Talk:Wave–particle duality

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Physics (Rated B-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Physics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Physics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
Peer review Wave–particle duality has had a peer review which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.
Wikipedia CD Selection
WikiProject icon Wave–particle duality is included in the Wikipedia CD Selection, see Wave–particle duality at Schools Wikipedia. Please maintain high quality standards; if you are an established editor your last version in the article history may be used so please don't leave the article with unresolved issues, and make an extra effort to include free images, because non-free images cannot be used on the DVDs.

Reference issue[edit]

Ref. #6 ( ) is not accessible (AJP paper). Changed the reference to point to the article on the journal's website.

Update of Treatment in modern quantum mechanics[edit]

I have updated the section "Treatment in modern quantum mechanics" to reflect the common understaning of field theory put forth by Weinberg. There were several comments stating that it needed clarification. I hope that this is considered the best approach at explaining it. Please do not remove any of the added content unless you have read "The quantum theory of fields" by Weinberg. That said you are welcome to expand or edit what I have done.

~Dr. Edmonds — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 08:50, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Regarding the final sentence in the first paragraph:

Particles without mass, like photons, have no solutions of the Schrödinger equation so have another wave.

I can't parse this as English starting after the word equation. Is it supposed to end with "wave equation" instead of "wave"? If so, it would at least read clearly, though I still wouldn't quite understand the meaning (i.e. it would imply that the equation for describing a photo and other mass-less particles is not the Schrödinger equation but some other equation).

--James Synge (talk) 19:03, 29 January 2017 (UTC) James Synge

True nature of ' matter', interference of waves produced by 'free-floating-antennas'[edit]

For more than twenty years I tried to communicate the true nature of 'matter' through the system of 'peer-reviewed-journals', but the prestigious journals are not courageous-enough to publish. So I am expressing it here to the open-minded readers of this page: 'matter' is not a 'substance', 'matter' is a 'process' i.e. 'a phenomenon'. 'Matter' is a process of fluctuations taken place in a 'continuum'. The continuum nature of the fundamental-reality allows formations of spherical 'wave-packets' of micro-microscopic-dimentions.There are integer, whole number of such 'wave-packets'. The waves generated by these packets sprade in all the directions. An interesting difference between the interference of conventional electromagnetic waves and the waves of 'matter-particles' is: that in the case of electromagnetic waves generated by radio-stations, the waves add constructively or distructively depending upon their relative phase, and the antennas remain firmly fixed; whereas in the case of 'matter-waves' depending upon the constructive or distructive superimposition of the waves, the antennas change their positions! Because the 'particles of matter' are so light-weight, that they are 'free-floating-antennas. Interefrnce of 'matter-waves' causes the changes in the positions of the 'spherical wave-packets' called 'particles of matter'. We require not just 'strings' or 'loops' but rather three or four-dimentional-continuum to describe the 'particles of matter'. Thus, the particles of 'matter' are 'particles' as far as their micro-microscopic size, and their whole,intiger number is concered; and they are 'waves' as far as their true nature of 'fluctuations of the most fundamental continuum' is concerned. Hasmukh K. Tank, 22/695 Krishna Dham-2, Vejalpur, Ahmedabad-380051 India. (talk) 11:39, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

wave-particle duality is not wave-particle complementarity[edit]

In the introduction no distinction is made between wave-particle duality and wave-particle complementarity. Whereas the first is at the basis of de Broglie's ideas (to the effect that a microscopic particle is accompanied by a guiding wave) is wave-particle complementarity a notion used by the Copenhagen interpretation (to the effect that, depending on the experimental setup, a microscopic object is either a particle or a wave). See Dugald Murdoch, Niels Bohr's philosophy of physics, Cambridge : Cambridge University Press, 1987 for more details. It seems to me that the present article is about wave-particle complementarity rather than about wave-particle duality.WMdeMuynck (talk) 11:37, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

At root, wave-particle complementarity is wave-particle duality. If duality vanished, so would complementarity. --Michael C. Price talk 21:52, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
It depends on what your roots are. It is true that in standard quantum mechanics (more in particular, in the Copenhagen interpretation) wave-particle duality and wave-particle complementarity are usually confounded, particle or wave behaviour being thought to be determined by the experimental measurement arrangement. However, this idea was based on too restrictive empirical data. Nowadays experiments are performed that are more general than the ones considered in standard quantum mechanics, from which it can be seen that the identification of wave-particle duality and wave-particle complementarity cannot be maintained (for instance, [[1]]). Moreover, even in the experiments of standard quantum mechanics the identification can be seen to be unfounded because both particle and wave properties show up within a single measurement arrangement, individual impacts being particle-like whereas the interference pattern of that same experiment shows wave-like characteristics.WMdeMuynck (talk) 11:06, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
I don't quite see the relevance. Wave and particle aspects can be measured in the same experiment. That doesn't disprove duality and is only a problem for complementarity if the latter is imprecisely or improperly worded - which it often is. -- cheers, Michael C. Price talk 11:56, 16 January 2011 (UTC)-- cheers, Michael C. Price talk 11:56, 16 January 2011 (UTC)


