,

I want to make sure I understand the wave/particle duality for electrons correctly.

Ok so, we say that an electron in an atom occupies an orbital. However, the orbital turns out to be a wave (correct me if I'm wrong). A normal mode that looks like a standing wave pattern "locked" in a circular shape.

But what about a beam of electrons? The "wave associated with it". What exactly does it mean? From what I understand, I think it means that our electron is "somewhere in this wave". Like our electron was somewhere in the orbital, or so called electron cloud.

There is something I don't really get though. I read at wikibooks "An electron is an occupation of a normal mode." What does it mean for a particle to occupy a wave??? Does it simply mean that the probability to find the particle "takes the form of a wave" or what exactly?

Thanks very much.

2.

3. Originally Posted by Stranger

There is something I don't really get though. I read at wikibooks "An electron is an occupation of a normal mode." What does it mean for a particle to occupy a wave??? Does it simply mean that the probability to find the particle "takes the form of a wave" or what exactly?

Thanks very much.
No , there is no particle in a wave fuction. The wave fuction merely represents the probability of when the energy will be transfered. 'Particle' in wave-particle duality merely repesents that the wave-particle will hit as a particle(sundenly) as opposed to spread out as a wave.
I must admit I would never be able to get it if I learned Quantum physics from a book or website, you are taking on something that may only lead to frustration.

4. Originally Posted by Stranger
hi,

I want to make sure I understand the wave/particle duality for electrons correctly.

Ok so, we say that an electron in an atom occupies an orbital. However, the orbital turns out to be a wave (correct me if I'm wrong). A normal mode that looks like a standing wave pattern "locked" in a circular shape..
Yes you are right, this is the reason an electron can only orbit specific orbits and not exist within the quantum gap.

But what about a beam of electrons? The "wave associated with it". What exactly does it mean? From what I understand, I think it means that our electron is "somewhere in this wave". Like our electron was somewhere in the orbital, or so called electron cloud.
Can you cite your source for this plaz?

5. wave particle duality simply states that matter/light have both wave propeties and particle propeties

6. No, that's what I understood, not what I read from a source

Ok, so a wave-particle is what exactly? A wave that hits as a particle? ugh what is that :? So we have a particle that travels as a wave and stops as a particle? That's the correct view?

And about probability. I always thought it was "probability of finding the position of the electron". So we do have a particle? Is this what he meant by "wavefunction collapse"? That the wave becomes a particle when we correctly measure the position?

Or am I terribly confused :?

7. Originally Posted by Zelos
wave particle duality simply states that matter/light have both wave propeties and particle propeties
That's what I learnt at high shcool, but it's not very useful in quantum mechanics...

8. Originally Posted by Zelos
wave particle duality simply states that matter/light have both wave propeties and particle propeties
That's what I learnt at high school, but it's not very useful in quantum mechanics...

9. Originally Posted by Stranger
No, that's what I understood, not what I read from a source

Ok, so a wave-particle is what exactly? A wave that hits as a particle? ugh what is that :?
Yes

So we have a particle that travels as a wave and stops as a particle? That's the correct view?
No there was never a particle to begin with.

And about probability. I always thought it was "probability of finding the position of the electron".
No
So we do have a particle?
No
Is this what he meant by "wavefunction collapse"? That the wave becomes a particle when we correctly measure the position?
Yes except that it never actually becomes a particle before it ceases to exist.

Or am I terribly confused :?
That is completely usual and expectable. QM is harder to grasp than relativity I would say.

10. I must admit I would never be able to get it if I learned Quantum physics from a book or website, you are taking on something that may only lead to frustration.
Yes and just because the "matter waves" theory of De Broglie is a wrong theory!
"Matter waves" simply do not exist!
Is a mistake in Physics...
New theories are possible and are being developed right now, please take a look at:
www.geocities.com/anewlightinphysics

The "wave like" behaviour of particles can be well explained if the right electromagnetic structure is given to "particles"!

