All right then Dr. Feynman,
how do you propose to solve the Schrödinger equations for atomic and molecular systems without taking this duality into account? You'll get bonus points if you can reconcile your models with experimental data.
( The Mock TurtIe ™ --- Thinks you are a cunt, on, Mon 4 Jul 2011, 16:20, 2 replies, latest was 14 years ago)

No rush, in your own time.

( The Mock TurtIe ™ --- Thinks you are a cunt, on, Mon 4 Jul 2011, 16:23, Reply)

I'd do it with some breasts

( Naked Ape call me Caitlyn, Mon 4 Jul 2011, 16:25, Reply)

I'd do it with your mums breasts
and then I'd spunk in her eyes.
(Bazongaloid, Mon 4 Jul 2011, 16:26, Reply)

You use that as a technique to solve the problem.
I don't think it's necessary to use it to describe a particle. You don't describe anything else in the physical world by the maths you use to predict it's behaviour.
(PsychoChomp, Mon 4 Jul 2011, 16:28, Reply)

I asked the question in the wrong way.
What I should have said was: how could you explain the behaviour of matter at the atomic or molecular level without using a wave-like model? A wave-like model that approximates particle-like behaviour more and more closely as you scale it up.
( The Mock TurtIe ™ --- Thinks you are a cunt, on, Mon 4 Jul 2011, 16:30, Reply)

That's fair enough for describing behaviour.
I just don't like the metaphores and little thought experiments that go with all the descriptions of the sub atomic. An electon is not like a coin that has to flip twice to get back where it started, it's an electron, these are it's properties that's how it should be taught.
(PsychoChomp, Mon 4 Jul 2011, 16:37, Reply)

Problem is, if you wanted to give a full explanation without any hand-waving, you'd have to go into the hard mathematics.
But I agree that the metaphors and explanations most non-scientific folk are familiar with are clumsy and ambiguous.
( The Mock TurtIe ™ --- Thinks you are a cunt, on, Mon 4 Jul 2011, 16:49, Reply)