I think, this article is not about a real phemomena but only about interpretation. Early quantum physicists are forced to use classical concepts such as "newtonian particle" and "Fresnel wave" to describe quantum objects in contradictory manner because they had no other conсepts. The path integral formulation developed by Feinman eliminates this misunderstanding. Added a paragraph in head section Raoul NK (talk) 14:49, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree with User:Dicklyon's reversion of Raoul NK's edit, but not with his argumentation: it will not be difficult to find a source expressing someone's belief in the superiority of the path integral formulation. I admit that this method has advantages in certain respects; but it has also disadvantages in other respects. For instance, it does not address the influence of the measurement arrangement, which influence is an essential ingredient of the problem of wave-particle duality. Hence, it seems to me unwarranted to posit the path integral formulation as the canonical way to understand quantum mechanics.WMdeMuynck (talk) 08:27, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
Doesn't the PI side-step the measurement "arrangement", since it requires an initial and final state to begin with? It moves the spookiness from the endpoints to the summation itself. Endpoints don't vary in path integrals. --Michael C. Price talk 10:10, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
Of course. Measurement is not a methodological problem in PI, it only means that a decoherence occurs in the observation point Raoul NK (talk) 12:02, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
I am afraid that by ignoring measurement as a methodological problem PI ignores a main problem of particle-wave complementarity, a subject different from, but closely related to, particle-wave duality. This leaves undisputed the many important features of PI.WMdeMuynck (talk) 21:11, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
It ignores it because it can; that's a success, not a failure. --Michael C. Price talk 21:49, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
PI is a basis of all modern quantum field theories since Feynman's QED. It supports special relativity natively. All the prospect theories such as M-theory or LQG are a development of PI approach. PI also is a clear way to get classical physics as a limit case of quantum physics via principle of the least action. Maybe PI are more difficult to understand unlike de Broglie waves but this is only about didactics, not physics itself.Raoul NK (talk) 11:45, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
I have no argument about the relative merits of the viewpoints, but I don't see any source saying that because of PI, duality is only of historical interest. And many sources that still talk about duality, not in a historical context. Dicklyon (talk) 22:33, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
Sources, speaking on the "duality", either obsolete or are popular, educational, or philosophical literature. Serious contemporary theoretical sources don't mention about duality, they use more effective approaches, almost all based on PI. There is a good analogy with the notion of so-called "relativistic mass", which served its in the interpretation of relativistic effects in terms of Newtonian physics, but in the modern 4-dimensional formulation only creates a confusion Raoul NK (talk) 08:55, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

wave-particle duality and electromagnetic waves[edit]

The recent edit by Dicklyon drew my attention to the fact that in the article on Wave–particle duality not only wave-particle duality and wave-particle complementarity are confounded (see my previous edit on this page), but that there is also a confusion between wave-particle duality (implying that an entity like a single electron or a single photon has both particle and wave properties) and the analogy between electromagnetic waves and water waves (to the effect that both consist of particle-like objects but yet collectively show wave behaviour). Although this confusion certainly has played an important role in the history of wave-particle duality, does it seem to me that piling up these different meanings under the same heading does not improve understanding.WMdeMuynck (talk) 10:44, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

What are you suggesting we could do to improve matters? Dicklyon (talk) 06:05, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
Distinguish what should be distinguished.WMdeMuynck (talk) 16:37, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
So enlighten us. Dicklyon (talk) 18:59, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
So sorry I can't do that. After clashes with expert hating administrators over what they considered to be `own research' (or some similar term) I have decided to restrict my contribution to Wikipedia to giving advice if this seems necessary to me. Some details on the present subject can be found here [[2]].WMdeMuynck (talk) 22:15, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
Ah, no problem. Just advise about appropriate sources that will help me understand what needs to be distinguished, so I can work on it. Dicklyon (talk) 05:46, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
If I remeber well, a book where the distinction between wave-particle duality and wave-particle complementarity is explained, is: D. Murdoch, Niels Bohr's Philosophy of Physics, Cambridge University Press, 1987.WMdeMuynck (talk) 15:32, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
Yes, there's a good chapter there, visible on Amazon. But on reading a bit, I don't see a clear distinction. Bohr developed his complementarity ideas as a elaboration of what others were calling duality. The difference seems to be mostly that he made up a new word and some new concepts to add to the mix. Or am I missing something important? Dicklyon (talk) 06:07, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
I do not exactly remember how Murdoch puts it. There is a crucial difference though between p-w duality (stemming from de Broglie, and referring to an objective, i.e. context-independent, property of an object) and p-w complementarity (stemming from Bohr, and referring to a context-dependent property of an object). As additional reading you might consult my website here [[3]].WMdeMuynck (talk) 09:31, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
Too cryptic for me. Aren't there any good secondary reliable sources with a simple explanation of the distinction? Dicklyon (talk) 07:38, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

ostensible paradox?[edit]

as far as i can tell "ostensible paradox" isn't a technical term. i suggest ostensible be dropped altogether. or replacing ostensible with apparent. ostensible is a distancing word in this circumstance IMO. LazyMapleSunday (talk) 20:16, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

