[pittsburghjoe (OP)]

Has this test been done before? Shoot buckyballs or the largest known object is to become a matter wave ..at a double slit that is thinner than whatever the projectile is when observed. If a matter wave makes it through, it will mean mass isn't there during the wave and kill the notion that QM objects are both at the same time.

[Kryptid]

If a matter wave makes it through, it will mean mass isn't there during the wave

How do you figure? Mass doesn't have a size.

[pittsburghjoe (OP)]

The structure / mass / matter wouldn't have fit through the slits if it was observed.

[Kryptid]

The structure / mass / matter wouldn't have fit through the slits if it was observed.

"Structure", "mass" and "matter" are not synonyms. Mass doesn't have a size, so the idea that it can't "fit" somewhere doesn't make sense.

[pittsburghjoe (OP)]

They are synonyms for the purpose of this test. If something our size didn't have mass, you wouldn't be able to see it.

[chiralSPO]

Mass has little to do with how big a slit something needs to get through... (so the proposed experiment can neither confirm nor challenge the notion that waves can have mass--spoiler alert, waves can have mass)

...but there is a somewhat nifty way to see that mass is important for calculating tunneling barriers for particles (which depends on the wave function treatment of the particles):

We can measure the rates of chemical reactions, and see how much they change when hydrogen atoms are switched for deuterium (chemically identical isotope, but with twice the mass). This is called the kinetic isotope effect (or KIE). Sometimes a hydrogen atom has to tunnel from one place to another for the reaction to occur, and sometimes (especially when the reaction is very cold) this is the rate determining step, which means that we can directly measure how long (on average) it takes for protons to tunnel from x to y, and compare with hoe long it takes deuterons to tunnel from x to y. When this tunneling is the rate determining step, the KIE is very large, sometimes even slowing down by a factor of 100 when doubling the mass of the tunneling particle. This means that mass is an important property of a quantum object, even when considering it as a wave.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kinetic_isotope_effect#Tunneling

[pittsburghjoe (OP)]

okay, it can hold a variable for mass while it's in wave form. The test would still go a long way in getting you guys to realize it's not both matter and waves at the same time.

[chiralSPO]

waves are matter...

rather, matter can be modeled as waves, not just as particles

[pittsburghjoe (OP)]

oh, so, instead of considering what I'm saying ..you're gonna go with a buckyball physically taking the form of a wave - like a cartoon character being shocked by lightning.

[Colin2B]

oh, so, instead of considering what I'm saying ..you're gonna go with a buckyball physically taking the form of a wave.

That’s not what @chiralSPO said. He said it could be modelled as a wave.

[chiralSPO]

I am a professional chemist. I think about electrons and atoms and molecules and molecular-scale systems day-in and day-out. I am well aware that they are neither particles nor waves.

But it is very convenient to think about them as such in certain situations.

I have a kit sitting on my desk in front of me now, which allows me to build models of molecules with balls and sticks. This is very easy to visualize, and holding the models in my hands allows my physical-spatial intuition to make very useful predictions. But let's be honest: these balls and sticks are no more like molecules than this →  ← is a face.

Unfortunately for our simple minds, simplistic models like balls and sticks, fall short quite often when considering systems at this scale. Waves, springs, and pendulums (pendula?) are the next step up, and allow us to tackle dynamic and indeterminate systems.  But again, a system of oscillating springs is not more like a molecule than this ↓

face.jpg (65.93 kB . 542x840 - viewed 3969 times)
↑ is a face.

[chiralSPO]

And by the way, buckyballs are far smaller than the largest objects that have been shown to have quantum behaviors: https://medium.com/the-physics-arxiv-blog/physicists-smash-record-for-wave-particle-duality-462c39db8e7b

[Bored chemist]

How will buckyballs fired at a double slit behave?
Presumably the same way they did last time.

"In 1999, the double-slit experiment was successfully performed with buckyball molecules "
from
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double-slit_experiment

[pittsburghjoe (OP)]

One of the admins changed the title. I want slits smaller than the object to prove matter waves don't have structure.
Yes, there are larger objects ..so that means we can do the test with larger slits.
"It could be modeled as a wave" ...hmm, you guys are so close to admitting it.

[chiralSPO]

...hmm, you guys are so close to admitting it.

"admitting it" makes it sound as if you believe that "we" know something and are actively trying to prevent that knowledge from spreading...

[Kryptid]

They are synonyms for the purpose of this test.

Not if they lead you to the false conclusion that mass has a size. If you think it does have a size, then what size do you claim that mass is?

If something our size didn't have mass, you wouldn't be able to see it.

Can you even give an example of something that exists that doesn't have mass/energy? Even space-time contains mass/energy in the form of vacuum fluctuations.

[geordief]

Can you even give an example of something that exists that doesn't have mass/energy? Even space-time contains mass/energy in the form of vacuum fluctuations.

Is that just because (or connected to the fact that) any measurement of mass/energy  is relative to a reference frame and all reference frames' location  are uncertain in the real world?

[jeffreyH]

Why don't you read the answers and learn something interesting instead of trying to find the loophole. Even I knew that the buckyball experiment had been done.  It reminds me of the opening of the sketch. "Is this the right room for an argument?". "I've told you once". "No you haven't". "Yes I have." Etc, etc, etc.

[Bored chemist]

. I want slits smaller than the object

Pretty much by definition of the size of an object, that means that the object won't go through the slits.
So nothing will get through.

Why are you suggesting doing a pointless experiment like that?

[evan_au]

I want slits smaller than the object

Since the object can be described by a quantum wavefunction, the size of the object (and the size of the slits) is a fuzzy concept.

I expect that there is a small but finite chance that the object will be found on the other side of the slit.