They aren’t intuitive molds, in the system-1 sense; ‘particle’ and ‘wave’ are theoretical constructs
I think that is pretty much the wrong way round. The only way you can model a dimensionless particle in QM
is as a diract delta function, but they are mathematically intractible (with a parallel argument applying to pure waves), so in a sens there are no particles or waves in QM, and whatever w/p dualism is, it is not a dualism of sharply defined opposites, as would be implied by Bohr’s yin-yang symbol!
. But in fact I seem to either see spin-up or spin-down, not both.
In fact, you see macroscopic pointer readings. That is an important point, since Many Worlders think that the superposition disappers with macroscopic decoehrence.
The only way you can model a dimensionless particle in QM is as a [dirac] delta function
I wasn’t specifically assuming dimensionless particles. Classical atoms could be modeled particulately without being points, provided each can be picked out by a fixed position and a momentum.
In fact, you see macroscopic pointer readings. That is an important point, since Many Worlders think that the superposition disappers with macroscopic [decoherence].
Yes, this distinction is very important for BM too. For example, BM actually fails the empirical adequacy test if you treat ‘spin-up’ and ‘spin-down’ as measurable properties of particles.
I think that is pretty much the wrong way round. The only way you can model a dimensionless particle in QM is as a diract delta function, but they are mathematically intractible (with a parallel argument applying to pure waves), so in a sens there are no particles or waves in QM, and whatever w/p dualism is, it is not a dualism of sharply defined opposites, as would be implied by Bohr’s yin-yang symbol!
In fact, you see macroscopic pointer readings. That is an important point, since Many Worlders think that the superposition disappers with macroscopic decoehrence.
I wasn’t specifically assuming dimensionless particles. Classical atoms could be modeled particulately without being points, provided each can be picked out by a fixed position and a momentum.
Yes, this distinction is very important for BM too. For example, BM actually fails the empirical adequacy test if you treat ‘spin-up’ and ‘spin-down’ as measurable properties of particles.