The definition of ostensible that I find says "appearing as such but not necessarily so." This seems like a good word for something that people find paradoxical but which is really just how things are. Dicklyon (talk) 06:03, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
i suppose the word is on point...the word can definitely be confused with "ostensive" which means "manifestly demonstrative" another valid descriptor for paradox. why not just say apparent? or drop the word. it isn't needed. there aren't different 'types' of paradoxes so the descriptor "ostensible" isn't adding anything but uncertainty. LazyMapleSunday (talk) 20:49, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Oil droplet model for wave-particle duality?[edit]

There are quite recent extremely interesting papers (2 in PRL) of Couder, Fort et al in which they use oil droplets on vertically vibrating surface as a model of entities with wave-particle duality - droplets are localized, but they create periodic waves around which cause quantum-like effects: interference in double-slit experiment, unpredictable tunneling (depending in complicated way on practically hidden state of field) and recently orbit quantization (that particle has to 'find a resonance' with field perturbations it creates - after one orbit, its internal phase has to return to the initial state).

They give great intuition about wave-particle duality - maybe it should be mentioned in the article? (the authors relate it to pilot wave theory). —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 22:45, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

possessive of Huygens[edit]

"the double-slit experiments by Young and Fresnel provided evidence for Huygens' wave theories" should read "Huygens's wave theories" The possessive form of an individual should end with an apostrophe & "s", even if that name itself ends in "s", with the rare exception of a few notable entities, such as Zeus' thunderbolts or Jesus' disciples. Verberate (talk) 21:23, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

WP:SOFIXIT. Dicklyon (talk) 00:20, 1 April 2011 (UTC)


Why, if "wavicle" redirects here, is no mention made of that handy awesome term? (talk) 05:21, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Alternative views[edit]

Back in 2009 a comment was made: "An editor has expressed a concern that this article lends undue weight to certain ideas, incidents, controversies or matters relative to the article subject as a whole. Please help to create a more balanced presentation. Discuss and resolve this issue" Elsewhere: "Giving due weight and avoiding giving undue weight means that articles should not give minority views as much of or as detailed a description as more widely held views. Generally, the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all." I don't see any discussion yet, so presumably this is a difficult subject? So I will put something in to start it.

  1. I think the issue is that wave-particle duality is an issue, even for orthodox physics. Yes, physics can rationalise away some of the dilemma, by simply defining a particle to mean both a point and wave, or making out that the effects are only complementary rather than contradictory. But deep down there is an incongruence about wave-particle duality, that will not go away. Wave-particle duality is not a done deal, or a historical fact. Instead it is an ongoing conundrum.
  2. Since it is a controversy, there is a place for a mention of alternative views. In fact I think there is a responsibility to mention that wave-particle duality is still somewhat problematic for fundamental physics, and an area of ongoing development.
  3. I thought the coverage was reasonably balanced and did not give undue weight to the alternatives. In fact I think there could be a good deal more said about the de Broglie Bohm theory, since that has never gone away and is even enjoying a renaissance.
  4. There are 'tiny minority' views that are not included at all, which is consistent with the above.

So overall, I think the text is sufficient. If anything I think it should be expanded, not reduced. John Pons (talk) 08:30, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

It is almost uncany that terms are used to discribe the physical phenomen like "quantum potential" and "deterministic" that could have come from a Buddist text on 'Dukkha':

The "potential" of one 'thought' moment in bringing about (conditioning) the next one in a "cause and effect" manner with no unchanging substance in them, continuing unbroken, being a series that is nothing but movement.

Concidering this it makes sense that the wave-particle duality is an ongoing conundrum in modern physics and that the unified field theory has not been discovered or formulated yet as the basis for the physical hypothesis are a substance or force that brings about movement instead of using movement as the basis of the hypothesis. The physicist that realises this will succeed in reconciling the conundrum and discover the "unified field". Mendel Sachs appears on the right track although his wave monism (continuous field) needs to be replaced with movement. The "moment" mentioned above can be reduced to the zero dimensional mathematical point, which cannot be observed and this makes no difference to the observable movement of wave and particle and thus the universe. I am not a physicist or mathematician but hopefully someone competent can apply what I have implied above and translate it into the nessesary mathematics. SamiAEH (talk) 20:42, 1 April 2013 (UTC)


Where is the reference to light quanta renamed to photons in 1925. Is this from a book a news paper article a scientific paper or what? Dsmith7707 (talk) 13:50, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

the primary source is here. Should be 1926. Here is a secondary. Dicklyon (talk) 15:49, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

New images?[edit]

At the very beginning, nevermind their awkward positioning, are either of the second two images any use?

The first

Particle impacts make visible the interference pattern of waves.

is nice, though can and should be moved down somewhare, yet the other 2??

A quantum particle is represented by a wave packet.
Interference of a quantum particle with itself

will a typical reader gain anything? They will look at them and think

"Heh, what am I looking at?... ok, in the first there are these bands in the dark, and... the second, how or why does this particle "interfere with itself"??"