11. Originally Posted by martillo
I must admit I would never be able to get it if I learned Quantum physics from a book or website, you are taking on something that may only lead to frustration.
Yes and just because the "matter waves" theory of De Broglie is a wrong theory!
"Matter waves" simply do not exist!
Is a mistake in Physics...
New theories are possible and are being developed right now, please take a look at:
www.geocities.com/anewlightinphysics

The "wave like" behaviour of particles can be well explained if the right electromagnetic structure is given to "particles"!
Jesus, Look please stay out of this. The dude is confused enough with out an uneducated loon touting for business.

12. Originally Posted by martillo
I must admit I would never be able to get it if I learned Quantum physics from a book or website, you are taking on something that may only lead to frustration.
Yes and just because the "matter waves" theory of De Broglie is a wrong theory!
"Matter waves" simply do not exist!
Is a mistake in Physics...
New theories are possible and are being developed right now, please take a look at:
www.geocities.com/anewlightinphysics

The "wave like" behaviour of particles can be well explained if the right electromagnetic structure is given to "particles"!
martillo i have tried to be nice, now STOP BIEGN A COMPLETE IDIOT. when people ask for questions of physics you dont go in and create more confusion like somekinda jackass. You explain to this guy according to the real physics that ahve been proven. keep your idea to pseudoscience. Your idea goes against all known knowledge, all experimental data, everything and is just a wish

13. mmm, I think I understand now. But here,

Yes except that it never actually becomes a particle before it ceases to exist.
you mean the wave right?

But why does it becomes a particle when it "hits"something? I mean, in this case, only a beam of electrons in vacuum would be a wave (so that there is no electron beam in air) since it would "hit" air molecules (I mean O2, N2....etc)?

What is actually "a collision" in quantum mechanics?

Thanks

14. when people ask for questions of physics you dont go in and create more confusion like somekinda jackass.
When some things are discovered wrong in current beliefs inevitably some kind of confusion arises...

15. [quote="Stranger"]mmm, I think I understand now. But here,

Yes except that it never actually becomes a particle before it ceases to exist.
you mean the wave right?
Well wave packet.

But why does it becomes a particle when it "hits"something?
There never was, is or becomes a particle. THERE IS NO PARTICLE in a wave fuction. Just particle behaviour.

16. Originally Posted by Stranger

But why does it becomes a particle when it "hits"something? I mean, in this case, only a beam of electrons in vacuum would be a wave (so that there is no electron beam in air) since it would "hit" air molecules (I mean O2, N2....etc)?
Can you cite the source of this? Im not sure but you confusion seems to lie in thinking that an actual electron is a wave-particle.
Originally Posted by Stranger
What is actually "a collision" in quantum mechanics?

Thanks
When the wave-particles energy hits.

17. Ignore Martillo he is the resident pseudoscientist.

18. Ignore Martillo he is the resident pseudoscientist.
And I'm proud to be...

19. Your confusion seems to lie in thinking that an actual electron is a wave-particle.
Exactly. I mean, if it's only a particle behaviour, then where is "the actual electron"? Or maybe they are different?

ah... as for sources. Well, probably some crap I heard from high school classes. I'm sure QM would have been much easier to imagine if we had not been taught a wrong theory for years.

Yeah I mean, we always imagined the atom with tiny electrons revolving around it for instance, and now baf! it's wrong. Then why to teach it in the first place? If it's only because formulas are easier, they could have said "and as a good approximation to everyday experiences, one may use the following formula" and state the classical one...

20. Originally Posted by martillo
Ignore Martillo he is the resident pseudoscientist.
And I'm proud to be...
Then stay in the pseudo-science section of the forum and be proud there. The physics section is for those people who are interested in physics.

Originally Posted by Zelos
wave particle duality simply states that matter/light have both wave propeties and particle propeties
In other words, an electron is neither a wave or particle but in certain types of experiments it matches what is expected for a wave and for other types of experiments it matches what is expected for a particle. You can try to visualize this in various ways in terms of the wave packet or the probability distributions but these are just tools of the mind to help us understand something that is completely alien to our everyday experience of things.

