askchapo

There is no reason to be skeptical of particle models if they are accurate for the domain you’re working in. Quantum mechanics is true at microscopic scales but you can still think in terms of classical physics for a lot of stuff.

Also, particles do exist in a real sense. The various forces are actually mediated by messenger particles, or “localized wave packets” or “field excitations” or whatever you want to call them.

As Feynman once explained: Quantum objects do not behave like particles or waves. They are novel and unfamiliar to our experience although this or that characteristic might have analogy to something we are familiar with, like a wave or a particle.

Physics is very complicated and every practical calculation involves simplifying assumptions to make it calculable. In my astro courses it was often acceptable to be within an order of magnitude or two, which is kind of hilarious, but points to the large effect of those simplifying assumptions.

Yeah I mean a lot of the time it is, although sometimes the waveform becomes localised enough that things do behave pretty particle like. For example in the ESEM chemistry shit I did electrons really do behave like billiard balls bashing into shit and ionising it. Ion bombardment is another case like in lithography or sputtering.

I think keeping the dual nature of matter in mind is very useful, but also models are just models and you have to keep your assumptions in mind or you get bitten.