I mean really? There are already images of quantum interferance (now including the new one above) and wavepackets, yet every other diagram in the artice actually transfers meaning visually, these do not. I have removed them for now. Please explain if you object. F = q(E+v×B) ⇄ ∑ici 16:43, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

On second thought perhaphs they could be moved down to the first section, with re-written captions. Apologies for that. =( F = q(E+v×B) ⇄ ∑ici 16:50, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

It seems to me that the three animations are better together. The second and the third are like a theoretical explanation of the experimental result (here simulated) presented in the first. I suppose my critic understood that they are informative because they are a precise representation of mathematical solutions of the Schrödinger equation in a simple case, a single particle in free space.Thierry Dugnolle (talk) 21:03, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Original research in section "Both-particle-and-wave view"[edit]

The text referencing the work of one A. F. Biddulf was added by none other than Andy Biddulf himself. Evidence:

The source given is Andy's (now non-existent) page on Google Knol. As far as I can tell the work has not been published anywhere else. The claim itself sounds a lot like pseudoscientific nonsense.

In this light, I'm going to remove these statements from the article. (talk) 23:22, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

see also: User_talk:Andybiddulph Special:Contributions/Andybiddulph (talk) 23:26, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

The 'Rays' Of Light: As a Solid Proof Of 'Wave' Nature Of Light[edit]

The fact that we see the 'rays' of light, is a solid proof of 'wave-nature of light'. If light were like the spray of photons, then we should see a spray-like distribution of photons, and not the 'rays'. The waves travel in space making concentric-circles. And interference of amplitudes of circular-waves from many closely-located-sources give rise to rays of light.

Thus, the very observation of 'rays of light' is a proof of 'wave nature of light'. Hasmukh K. Tank111.91.79.3 (talk) 09:44, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Particles constructed as causal sets have frequency and wavelength[edit]

When particles are constructed as repetitive causal set propagations, they have deBroglie wavelength and frequency with respect to other such particles. Thus both particle and wave characteristics are accounted for in terms of standalone causal sets. The frequency ratios inherent in causal sets serve as energy ratios in accord with Planck's E=hf. This implicates the causal link as the quantum of action and the unit of energy ratios. Wave-particle duality is just one of the issues that becomes a non-issue in the reduction of physics to causal set theory. The full set of constructions illustrating wave-particle duality is posted online here: Causal Set Theory and the Origin of Mass-ratio Carey Carlson (talk) 20:49, 4 February 2013 (UTC)Carey_Carlson

So, in reading the section on the covering the transition from Newtonian physics to wave-particle physics, the article states:

For macroscopic particles, because of their extremely long wavelengths, wave properties usually cannot be detected.[2]

And the footnote, then says;

2. R. Eisberg and R. Resnick (1985). Quantum Physics of Atoms, Molecules, Solids, Nuclei, and Particles (2nd ed.). John Wiley & Sons. pp. 59–60. ISBN 047187373X. "For both large and small wavelengths, both matter and radiation have both particle and wave aspects.... But the wave aspects of their motion become more difficult to observe as their wavelengths become shorter.... For ordinary macroscopic particles the mass is so large that the momentum is always sufficiently large to make the de Broglie wavelength small enough to be beyond the range of experimental detection, and classical mechanics reigns supreme.

Which to me sounds like the first section should say that because of extremely short wavelengths...Gpronger (talk) 22:14, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Tesla and electrons?[edit]

"Nikola Tesla discovered in 1901 that when a metal was illuminated by high-frequency light (e.g., ultraviolet light), electrons were ejected from the metal at high energy. This work was based on the previous knowledge that light incident upon metals produces a current, but Tesla was the first to describe it as a particle phenomenon."

Moved this to talk because Tesla did not believe in electrons so what discovery or contribution did he make here? There is a reference to this at Physics Quick Study Guide for Smartphones and Mobile Devices By MobileReference but it does not mention any "first". Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 17:40, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Wave-only View[edit]

I removed the Sachs quote from this section because it was non-peer reviewed research but then I looked at the rest and the entirety of it sounds like non-peer reviewed research. I don't see the point of having this section! Especially since all the references are to books by the theories' originators, not to articles in journals or to standard academic books discussing such theories. I think this entire section should be removed or furnished with proper references to peer-reviewed articles or books. Tmfs10 (talk) 01:04, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Of course such views will never be found in peer-reviewed publications, because they are alternatives to the peer-supported paradigm. It is generally OK to mention alternative POVs with an appropriate weight, based on primary sources; just not to present them as fact or scientific consensus, or as notable enough to have their own articles. You can see from the recent reverts how the officially designated "physicists" get their immune reactions going when outsiders have a different POV. Wikipedia doesn't need to be that way. Dicklyon (talk) 22:35, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

It seems that the problem of wave-particle-duality is resolved ![edit]

