Are Particles Theoretically Tangible?

[Rahn127]

I tend to think of a particle as something like a cloud density of starlings.

As starlings move through the sky, there is a place where the density is very high and it appears to be a black dot as they come together.

A particle can be viewed this way as a wave that has an area of highest density.

I could be wrong in my assessment of this and most likely I am because I'm not an expert in the field. I'm just giving my viewpoint. Should any part of it be remotely accurate, it's by sheer coincidence.

[HappySkeptic]

I tend to think of a particle as something like a cloud density of starlings.

As starlings move through the sky, there is a place where the density is very high and it appears to be a black dot as they come together.

A particle can be viewed this way as a wave that has an area of highest density.

I could be wrong in my assessment of this and most likely I am because I'm not an expert in the field. I'm just giving my viewpoint. Should any part of it be remotely accurate, it's by sheer coincidence.

If you think of all those Starlings as "pieces" of the electron wave, then the analogy isn't bad.

Just don't think of the electron as being "inside" the electron cloud.  It is the electron cloud.  There is no tiny thing zipping around.

[Rahn127]

I tend to think of a particle as something like a cloud density of starlings.

As starlings move through the sky, there is a place where the density is very high and it appears to be a black dot as they come together.

A particle can be viewed this way as a wave that has an area of highest density.

I could be wrong in my assessment of this and most likely I am because I'm not an expert in the field. I'm just giving my viewpoint. Should any part of it be remotely accurate, it's by sheer coincidence.

If you think of all those Starlings as "pieces" of the electron wave, then the analogy isn't bad.

Just don't think of the electron as being "inside" the electron cloud.  It is the electron cloud.  There is no tiny thing zipping around.

I agree. Thank you for giving my analogy a nod to the good side.
I knew my 3 years of studying physics would pay off some day.

[The Grand Nudger]

Even if you can't know the exact position of that day.

[JairCrawford]

I tend to think of a particle as something like a cloud density of starlings.

As starlings move through the sky, there is a place where the density is very high and it appears to be a black dot as they come together.

A particle can be viewed this way as a wave that has an area of highest density.

I could be wrong in my assessment of this and most likely I am because I'm not an expert in the field. I'm just giving my viewpoint. Should any part of it be remotely accurate, it's by sheer coincidence.

If you think of all those Starlings as "pieces" of the electron wave, then the analogy isn't bad.

Just don't think of the electron as being "inside" the electron cloud.  It is the electron cloud.  There is no tiny thing zipping around.

If the electron is the wave, and it’s not zipping around, how is the wave a probability of location? Is this where we get into particles being multiple places at once, and quantum leaps, and weird stuff like that?

[Jehanne]

If you think of all those Starlings as "pieces" of the electron wave, then the analogy isn't bad.

Just don't think of the electron as being "inside" the electron cloud.  It is the electron cloud.  There is no tiny thing zipping around.

If the electron is the wave, and it’s not zipping around, how is the wave a probability of location? Is this where we get into particles being multiple places at once, and quantum leaps, and weird stuff like that?

Schrödinger's equation describes electrons, protons and many (perhaps, nearly all other, I'm not a physicist) particles. If you want to learn more, I would suggest an undergraduate text in physics, such as Fundamentals of Physics by Halliday, Resnick and Walker.

[polymath257]

If the electron is the wave, and it’s not zipping around, how is the wave a probability of location? Is this where we get into particles being multiple places at once, and quantum leaps, and weird stuff like that?

Schrödinger's equation describes electrons, protons and many (perhaps, nearly all other, I'm not a physicist) particles.  If you want to learn more, I would suggest an undergraduate text in physics, such as Fundamentals of Physics by Halliday, Resnick and Walker.

Schrodinger's equation is a non-relativistic equation, and so does not incorporate spin or anti-matter. It is a good approximation for most atomic physics.

Dirac's equation is the relativistic version for fermions (electrons, protons) and Maxwell's equations are the version for spin 1 bosons (photons being the main example).

The philosophy slightly changes when going to field theories, with the Lagrangian being the point of focus.

[HappySkeptic]

If you think of all those Starlings as "pieces" of the electron wave, then the analogy isn't bad.

Just don't think of the electron as being "inside" the electron cloud.  It is the electron cloud.  There is no tiny thing zipping around.

If the electron is the wave, and it’s not zipping around, how is the wave a probability of location? Is this where we get into particles being multiple places at once, and quantum leaps, and weird stuff like that?

The electron can be measured as having a tiny size (how small a size, we really don't know).  But, until that measurement, it does not have a precise location.  It isn't just that we don't know it - theory says it cannot be known (not even by a god -- that knowledge cannot enter the cosmos until a measurement is made, and the cosmos is by definition all of reality).

It is best to think of the small particle as one potential aspect of the electron (and even that is still a small wave).  In QM, its all waves.  Even measurements are just entanglement and decoherence with waves from the environment.

[Jehanne]

Schrödinger's equation describes electrons, protons and many (perhaps, nearly all other, I'm not a physicist) particles.  If you want to learn more, I would suggest an undergraduate text in physics, such as Fundamentals of Physics by Halliday, Resnick and Walker.

Schrodinger's equation is a non-relativistic equation, and so does not incorporate spin or anti-matter. It is a good approximation for most atomic physics.

Dirac's equation is the relativistic version for fermions (electrons, protons) and Maxwell's equations are the version for spin 1 bosons (photons being the main example).

The philosophy slightly changes when going to field theories, with the Lagrangian being the point of focus.

Some physics professor from a University of California school did a YouTube class on QED; the first equation that he wrote on his board was,

QED = QM + SR

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

Even if you can't know the exact position of that day.

Old joke:

Werner Heisenberg is pulled over for speeding. The cop says, ‘Sir, I clocked you going 85 mph.’

‘Dammit,’ fumes Heisenberg. ‘Now I don’t know where I am!’

Boru