Re: [Phys-L] quantum physics

[John Denker <jsd@av8n.com>]

On 5/6/22 12:16 AM, bernard cleyet mentioned:

> "There are no particles, there are only fields."

> https://aapt.scitation.org/doi/full/10.1119/1.4789885 

I don't disagree with that article, but I would put a
somewhat different, somewhat simpler spin on it.

Quantum mechanics contains and explains classical physics,
but the converse is not true. Really not. It makes no sense
to try to explain (much less define) QM directly in terms
of classical particles or waves.

Quantum mechanics is not classical, except in certain limits.
Classical waves are a classical idea.
Classical particles are a classical idea.
So, again: It makes no sense to try to explain (much less
define) QM directly in terms of classical particles or waves.

Rather than saying something is both a wave and a particle,
I prefer to say it is neither. That is: In QM there is only
stuff. Sometimes stuff looks sorta like a classical wave
and sometimes stuff looks sorta like a classical particle,
but mostly it's just stuff. Sui generis.

We can use analogies to hint at the nature of real (i.e.
quantum mechanical) universe, in the same way that it is
possible to communicate the idea of "blue triangle" without
actually exhibiting one:
  https://av8n.com/physics/img48/blue-triangle.png

It takes a big leap of the imagination to go from things
we can get our arms around to the real quantum mechanical
stuff. The leap is much bigger than can be captured by the
idea of "duality".