In a paper, in the quantum mechanics section of pre-print-server-site vixra abs/1403.0057, titled: "Will the Q.M.waves of equal de Broglie wavelengths of the Electron and Proton Interfere in the Double-Slit-Experiments?" by Hasmukh K. Tank we find an explanation for the wave-only-explanation for the photons and all other 'particles' of 'matter'. The latest version of the first paper, titled: "Explanation for the observed 'wave-particle-duality of Light" is available at vixra abs/1402.0153, version-3. The explanation is as follows: “Since at very high frequencies, narrowband filtering and generation of purely monochromatic light of one Hertz bandwidth is not yet technically possible, there has been quite a wide bandwidth of waves involved, in the double slit experiments and photoelectric experiments performed so far. And since this wide ‘band’ of waves coherently add only at discrete points in space and time, we get ‘particles’ at the detectors.” And to ascertain the true nature of QM-Waves the following experiment is proposed:"A new kind of experiment is proposed here, in which protons and electrons are accelerated at appropriate velocities vp ve , such that their de Broglie wavelengths are equal; i.e. ( h / mp vp )= ( h / me ve ) and let them pass through closely spaced slits so that they can interfere with each other. Similarly, in another experiment, their wave-functions: A exp i ( kp X - ωp t ) = A exp i ( ke X - ωe t ) , and let them pass through closely spaced slits, and see how the two matter-waves interfere." (talk) 07:38, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Proposed Explanations for: (i) the Wave-Particle-Duality of Light and (ii) Double-Slit-Interference of Single Photons[edit]

Abstract of an above-titled pre-print-paper posted at vixra by Hasmukh K. Tank, viXra:1407.0036reads as follows: "This letter attempts to propose explanations for the century-old puzzle which thousands of physicists, including Einstein, Plank, Feynman …have been trying to resolve. A ‘particle’ is first mathematically characterized here as an impulse-function in space; and then Fourier-transformed into wave-number-domain; showing that a ‘particle’ contains a ‘set’ of waves, and not just a single frequency. Then a small ‘set’ of waves is taken and its sum is plotted showing that at most of the places the wave-amplitudes mutually nullify each-other and constructively add only at discrete points in space and time; agreeing with our mathematical characterization. Then we show that in the experiments performed so far the red lasers had sizably wide line-width, means the sources have been producing a wide set of waves, and not just a pure single frequency. Similarly, in the single-particle interference-experiments incandescent filament-lamps were used with green filters inserted to isolate single photons; but it is obvious that at the frequencies of light very narrow-band-filters are not yet technically feasible, so the green filters used allowed sizably wide band of waves. This wide band of waves passed from both the slits, interfered like waves, and whenever and wherever they got coherently added, a ‘particle’ called ‘photon’ got detected." (talk) 05:45, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Consciousness as the fundamental Reality view[edit]

From [4]:

Steven Eric Kaufman makes the case that the phenomenon of wave-particle duality has as its basis the way in which experience is created by the fundamental and irreducible reality of Consciousness that is ultimately what is actually there underlying the experiential appearance of both the observer as well as whatever is apprehended as the observed or experiential reality.[1][2] Kaufman maintains that the creation of any experience involves some relation occurring between the Consciousness that is actually there where the observer already appears and the experience eventually appear to be, and that that relation produces a boundary that arises where those two poles of Consciousness meet, analogous to the line that arises where the tips of two fingers meet or touch, and that it is that created boundary, which he refers to as an experiential boundary, as it is apprehended by the Consciousness that composes the observer side of the relation, that is ultimately what an observer apprehends as a particular experience or experiential reality.

(3 more paragraphs)


  1. ^ Kaufman, S.E., The Nature of Quantum Reality: What the Phenomena at the Heart of Quantum Theory Reveal About the Nature of Reality, Journal of Consciousness Exploration & Research| January 2014 | Volume 5 | Issue 1 | pp. 01-84
  2. ^ Kaufman, S. E. The Experiential Basis of Wave-Particle Duality and The Uncertainty Principle, Prespacetime Journal | April 2011 | Vol. 2 | Issue 4 | pp. 544-573

The "Unified Reality Theory" is a very fringe view, advocated by its author in his website. It's not notable enough for its own article. Per WP:PARITY, it's not notable enough to be mentioned in this article. --Enric Naval (talk) 11:23, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Wave Theory of Light Can Explain Photoelectric Effect[edit]

Photoelectric effect can take place only when the incident light has a frequency above a certain threshold frequency.
Photoelectric emission for a metal takes place only if the light has a frequency above a certain threshold frequency which is an intrinsic property of the metal. This can be accounted for by the wave nature.As frequency increases, wavelength decreases as they are inversely proportional to each other.Therefore the energy carried by a ray of light is transferred to a smaller area if the frequency is increased.Every atom has a definite atomic radius. For the energy of the ray to be transferred completely to an atom, the area of the source should be equal to or lesser than the atom. Therefore a wavelength lesser than or equal to the diameter of the atom is required to trigger photoelectric emission.

Photoelectric effect is instantaneous.
The time required for one electron to break free of coulombic force from the nucleus is 10-9sec or less which can be accounted as the time taken for the energy transfer to take place.

Increase in Intensity is directly proportional to the photoelectric current.
Increase in Intensity of light can be assumed as increase in the no. of point sources of light. Hence a larger no. of atoms in the illuminated region are exposed to the light. This increases the no. of electrons released as a larger no of electrons gain energy. This also accounts for the saturation current as at a certain intensity, for a fixed frequency, the no. of electrons that can be released by the metal becomes constant and further increase in intensity has no effect.

