"Warp" <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote in message
news:4c4aa2da@news.povray.org...
> Le_Forgeron <jgr### [at] freefr> wrote:
> > Le 24/07/2010 07:57, Warp nous fit lire :
> > > Neeum Zawan <fee### [at] festercom> wrote:

> > >> Electrons aren't waves. They aren't simple particles either. Why
can't
> > >> they just teach it that way?
> > >
> > >   It would be nice to know what they are, not only what the aren't.

> > They are electrons. Now, you wanted a seizable simile... sorry, no such
> > thing at your scale.

>   You can't use the word being defined in its definition. That's a
> circular definition.

You don't. Much as you observe an orange and call it an orange, you observe
an electron and call it an electron. The "problem", if any, is with our
insistence that an electron should behave like an orange, or anything else
from our macro world. It doesn't have to and it doesn't: It behaves like an
electron.

IOW, there is no such thing as wave-particle duality, or rather, the term
should not have survived once the scientists got over their initial shock
and realized the implicit assumption that an electron should behave either
like an orange or a guitar string was unwarranted and ultimately false.

Post a reply to this message