> there is no reason to say that quantum entities are ever really waves
I'm on the completely opposite end of the spectrum. I see no reason to say that quantum entities are ever really pointlike particles.
I'd rather see them as smeared wave-like entities that occasionally rapidly reshape while exchanging energy and momentum through fields as if the were two small billiard balls bouncing.
There's really nothing particle-like about those quantum objects apart from this momentum and energy exchanges (and even that is weird because it's quantized) and that evolution of their center of mass in time seems like a thing flying in space according to Newtonian dynamics.
We draw our simplest intuitions from macroscopic objects that are built of huge number of actual elemental material objects so tightly bound with one another that they are barely smeared.
It's not an accident that macroscopic object obeys the same equations that a tight quantum objects obey.
But it's a huge mistake to think that those equations that we wrote for this very bizarre state of matter that are macroscopic objects is anything primary just because the math describing them is as simple as it goes.
Take a look at ideal gas equations about pressure volume and temperature. They are childishly simple when compared to the math you'd need to accurately describe what actually happens in a gas.
Framing quantum mechanics in terms of "observation" instead of "instance of momentum and energy exchange" might be a very computationally convenient interpretation of what happens but I don't think it's real in any sense of the word.
In broader context we have very many interpretations in physics l that are the simplest possible interpretations of the mathematical abstractions of our models. With complete disregard for how sensible they seem. Even though there are completely reasonable alternative interpretations of the same math available.
Physics educators seem to delight in the quirkiness of the interpretations that theoretical physicists love because they are just their equations narrated, nothing more, nothing less, instead of exploring more reasonable interpretations or even mention that they exist.
In absence of new math, bringing new insights to our fundamental knowledge, one of the goals of physics should be to get real. New, or old but rekindled, more plausible interpretations might inspire new generations of young physicists to visit avenues less explored. Because abstract narratives we globally adopted failed to do that for many decades already.
I'm on the completely opposite end of the spectrum. I see no reason to say that quantum entities are ever really pointlike particles.
I'd rather see them as smeared wave-like entities that occasionally rapidly reshape while exchanging energy and momentum through fields as if the were two small billiard balls bouncing.
There's really nothing particle-like about those quantum objects apart from this momentum and energy exchanges (and even that is weird because it's quantized) and that evolution of their center of mass in time seems like a thing flying in space according to Newtonian dynamics.
We draw our simplest intuitions from macroscopic objects that are built of huge number of actual elemental material objects so tightly bound with one another that they are barely smeared.
It's not an accident that macroscopic object obeys the same equations that a tight quantum objects obey.
But it's a huge mistake to think that those equations that we wrote for this very bizarre state of matter that are macroscopic objects is anything primary just because the math describing them is as simple as it goes.
Take a look at ideal gas equations about pressure volume and temperature. They are childishly simple when compared to the math you'd need to accurately describe what actually happens in a gas.
Framing quantum mechanics in terms of "observation" instead of "instance of momentum and energy exchange" might be a very computationally convenient interpretation of what happens but I don't think it's real in any sense of the word.
In broader context we have very many interpretations in physics l that are the simplest possible interpretations of the mathematical abstractions of our models. With complete disregard for how sensible they seem. Even though there are completely reasonable alternative interpretations of the same math available.
Physics educators seem to delight in the quirkiness of the interpretations that theoretical physicists love because they are just their equations narrated, nothing more, nothing less, instead of exploring more reasonable interpretations or even mention that they exist.
In absence of new math, bringing new insights to our fundamental knowledge, one of the goals of physics should be to get real. New, or old but rekindled, more plausible interpretations might inspire new generations of young physicists to visit avenues less explored. Because abstract narratives we globally adopted failed to do that for many decades already.