The kinetic energy of photoelectrons increases with increase in frequency.
Increase in frequency leads to lower wavelength implying the energy has been transferred to a lesser area.Hence the electrons that are exposed to the radiation gain greater energy in the same time.

The Stopping Potential Is Proportional To The Frequency Of Incident Light.
Greater frequency of light means greater kinetic energy of the electrons. Hence force required to oppose the flow of electrons is also greater. Therefore an increase in stopping potential is observed.--Shreyasajitrajendran (talk) 08:32, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Removing tinypic[edit]

I removed the link Wave Particle because I don't think it belongs. If any editor wants it there, speak up. --guyvan52 (talk) 15:03, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

multiple edits; too many to summarize adequately in edit summary[edit]

I have made multiple edits. Here are my reasons. Primarily they are that Wikipedia takes a neutral approach when there are many more or less well established points of view. Such is the case here.

  1. Wave particle duality is not refutable by any experiment; therefore it doesn't qualify as a theory. It is a pedagogical and even metaphysical interpretive doctrine.
  2. The full story of the guiding wave was set up by de Broglie and more or less ignored till Bohm revived it.
  3. Interpretations don't support evidence: they may be supported by evidence, but the evidence can be supported only by replication of the original experiment.
  4. The so-called 'Copenhagen interpretation' is just that, an interpretation, along with others. Indeed, 'it' is barely that, to judge from the literature (and from the Wikipedia article about it), because 'it' is loosely and variously defined. Perhaps 'it' is dominant in the seats of power, but Wikipedia is not here to push the doctrines held in the seats of power.Chjoaygame (talk) 08:16, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
The first (bold-faced) sentence in this paragraph bothers me: "But Einstein's 1930s vision and the mainstream of 20th century disliked the alternative picture, of the pilot wave, where no duality paradox is found. Initiated by Louis de Broglie, and developed later as the de Broglie-Bohm theory, this "particle and wave" model, today, agrees with all the current experimental evidence, to the same extent as the other interpretations."
1. We need to inform the reader at the very beginning that this is about an alternative picture. By postponing this info until the end of the first sentence, my mind thought your were speaking about Einstein disliking wave-particle duality (a plausible assumption since Einstein had somewhat of a love-hate relation with wave-particle duality).
2. The verb "dislike" is applied simultaneously to a 1930s vision, as well as to mainstream 20th century thought. That's working the verb pretty hard.
I am better at criticizing prose than writing it, but here goes my effort:
"Einstein's 1930s vision of wave-particle duality contrasts with another picture that involves Louis de Broglie's concept of a pilot wave, and was later incorporated into the Broglie-Bohm theory. The Broglie-Bohm theory is generally disliked by 20th century thinkers, although this "particle and wave" model, seems to agree with all current experimental evidence, to the same extent as other interpretations."
By the way, I assume you have a reference for the claim that the Broglie-Bohm theory agrees with experimental evidence. I was under the impression that Bell's theorem precludes such alternative theories.--guyvan52 (talk) 20:42, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
I just did the bare minimum to that pre-existing sentence, no investment. It was just that it hid de Broglie's priority. I would be happy to see the whole paragraph deleted, but I didn't do that because I had done enough already for one edit. Einstein said various things, at different times, about pilot waves. This is more or less metaphysical, hardly testable by experiment.Chjoaygame (talk) 05:14, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
With respect, I have now offered a further edit.Chjoaygame (talk) 13:02, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
Your last edit was a significant improvement. I was trying to keep the original author's line of reasoning, which while perhaps true, was not entirely relevant. Now my problem is with the last sentence: "In some ways, the de Broglie waves exist in ordinary physical space-time." That sounds like POV. I think you intended to say something like: "In some ways, the XXX theory holds that de Broglie waves actually exist as physical waves." (I presume XXX is the Broglie-Bohm theory.)--guyvan52 (talk) 14:44, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
To clarify, I know you didn't intend to commit a POV error. But the prose could be misinterpreted as such.--guyvan52 (talk) 14:49, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
Since the paragraph is obviously about the Broglie-Bohm theory, I think it is sufficient to say: "In some ways, this theory holds that de Broglie waves actually exist as physical waves." (or ...actually exist in the physical universe.)--guyvan52 (talk) 15:02, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
Thank you for this. Yes, what I wrote there is vague and evasive. The details of the de Broglie story are many, and I am not expert in them. de Broglie says at times that his waves are fictive. I would therefore say that he does not have actual existence in mind. I didn't mean to say what he and his followers think actually exists, just to say what is the domain of their waves. I was using the word exist in an abstract and general sense, as we might say that the square root of two exists, without expecting to find it sitting on the kitchen table if we are lucky, or expecting to be able to measure how much it weighs. The Schrödinger report that I cite in the article explicitly says the domain of the de Broglie waves is ordinary space-time. There was much discussion of this at the 1927 conference. I will re-examine this. In the meantime, I will try a fix.Chjoaygame (talk) 15:40, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

wave-particle duality is quantum 'uncertainty principle'[edit]

Please update (talk) 20:12, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

In due time someone probably will, but for now I've removed your cut-n-paste copyvio from the article. Vsmith (talk) 22:44, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
I am suspicious of the claims made by the abstract to this article. I have not read the article because that costs $32 (US$), but genuine breakthroughs in the interpretation of quantum mechanics are few and far between. --guyvan52 (talk) 23:23, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Old mainstream is the Truth?[edit]

Copenhagen interpretation was the mainstream view in the 20th century. In nowadays mainstream recognizes that the Copenhagen interpretation is not "the best thing", so the mainstream today (2015) admits some alternatives (!).

