somebody <x### [at] ycom> wrote:
> "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.

  Why is "it would be nice to know what they are, not only what the aren't"
being interpreted as "I want electrons to be compared to oranges or to
guitar strings"? That's not what I'm saying.

  You are also telling me what electron's aren't, not what they are.
And "electrons" is not the answer because, as I said, that's a circular
definition (which is what I was objecting to above).

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message