What the electron is, with any accuracy, is a "form of energy", which means that it is certain amount of energy with a certain mathematical structure that determines how it relates and interacts with the other forms of energy in the universe.

21. Then stay in the pseudo-science section of the forum and be proud there. The physics section is for those people who are interested in physics.
I have presented the new theory in the Pseudoscience Forum and I stay there... but sometimes I don't resist to make a comment when I see inteligent physicists braking their mind and wasting their time discussing about some features of some currents theories while the problem is that the theories are wrong!

Forgive me but I strongly believe the new theory is a splendid one waiting for good minds to explore it, find wonderfull explanations and develop it further what is what they need now!

22. Originally Posted by martillo
Then stay in the pseudo-science section of the forum and be proud there. The physics section is for those people who are interested in physics.
I have presented the new theory in the Pseudoscience Forum and I stay there... but sometimes I don't resist to make a comment when I see inteligent physicists braking their mind and wasting their time discussing about some features of some currents theories while the problem is that the theories are wrong!

Forgive me but I strongly believe the new theory is a splendid one waiting for good minds to explore it, find wonderfull explanations and develop it further what is what they need now!
I assume by "good minds" you mean "completely psycotic minds"?

23. Originally Posted by martillo
Then stay in the pseudo-science section of the forum and be proud there. The physics section is for those people who are interested in physics.
I have presented the new theory in the Pseudoscience Forum and I stay there... but sometimes I don't resist to make a comment when I see inteligent physicists braking their mind and wasting their time discussing about some features of some currents theories while the problem is that the theories are wrong!

Forgive me but I strongly believe the new theory is a splendid one waiting for good minds to explore it, find wonderfull explanations and develop it further what is what they need now!
he mean a mind that is totaly blanck of knowledge. A complete morron, a idiot etc. You try to explain yet failing martillo, the demanding of math that is required dont u wish to filll becuase you know your idea will die with it then

24. from my every day experience a wave has the tendancy to spread out from the origin in all directions and disipate as the wavelength gets longer.

does that still happen in the case of a photon emited from an electron?

25. Originally Posted by wallaby
from my every day experience a wave has the tendancy to spread out from the origin in all directions and disipate as the wavelength gets longer.

does that still happen in the case of a photon emited from an electron?
It does indeed most definitely!!!! That is a consequence of Schrodingers time dependent wave equation.

BUT even though at a particular distance, it spreads out all over a huge spherical surface, if we set up detectors all around that sphere where the photon will interact with an electron in a material on that sphere to send a signal to tell us where the photon went, then even though the photon spread out in a spherical wave it only interacts with one of those electrons. Thus the huge spherical wave collapses instantly and unpredicably (in the sense that which point on the sphere cannot be predicted) back into what again appears to be a point particle (we call that a wave collapse).

26. Originally Posted by mitchellmckain
It does indeed most definitely!!!! That is a consequence of Schrodingers time dependent wave equation.

BUT even though at a particular distance, it spreads out all over a huge spherical surface, if we set up detectors all around that sphere where the photon will interact with an electron in a material on that sphere to send a signal to tell us where the photon went, then even though the photon spread out in a spherical wave it only interacts with one of those electrons. Thus the huge spherical wave collapses instantly and unpredicably (in the sense that which point on the sphere cannot be predicted) back into what again appears to be a point particle (we call that a wave collapse).
so out of a room full of electrons the interaction between the photon and any of those electrons is a matter of probability. and it need not nessisarily interact with the closest electrons.

27.

28. Originally Posted by wallaby
Originally Posted by mitchellmckain
It does indeed most definitely!!!! That is a consequence of Schrodingers time dependent wave equation.