The most cited and accepted alternative, without other conflicts with Copenhagen, is the De Broglie–Bohm theory... But the theory itself was "stopped", "revisited" and today is "on review"... There are some "Bohmian enhanced theories"... But all of them use, as kernel, the pilot-wave model.

The "pilot-wave picture" offers the most didactic and intuitive view of quantum phenomena: is an important issue as encyclopedic information (!). With the discovery of the hydrodynamic quantum analogs, it acquired a higher position as explanation of quantum phenomena.

Any objections (?) to use of the article's space, not only enhancing Copenhagen (duality view), but also "pilot-wave picture" (no duality!), both as "valid interpretations of the mainstream of the 2015's"?

--Krauss (talk) 20:11, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

I am not an expert in such matters, but I know of no interpretation that isn't either (1) essentially equivalent to the Copenhagen interpretation, or (2) based more on speculation than anything else. As I said, I am not an expert...the only "alternatives" I know of are a multi-universe model (which I vaguely understand), and Feynman's path integral (which I do understand), neither of which really contradicts Copenhagen. --guyvan52 (talk) 21:11, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
De Broglie–Bohm theory is equivalent, only changes the speculation about "hidden reality"... About a "better model of reality", please see by yourself the Double-slit experiment results with quantum particles, then see this little video (!), that explain, for "all of us" (experts and non-experts) what is a "pilot-wave particle". What your conclusion? The results can be didactically explained by the pilot-wave model? --Krauss (talk) 22:51, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
I need to qualify what I just said: In the discussions surrounding the adoption of Copenhagen circa 1927, alternative ideas are worth mentioning, for historical context. Bell's theorem is also significant. I just object to any statements suggesting that there is something "out there" waiting to be discovered. Nor should we state that there is "nothing" to be discovered -- here silence is the most neutral POV. --guyvan52 (talk) 21:19, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
I not understand your point... There are no statement "suggesting that there is something 'out there' waiting to be discovered" (!!), there are only two competitor models... One model of reality (Copenhagen) is good for do calculations, but very bad to explain what happens in the microscopic (hidden) world; the other model (pilot-wave picture) is bad for handwork calculations, but is very good and didactic to explain (!) --Krauss (talk) 22:51, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
PS: the hydrodynamic quantum analogs are not necessary for enhance pilot-wave interpretations, but have historic and didactic importance, so, is encyclopedic. User Guy vandegrift may be review your positions. --Krauss (talk) 22:51, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
I am opposed to using this article to express interpretations of quantum mechanics, any further than it already does. Further work on wave-particle duality in this article should aim to provide physical and mathematical clarity, not philosophical interpretation. Though one does not often see it said, I think wave-particle duality was discovered mathematically by Sir William Rowan Hamilton and is not something new in quantum mechanics.Chjoaygame (talk) 22:15, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
Your statement is rather vague and non-objective. The "wave-particle duality" is an interpretation, the duality vanish if you change your model, your picture of the microscopic reality. With De Broglie–Bohm theory you do this without any changes in the power of the model, results, etc... Here we only discuss the use of space in the article, with or not more about one of the interpretations. --Krauss (talk) 22:51, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
A good place to develop interpretations of quantum mechanics is the Wikipedia article Minority_interpretations_of_quantum_mechanics.--guyvan52 (talk) 23:05, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
The quote from Bell is misleading and irrelevant. Maybe he did not understand some aspect of de Broglie Bohm theory, but his misunderstanding of this non-mainstream interpretation has almost nothing to do with this article. Go post it somewhere else, where it is clear that it is a view that rejected by most physicists. Roger (talk) 23:46, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

reason for removing animation and link[edit]

I am removing the animation that was added in this post. My reason is as follows.

The talk of an observer affecting diffraction is metaphoric. What actually affects diffraction is physical interventions that alter the paths available for the passage of the particle. Such path alterations may make information available to an observer. But it is the paths, not the observer, that exert efficacy. It may be a convenient abbreviation to say "the observer did it", but it is a metaphor, not a categorical expression. The animation that I am removing makes it seem that the presence of the observer is the efficacious factor. It mistakes the metaphor for categorical statement. It is therefore profoundly misleading. Wikipedia does not post misleading items.

