0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
But with this, there was a catch. DeBroglie, the true inventor of the wave particle duality model, for all states of matter, never said that his wave mechanics specifically said this. From experiments, like the photoelectric effect and gamma scattering, we knew the particle had to exist both sometimes as a particle, other times a wave.
Quote from: BilboGrabbins on 20/08/2021 06:50:28But with this, there was a catch. DeBroglie, the true inventor of the wave particle duality model, for all states of matter, never said that his wave mechanics specifically said this. From experiments, like the photoelectric effect and gamma scattering, we knew the particle had to exist both sometimes as a particle, other times a wave.That is not correct. If we do an experiment to detect a particle we will detect a particle and if we do an experiment to detect a wave we will detect a wave. That doesn't mean sometimes it's a particle and sometimes it's a wave. This only means an electron had aspects of waves and particles. It is actually neither. An electron is nothing like you have ever seen and as such any attempt to visualize it is bound to fail.
Hello.If we were to rely on the probability of the electron-density distribution in a atom, then we would see that its density is greater at the nucleus than in upper n-shell orbits. It would be interesting to be able to interpret where are the links between this electron-density distribution at Kepler's orbits.
They key aspect though os that the particle
Quote from: BilboGrabbins on 21/08/2021 01:32:53They key aspect though os that the particleWhich part of "it is not a particle" did you not understand?
because evidence would suggest greatly
This only means an electron had aspects of waves and particles. It is actually neither. An electron is nothing like you have ever seen and as such any attempt to visualize it is bound to fail.
People seem to think that an electron (or a photon etc) is either a particle or a wave or some sort of mixture.
Quote from: BilboGrabbins on 21/08/2021 02:23:54because evidence would suggest greatly OK, let's look briefly at the evidence.Electrons sometimes behave like waves; we can do electron diffraction experiments.A particle can't behave like a wave.So we know that electrons are not particles.As Origin said.Quote from: Origin on 20/08/2021 14:55:39This only means an electron had aspects of waves and particles. It is actually neither. An electron is nothing like you have ever seen and as such any attempt to visualize it is bound to fail.And, as I saidQuote from: Bored chemist on 20/08/2021 15:10:59 People seem to think that an electron (or a photon etc) is either a particle or a wave or some sort of mixture.
I suggest you go back to basics to learn the science of this because I'm dumbfounded by the statements you are making.
Quote from: BilboGrabbins on 21/08/2021 15:42:19I suggest you go back to basics to learn the science of this because I'm dumbfounded by the statements you are making.Am I right in thinking that only one of us is actually a scientist?
If an electron was a particle, it would have a radius.Attempts to measure that have, so far, given a result of "too small to measure, and quite possibly zero".How can a thing with zero size have a wavelength or an amplitude?The wave function for a particle can have those properties, but it's a mathematical abstraction; it isn't the electron itself.
it's still called a pointlike particle regardless.
"I'd rather have answers which can be questioned, rather than questions that cannot be answered."
Nearly any textbook will disagree with your skewered view on the non-existence of the corposcular nature of particles.