I've always thought the uncomprehensible-ness of the wave-particle duality comes from the fact that we have defined a "particle" and a "wave" from what we have experienced in our immediate reality - we can see how waves work when we interact with water, and we generally believe that a particle acts in the way of a ball - a tennis ball bouncing around a room for example. Then at no point have we seen water act like a ball or vice versa - these bahaviours seem to be incompatible with each other. We have then applied these concepts when trying to understand the quantum world in some sort of top down metaphor, which ultimatly leads to an explanation that goes against our natural intuition. If we get rid of these preconceived ideas that we enforce onto quantum behaviour and take a "bottom up" approach, I think the concept is easier to understand. That is to say that an electron behaves in a certain way - in some circumstances it creates an interference pattern and in some circumstances it does not, these are its properties . These are the facts and our starting point in our understanding. Our similies and metaphors for understanding our universe can be limiting in some cases and we need to accept new fundamental concepts in order to grasp the phenomena what we observe. This is how I've always wrapped my head around this. Great article and a fascinating subject!
You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
@bramlyapple I think you got this! Indeed Nature does not have to conform to our limited intuitions. We should perhaps think of an electron as sort-of-a localised wave packet that resembles both a wave and a particle, and hence has particle-like as well as wave-like behaviours. Indeed, the de Broglie formula tells us how to relate the momentum of a particle and its wavelength, so a wave description and a particle description are not mutually exclusive at all.