BUT even though at a particular distance, it spreads out all over a huge spherical surface, if we set up detectors all around that sphere where the photon will interact with an electron in a material on that sphere to send a signal to tell us where the photon went, then even though the photon spread out in a spherical wave it only interacts with one of those electrons. Thus the huge spherical wave collapses instantly and unpredicably (in the sense that which point on the sphere cannot be predicted) back into what again appears to be a point particle (we call that a wave collapse).
so out of a room full of electrons the interaction between the photon and any of those electrons is a matter of probability. and it need not nessisarily interact with the closest electrons.
No, it will indeed interact with the first obsticle it encounters but the precise point the collision will occur is uncertain. It is also not possible to make a prediction of the exact location of the photon before its destroyed.

29. Originally Posted by wallaby
Originally Posted by mitchellmckain
It does indeed most definitely!!!! That is a consequence of Schrodingers time dependent wave equation.

BUT even though at a particular distance, it spreads out all over a huge spherical surface, if we set up detectors all around that sphere where the photon will interact with an electron in a material on that sphere to send a signal to tell us where the photon went, then even though the photon spread out in a spherical wave it only interacts with one of those electrons. Thus the huge spherical wave collapses instantly and unpredicably (in the sense that which point on the sphere cannot be predicted) back into what again appears to be a point particle (we call that a wave collapse).
so out of a room full of electrons the interaction between the photon and any of those electrons is a matter of probability. and it need not nessisarily interact with the closest electrons.
There is no closest. The wave arrives at all the electrons in the sphere of dectectors at the same time. But yes which of those electrons interact with the photon (wave) is a matter of probability only.

Originally Posted by Imaplanck.
No, it will indeed interact with the first obsticle it encounters but the precise point the collision will occur is uncertain. It is also not possible to make a prediction of the exact location of the photon before its destroyed.
If this were the case a repetition of the experiment would always give the same result. Besides, given the correct understanding of the experiment I am trying to describe, what you are basically suggesting is hidden variable theory which we know is incorrect. The impossibility of making a prediction is not because we don't know some variable like which electron the wave hits first.

30. ...............

31. Originally Posted by mitchellmckain
If this were the case a repetition of the experiment would always give the same result. .
No it wont.

Besides, given the correct understanding of the experiment I am trying to describe, what you are basically suggesting is hidden variable theory which we know is incorrect.
Of course I know hidden variable is incorrect. The location of the photon is uncertain, meaning it cant be predicted where it is.

The impossibility of making a prediction is not because we don't know some variable like which electron the wave hits first.
Where have I said there is a variable but we just dont know where it is?

32. No, it will indeed interact with the first obsticle it encounters but the precise point the collision will occur is uncertain. It is also not possible to make a prediction of the exact location of the photon before its destroyed.
.............I cant for the life of me see any suggestion hint or elluding to a hidden variable in those two lines.

33. Originally Posted by Imaplanck.
Where have I said there is a variable but we just dont know where it is?
Originally Posted by Imaplanck.
No, it will indeed interact with the first obsticle it encounters but the precise point the collision will occur is uncertain. It is also not possible to make a prediction of the exact location of the photon before its destroyed.
Maybe you did not intend what you said the way I understood it, but if so I think your choice of words were not the best. It sounded to me like you were saying that the wave interacted with the first electron it encountered. But it encounters all the electrons all the way around the sphere simultaneously but only interacts with one, and which one is unpredictable. If indeed the result were determined by which electron were encountered by the wave first then a repeat of the experiment would give the same result because the first electron encountered by the wave would be the same electron.

Originally Posted by Imaplanck.
Of course I know hidden variable is incorrect. The location of the photon is uncertain, meaning it cant be predicted where it is.
There is no uncertainty in the location of the photon. There is no point particle called a photon anywhere. There is only a spherical wave and the spherical wave is the photon. There is only the uncertainty in which electron the spherical wave will interact with causing the spherical wave to collapse back to a "point" again.

