=====================
My opinion:
By Planck,s spin and
by Goudsmit-Uhlenbeck's spin.
=================
What is your opinion?
2006-08-18 23:21:18 · 7 answers · asked by socratus 2 in Science & Mathematics ➔ Physics
we can by thosmsons method or by davissons method
2006-08-18 23:27:56 · answer #1 · answered by bonny 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋
You are wrong.
Your opinion is not even an explanation - it is a menaingless conjunction of named phenomena, the understanding of some of which have been long since superceded.
The real question you should ask is "why do we thing things are particles" and "why do we think things are waves". Both are models of reality based on observation. The key is that they are models.
Most people have a prejudice for particles models, because they feel more intuitive. Particles can be thought of behaving like billiard balls, and billiard balls are commonplace.
But billiard balls are not particles. So there is no rational reason for preferring the particle model, and in fact experiment shows that it is flawed.
The reality is that you need a model that shares aspects of both the particle and the wave model. But is is still just a model of reality, and so you need to be careful as to how you think about the role of each in the mix.
The common intellectual crutch used to reconcile these in people's minds is the Copenhagen Interpretation. Look this up on WIkipedia.
2006-08-19 06:38:33 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Dualism ? does it means that every particle mass has a
schizophrenic personality?
It is a prefernce in scientific beliefs. The scientists who really understood the motion of masses by oscillation were the Classical Physists. It Was Louis Debroglie (1924)who postulated that all matter move as a wave. He called it matter
wave.
So dualism is just an assumed interpretation of a phenomena which was really simple and was made into a real dilemma. That is why you needed to know that it should make sense.
2006-08-19 07:31:23 · answer #3 · answered by goring 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
a Particle has its own characritics - Physical, Chemical Etc. Same partical if broken in smallest part - Nano
has non of the original cherectricts. - thus a particle could have dualism
2006-08-19 11:42:47 · answer #4 · answered by karavisek 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋
it is just another view of a particle.
It is the same as looking to a cylinder : from the up side it looks as a circle, from the front side it looks like a rectangle.
nothing mysterious....
2006-08-19 06:37:06 · answer #5 · answered by gjmb1960 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
yucks maan... y do ya need ta worry yar head over microstuffs.... look around dude.... relish da exotic macroscopic world 'round u. Cheers', UKris.
2006-08-19 06:32:32 · answer #6 · answered by Ukris 1 · 0⤊ 1⤋
you are correct
2006-08-19 06:28:23 · answer #7 · answered by Expert 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