{"title":"Wave – particle duality interpretation: de brogile equation criticisms","authors":"Alois Matorevhu","doi":"10.15406/PAIJ.2020.04.00223","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"In the historical development of quantum theory, wave – particle duality has been one of the guiding concepts in intensive debates on the quantum theory. Variations in interpretations of the wave – duality result in different meanings, hence lack of consensus among physicists. This paper sought to analyse the variations in interpreting the wave – particle duality. To achieve this, various theoretical arguments, experimental results and their interpretations were analysed. It was found that based on one’s philosophical position the purpose of interpreting the wave – particle duality could be predicting or explaining phenomena or making a reality claim in a hidden structure or the process of nature. This analysis revealed that particles and waves are mutually exclusive in classical physics, since they exhibit different behaviours. In quantum mechanics, as postulated by de Broglie both the particle and wave behaviours are embedded in matter, but they cannot be simultaneously exhibited. While de Broglie is applauded for a break through which provided knowledge for guiding further development of quantum mechanics, criticisms which need attention have been highlighted in this paper. It is concluded from the analysis that the complexity of interpretation of the wave – particle duality is a fact, which is an indication that debates related to interpretation of the wave – particle duality, and specifically de Broglie equation, will not end in a foreseeable future. Therefore in order to bring more insight, physicists should continue debating these issues as well as putting effort to provide experimental evidence, to substantiate claims.","PeriodicalId":137635,"journal":{"name":"Physics & Astronomy International Journal","volume":"11 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2020-12-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Physics & Astronomy International Journal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.15406/PAIJ.2020.04.00223","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
In the historical development of quantum theory, wave – particle duality has been one of the guiding concepts in intensive debates on the quantum theory. Variations in interpretations of the wave – duality result in different meanings, hence lack of consensus among physicists. This paper sought to analyse the variations in interpreting the wave – particle duality. To achieve this, various theoretical arguments, experimental results and their interpretations were analysed. It was found that based on one’s philosophical position the purpose of interpreting the wave – particle duality could be predicting or explaining phenomena or making a reality claim in a hidden structure or the process of nature. This analysis revealed that particles and waves are mutually exclusive in classical physics, since they exhibit different behaviours. In quantum mechanics, as postulated by de Broglie both the particle and wave behaviours are embedded in matter, but they cannot be simultaneously exhibited. While de Broglie is applauded for a break through which provided knowledge for guiding further development of quantum mechanics, criticisms which need attention have been highlighted in this paper. It is concluded from the analysis that the complexity of interpretation of the wave – particle duality is a fact, which is an indication that debates related to interpretation of the wave – particle duality, and specifically de Broglie equation, will not end in a foreseeable future. Therefore in order to bring more insight, physicists should continue debating these issues as well as putting effort to provide experimental evidence, to substantiate claims.