Bump, anyone interested?
one thing: instead of “that is just the way it is”, i think it better to say, “that is the current state of scientific theory”. the former seems to shun future theorizing on WHY things are the way they are, whereas the latter invites it.
Zangelbert Bingledack,
I am mainly discussing the theoretical framework in which the term “that is just the way it is” is appropriate. Of course, in terms of “knowlege” or “scientific picture” this is not appropriate.
This is something I have found fascinating in my laymans understanding. Our classical perceptions vis particles that appear not to have wavelike properties are illusions brought about by the extremely short wavelengths of the waves that correspond to massive objects.
You and I, and a house and a car all have ‘wavelength’ and ridiculous low frequencie’s which mean its virtually impossible to demonstrate constructive and destructive interference patterns. However such interference patterns have been shown in smaller ‘massive’ objects that we would generally think of as residing in the classical realm, such as fullerines. Zeilinger and Arndt have demonstrated the wave-like properties of molecules made up of 60-70 carbon atoms. Incredible!