34. Originally Posted by mitchellmckain
[
Maybe you did not intend what you said the way I understood it, but if so I think your choice of words were not the best. It sounded to me like you were saying that the wave interacted with the first electron it encountered. But it encounters all the electrons all the way around the sphere simultaneously but only interacts with one, and which one is unpredictable. If indeed the result were determined by which electron were encountered by the wave first then a repeat of the experiment would give the same result because the first electron encountered by the wave would be the same electron..
Yes. To be honest I didn't pay fall attention to the question and the context it which it was asked. I apologize for this, I would certainly never make the classic mistake of suggesting a hidden veriable, I am well aware that a great amount of scientists actually are still searching for one, I am not.

Originally Posted by Imaplanck.
Of course I know hidden variable is incorrect. The location of the photon is uncertain, meaning it cant be predicted where it is.
There is no uncertainty in the location of the photon. There is no point particle called a photon anywhere. There is only a spherical wave and the spherical wave is the photon. There is only the uncertainty in which electron the spherical wave will interact with causing the spherical wave to collapse back to a "point" again.[/quote] So the point were the energy hits is not the 'photon'? I'll have to go back and check. I know it would be incorrect to call it the particle....Im pretty suure your wrong and the particle nature part of the wave packet is actually correctly known as the 'photon' not the oval of the packet itself.

35. Originally Posted by Imaplanck.
So the point were the energy hits is not the 'photon'? I'll have to go back and check. I know it would be incorrect to call it the particle....Im pretty suure your wrong and the particle nature part of the wave packet is actually correctly known as the 'photon' not the oval of the packet itself.
I am not sure what you mean by your first sentence (or the last, "oval of the packet"?). Before the interaction, the spherical wave is the photon, but the wave function collapses intantaneously (not really understood). Frankly I forget what the wave packet was a solution to. It may be a nice picture of a quantized piece of wave but I cannot think of any practical applications at the moment. Anyway, the particle nature of the photon is found in the fact that it interacts with only one electron on the sphere with all of its energy instead of all the electrons on the sphere as a wave would. By contrast, I am not sure that the wave nature of the photon can even be demonstrated with only one photon, for it is the interference patterns that emerge when many photons are involved that I would consider definative.

36. Originally Posted by mitchellmckain
There is only a spherical wave and the spherical wave is the photon.
Why do you consider the wave to be spherical?

37. Originally Posted by mitchellmckain
Originally Posted by Imaplanck.
So the point were the energy hits is not the 'photon'? I'll have to go back and check. I know it would be incorrect to call it the particle....Im pretty suure your wrong and the particle nature part of the wave packet is actually correctly known as the 'photon' not the oval of the packet itself.
I am not sure what you mean by your first sentence (or the last, "oval of the packet"?). Before the interaction, the spherical wave is the photon, but the wave function collapses intantaneously (not really understood). Frankly I forget what the wave packet was a solution to. It may be a nice picture of a quantized piece of wave but I cannot think of any practical applications at the moment. Anyway, the particle nature of the photon is found in the fact that it interacts with only one electron on the sphere with all of its energy instead of all the electrons on the sphere as a wave would. By contrast, I am not sure that the wave nature of the photon can even be demonstrated with only one photon, for it is the interference patterns that emerge when many photons are involved that I would consider definative.
I dont know what tangent your going off on here.

38. Originally Posted by Imaplanck.
Of course I know hidden variable is incorrect. The location of the photon is uncertain, meaning it cant be predicted where it is. There is only a spherical wave and the spherical wave is the photon. There is only the uncertainty in which electron the spherical wave will interact with causing the spherical wave to collapse back to a "point" again.
Originally Posted by Mick
There is no uncertainty in the location of the photon. There is no point particle called a photon anywhere.
Yes this correction was indeed wrong. I've looked back over my litterature and it is indeed acceptable to refer to the the particle nature/the point at which the collision occurs/ the quantam as 'he photon' or indeed 'the electron' even before the collapse.