At the same time I am removing the external link to to the source that gives other such animations. The latter are not directly appropriate for this article. The external link is therefore promotion and not permitted. Chjoaygame (talk) 02:14, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

I am neutral on the question of removing File:Wave-particle duality.ogv. One thing that bothered me was that a disproportionally large number of particles were hitting the slits (when most should been reflected). The animation is already on Wikiversity. If I had time and was planning to teach Modern Physics in the near future I would upgrade the quiz to address the animation's non-physical features.
Be sure to keep the two essential figures File:Wave-particle_duality.gif and File:Young Diffraction.png). In fact, it would be more dramatic if both appeared on the right hand margin and not too far from each other. They almost summarize the entire article.--guyvan52 (talk) 03:19, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
Thank you for this comment, with which I agree.
Looking a bit more, I find I agree with the removal that was made here. The removed items have their merits but I think they will not really enlighten the reader at this point. They are deeply theoretical.Chjoaygame (talk) 04:31, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Unclear statements in lede[edit]

According to Schrödinger the domain of the de Broglie waves is ordinary physical space-time.[2]

Why do we need to invoke the authority of Schroedinger to establish the domain of the wave? Wouldn't this rather be a background condition obvious to all, in reference to which Schroedinger makes some other point?

This formal feature in principle makes an account separable in ordinary physical space-time.

What is a "separable" account? Something to do with the speed of light? (talk) 11:57, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

More uses of the word separable in the article: Ordinary physical space-time allows more or less direct visualization of cause and effect relations, and so is said to be separable. In that sense, configuration space is not separable, and does not directly show cause and effect linkages.
I don't know what "separable" means outside of the word "separability" referring to the rule that nothing can go faster than light. Is there a deeper concept of "separable" in the literature? I don't see it in the imprecise characterization as "[allowing] more or less direct visualization of cause and effect relations". Nor do I see how something about causality could even apply to configuration space, which is purely spatial.
The word isn't explained in the body of the article (which speaks against using it loosely in the introduction) and I can't find it elsewhere in Wikipedia, at least not as an article title.
What does it mean, and can this be added?
Or is the whole point simply that these waves aren't compatible with special relativity? (talk) 13:33, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Confusion of wave/particle for electromagnetic fields versus electric charges[edit]

From the article:

Since electromagnetism was known to be a wave generated by a changing electric or magnetic field (a continuous, wave-like entity itself) an atomic/particle description of electricity and charge was a non sequitur.

It appears that the above sentence is confusing the wave/particle question for electromagnetic fields with the wave/particle question for electric charge, as if one bleeds over into the other.

In Maxwell's equations, supplemented by electrons, etc, it's entirely consistent to have electromagnetic fields be waves and electric charge be particles. This is simply classical electrodynamics, a kind of ODE-PDE system; it makes sense mathematically. If there are difficulties, it has to do with the pointlike nature of the electron, so its self-energy is infinite, etc. But I always viewed these as mathematical technicalities that can be solved by using generalized functions and measures, so you get a mathematically consistent theory.

Am I wrong here? Does the energy stored in the E+M field count as inertial mass and then the theory is inconsistent when the electron is accelerated? Or can this be left out if you drop E = m c^2? Or is the energy transfer and "storage" handily taken care of by the couplings in Maxwell's equations? I never thought these things through. But in any case, these issues would still be there even if electricity is a fluid, with smoothly varying charge and mass density.

Of course, there are also conceptual physics questions about the nature of the electron "packet" that really do invite you to fundamentally re-think the foundations of physics.

But the sentence quoted above doesn't seem to be alluding to these issues, I don't think. At least it doesn't say so. It just says that the wave nature of E+M fields is on the face of it inconsistent with the particle nature of charges, which seems to be untrue, on the face of it. So it should be changed. (talk) 14:50, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Deleted section that was just promotion, not encyclopedic[edit]

I have deleted a section, headed Image of Wave-Particle nature of light has been captured, that was just promotion of the research of a group, not an encyclopedic account of something.Chjoaygame (talk) 09:34, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Lede: cut: why[edit]

I cut some stuff out of the lede that didn't seem very helpful for the overall idea, and is largely in subsections anyway. I think there is more that should go, but will let it settle for a while William M. Connolley (talk) 17:57, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

The "vague one-liner" was a header, general rather than vague. It could have been fixed by inserting the words 'as follows' to change "Various opinions have been expressed about this" to 'Various opinions have been expressed about this, as follows.'
The paragraphs that followed indicated the diversity of views, not the history as such.Chjoaygame (talk) 23:46, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
Yes, I realised what the "vague" bit was about, and almost left it, as you say, its an intro. But the stuff in the lede now is a kinda history of the idea. Also bits like Erwin Schrödinger developed his wave mechanics by referring the universal wave aspect not to ordinary physical space-time, but rather to a profoundly different and more abstract 'space' is distinctly unhelpful if you don't already know what is going on William M. Connolley (talk) 10:36, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
Fair enough. I don't intend to try to sort this out. This is a very difficult topic for a Wikipedia article. I know of very few useful and reliable treatments of the topic. Incantations of dogma are available by the truckload.Chjoaygame (talk) 14:31, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
Please watch and make sure I don't do anything terrible, though William M. Connolley (talk) 19:50, 21 December 2015 (UTC)