Posts
Comments
I don't really like the author's attitude to be honest. He talks about QM like it is absolute truth, that we should accept it for realism and reject our preconceived perceptions. Then, at the end, he claims to be a "strict realist". It's almost like he's trying to make me feel like I am biased and boorish for trying to equate everything into simple and analagous terms, whereas I don't feel like that is a poor metric to work by.
Particle-wave duality is taught to try and convince students that not everything works in a classically sterile manner, and I believe that it is a good stepping stone toward the counterintuitive (yes, I said it, and I believe it) results that QM foretells. It is a simple case of explaining that things don't work out the way you think they do. The lesson of the particle-wave duality lesson, from a competent professor, is never "think of it as a particle and a wave," it is "we model it as a particle that acts like a wave," which should convey to the students that it is neither uniquely, and not to think in classical terms. I think this lesson is not only fine, but appropriate.