39. Originally Posted by Hermes
Originally Posted by mitchellmckain
There is only a spherical wave and the spherical wave is the photon.
Why do you consider the wave to be spherical?
It was in response to wallaby's question about a photon emitted by an electron in the photo-electric effect. The photon radiates in all direction in a spherical wave front. Light originating from a point source always propagates in a spherical wave front whose center is at the point of origin, whether is many photons or just one.

40. Originally Posted by Imaplanck.
Originally Posted by mitchellmckain
Originally Posted by Imaplanck.
So the point were the energy hits is not the 'photon'? I'll have to go back and check. I know it would be incorrect to call it the particle....Im pretty suure your wrong and the particle nature part of the wave packet is actually correctly known as the 'photon' not the oval of the packet itself.
I am not sure what you mean by your first sentence (or the last, "oval of the packet"?). Before the interaction, the spherical wave is the photon, but the wave function collapses intantaneously (not really understood). Frankly I forget what the wave packet was a solution to. It may be a nice picture of a quantized piece of wave but I cannot think of any practical applications at the moment.

Anyway, the particle nature of the photon is found in the fact that it interacts with only one electron on the sphere with all of its energy instead of all the electrons on the sphere as a wave would. By contrast, I am not sure that the wave nature of the photon can even be demonstrated with only one photon, for it is the interference patterns that emerge when many photons are involved that I would consider definative.
I dont know what tangent your going off on here.
What tangent? You introduced the idea of the wave packet. The second part of my post is simply an attempt to explain the particle and wave natures of light in the situation we were discussing.

The point is that the non-scientist when hearing about wave-particle duality mistakenly tries to visualize an object which is half wave and half particle - something like the wave packet. But that is not really what is happening in physics. The wave-particle duality is really about how these things like the photon and electron give definite evidence that they are particles in one experiment while they give definite evidence that they are waves in a different experiment. So that is what I was explaining.

41. Originally Posted by Imaplanck.
Originally Posted by mitchellmckain
There is no uncertainty in the location of the photon. There is no point particle called a photon anywhere.
Yes this correction was indeed wrong. I've looked back over my litterature and it is indeed acceptable to refer to the the particle nature/the point at which the collision occurs/ the quantam as 'he photon' or indeed 'the electron' even before the collapse.
What literature?

In quantum mechanics particles are represented as wave functions which spread out all over in increasing area of space. We call them particles because despite this wave nature they remain indivisible and because they interact as if they were point particles. Suggesting that the particle is at a particular point in space before the interaction would be to introduce a hidden variable.

42. Originally Posted by mitchellmckain
Originally Posted by Imaplanck.
Originally Posted by mitchellmckain
There is no uncertainty in the location of the photon. There is no point particle called a photon anywhere.
Yes this correction was indeed wrong. I've looked back over my litterature and it is indeed acceptable to refer to the the particle nature/the point at which the collision occurs/ the quantam as 'he photon' or indeed 'the electron' even before the collapse.
What literature?.
My course papers.

43. In quantum mechanics particles are represented as wave functions which spread out all over in increasing area of space.
Incorrect! The wave fucytion doesn't represent the particle nature.
We call them particles because despite this wave nature they remain indivisible and because they interact as if they were point particles.
Yes that is what I have told you in the first posts of this thread, so why tell me?
Suggesting that the particle is at a particular point in space before the interaction would be to introduce a hidden variable.
Yes simularly I have told you that already in the first posts. What are you retarded?

I see you didn't dispute that I was correct in naming the uncertain quantum as the photon, I wonder why?

44. Originally Posted by mitchellmckain
What literature?
Pre-Schrodinger.

In quantum mechanics particles are represented as wave functions which spread out all over in increasing area of space. We call them particles because despite this wave nature they remain indivisible and because they interact as if they were point particles.
Of course, point particles is a simplification rather than a reality-based notion. Also, for those who like it, string theory completely rejects the notion of point particles.

