Particle duality and density?

[jajrussel]

I'm paraphrasing and trying to get it right

I was reading an article on particle duality that said everything basically exist as both solid and wave. They spoke of a basketball and that the wave footprint was roughly a negative 34 power, so it is way too small to see and is pretty much why basketballs don't flow around things. 

They also showed a drawing and talked about the double slot experiment, and electron sizes etc.

Then a thought occurred. If I  think the procces sort of in reverse and imagined the basket ball as a dense medium would that wave footprint be roughly the size something would have to be to possibly pass freely through the basketball? Using the same math to get a reversed situation?

Edited April 22, 2018 by jajrussel
Why do I have to post before I see the errors?

[Mordred]

Ok particlelike and wavelike duality does exist. Make note how I described the previous sentence. Under certain conditions a particle can exhibit either.

 Now comes the tricky part, particles under QFT is a bit of a historical misnomer term. Under QFT a particle is a field excitation. The pointlike properties is defined by the Debroglie wavelength for fermions (matter particles) or the Compton wavelength for bosons ie photons.

 A good read is as follows

"There are no particles there is only fields" by Art Hobson

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://arxiv.org/pdf/1204.4616&ved=2ahUKEwih_PnDpM3aAhVH0WMKHfQcB7MQFjAAegQIBhAB&usg=AOvVaw0yvDJRWMF0aCmF5wnTNnEn

It is arxiv on phone atm

Edited April 22, 2018 by Mordred

[LaurieAG]

Jajrussel, you should probably go back to basics and have a look at Arthur Compton's work on the particle nature of electromagnetic radiation.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arthur_Compton

Arthur Holly Compton (September 10, 1892 – March 15, 1962) was an American physicist who won the Nobel Prize in Physics in 1927 for his 1923 discovery of the Compton effect, which demonstrated the particle nature of electromagnetic radiation. It was a sensational discovery at the time: the wave nature of light had been well-demonstrated, but the idea that light had both wave and particle properties was not easily accepted.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compton_wavelength

[Mordred]

 excellent starting point

[interested]

I dont know what level you are at, but I was googling wave functions this morning and found this link which my be helpful to you https://www.khanacademy.org/science/physics/quantum-physics/atoms-and-electrons/v/quantum-wavefunction It gives a brief 10 minute over view at the noddy level.  

[Strange]

And if you want more detail https://profmattstrassler.com/articles-and-posts/particle-physics-basics/fields-and-their-particles-with-math/

[swansont]

5 hours ago, jajrussel said:

 Then a thought occurred. If I  think the procces sort of in reverse and imagined the basket ball as a dense medium would that wave footprint be roughly the size something would have to be to possibly pass freely through the basketball? Using the same math to get a reversed situation?

No, it doesn't work that way.

The double-slit (or some other diffraction) experiment would be an example. If a basketball has a deBroglie wavelength of 10^-34 meter, then a diffraction grating would only be a few orders of magnitude larger. But the ability if an electron to pass through as a wave depends on the grating spacing, and the electron's wavelength is about 1 nm for a 1 eV electron. Even at 1 keV it's ~40 pm, which is around 20 orders of magnitude larger than the wavelength of the target.