http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/11/111129091333.htm be kind of cool to see how the 'changes' in understanding will practically make the complacent OBSOLETE. what is sad, i have been here for a long time and few comprehend i have been sharing these changes and that the progress would occur in these areas of science. Note within the 6ooo plus posts that include threads and concepts shared within this forum, it is the fools that have slowed the progress within this group. How will the provided evidence regarding the 'fields' and 'size' support the comprehension of concepts like 'energy upon mass'?
to assist people in comprehending the electron as a wave http://www.colorado.edu/physics/2000/quantumzone/debroglie.html if any like the physics and debroglie http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/debrog.html
You know, 'the Big Bang Theory', which makes scientists sound like wanabe rockstars who want to get famous so the can bang the chicks.
Bishadi, do you know that entanglement and de Broglie waves are a prediction of "complacent" quantum mechanics? In fact, most of the articles you post here are written by scientists who focus on one consequence of quantum physics and study it in depth. Despite and because of all their work, quantum theory is still going strong after many decades with countless related discoveries and applications. Sure, it's been extended with quantum field theories and more, but the basic ideas remained the same and the math is definitely very "wavy".
wow... perhaps slap your professor for misguiding you. debroglie was well before QM and his 'wave' was a basis of QT, not qm and that 'spooky action at a distance' was einsteins verbage to represent gravity, originally but the concept of the 'entanglement' of particles at separate locations has been used in qm as a consequence of the EPR paradox, which was IN FACT einstein using his brilliance to share that QM itself (heisenberg/planck to dirac) was a joke. and aint 'particle' You are really mixed up dude. wavy folk and particle monkeys are on completely different spectrums of the world of physics and qm tries to combine them with h and h-bar perhaps look up milo wolff to assist you a bit on comprehending. he picked up from feynman to work further on that bridge. what i pointed out to milo was the amplitude cannot and does not combine with angular momentum. You be funny!
I use the word prediction in the manner physicists usually do. Here it means "specific consequence of a more general theory". I'm not talking about history of science here. And yes, quantum mechanics and quantum field theory is inherently wavy. Here's a link to a simulation of wave-particle duality: http://phet.colorado.edu/en/simulation/quantum-tunneling Those are simple solutions to Schrödinger's equation Exactly, quantum theory unifies "particlyness and wavyness". The two are properties that may seem contradictory at first, but there is a self-consistent mathematical framework that brings those two properties together to form a surprisingly accurate description of the natural world. Any new and improved theory will need to include a very accurate approximation to quantum physics in the vast field that is currently covered by quantum physics.
but there is no 'particles' that are just values i have sat with milo and know how 'simulations' are often created by the concepts. they aint how nature works The ptolemaic system was surprisingly accurate too, for the time. I agree. The correction begins at comprehending what 'energy' is itself. And planck/heisenberg (bohr analogy) is incorrect.