45. [quote]
Originally Posted by Hermes
Originally Posted by mitchellmckain
What literature?
Pre-Schrodinger.
WTF are you talking about? Nothing I have stated is pre-scrodinger.
Im the one who is fucking right! It is perfectly acceptable to refer to the uncertain particle nature to be refered to as the photon. Just because this monkey has the incorrect notion that the wave function is the photon doesn't mean you have to insult me helmet

46. Originally Posted by Imaplanck.
WTF are you talking about? Nothing I have stated is pre-scrodinger.
Im the one who is fucking right!
My purpose is not to insult you or to call your wrong. mitchellmckain mentioned wave functions, and I was only suggesting that Schrodinger discovered wave functions.

Ophiolite

48. Well why do I keep getting this crap about Im advocating hidden variables. And my education is pre-schrodinger? What have I said to deserve such insult?

49. Originally Posted by Hermes
Originally Posted by Imaplanck.
WTF are you talking about? Nothing I have stated is pre-scrodinger.
Im the one who is fucking right!
My purpose is not to insult you or to call your wrong. mitchellmckain mentioned wave functions, and I was only suggesting that Schrodinger discovered wave functions.
I actually mentioned wave functions before him in this thread so if Im learning pre-schrodinger how would I know about that. I also mentioned wave packets which mich seems to think Is a made up word by me which it certainly is not:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wave_packet

50. Originally Posted by Imaplanck.
Originally Posted by Hermes
Originally Posted by mitchellmckain
What literature?
Pre-Schrodinger.
WTF are you talking about? Nothing I have stated is pre-scrodinger.
Im the one who is fucking right! It is perfectly acceptable to refer to the uncertain particle nature to be refered to as the photon. Just because this monkey has the incorrect notion that the wave function is the photon doesn't mean you have to insult me helmet
Come come now I am sure this is all a misunderstanding. I keep trying to explain in order to get through the language barrier. What language barrier? English. English is the wrong language in which to explain any of this, for the proper language is mathematics. But I am not wrong, only failing to communicate. Perhaps you are getting angry or fustrated because you think I am saying that you are wrong and arguing with you. Perhaps it is because you think I am saying you do not understand. I say none of this, because it is pointless. None of us really understand. This is quantum mechanics. We physicists are all just struggling to understand. Physicists would speak to each other like this, correcting each others thinking because none of this is trivial. So relax. No insult is intended by me, only respect.

Hermes is, of course, wrong and acting just a little bit like a baracuda.

51. Originally Posted by mitchellmckain
Hermes is, of course, wrong and acting just a little bit like a baracuda.
Can you elaborate, or do you have nothing to say?

52. isnt it spelled Schrödinger, with a Ö and not a O?

53. Originally Posted by Hermes
Originally Posted by mitchellmckain
Hermes is, of course, wrong and acting just a little bit like a baracuda.
Can you elaborate, or do you have nothing to say?
Not really.

To tell the truth I did not really understand your comment until after I read his response. Can you explain why you said "pre-Schrodinger"? Perhaps it was a joke?

Looking back I thought that it would be easy to get the impression that you were kind of circling in the waters waiting for the scent of blood so you could move in for an attack. Since I do not know the history between you two it did seem a bit unprovoked.

Zelos: Of course it is Schrödinger, but that is so much trouble to spell correctly. (I just cheated by pasting yours )

54. luckely for me sweden have it natural Ö, but even with a english board io can easly make a Ö

55. hmm,..well electrons as well as photons are a good representers for the dual character , Although you can easily recognize the wave character for a light photon ( light as an electromagnetic wave), you can't always recognize the wave character for an electron!

Probably this returns to the Negative Charged character of the electron particel unlike photons, this negative charge doesnt has a nail effect actully it do effects largely on the electron motion inside the atom.

Where you can see the wave character on the individual electron, i assume you can't always see it on a group of electrons or beam of electron like you said, it might returns to the negativity reaction between each particle .