Content deleted Content added
Line 52:
Consequently, neither ''wave'' nor ''particle'' is an entirely satisfactory model to use in understanding light. Indeed, astrophysicist [[Arthur Stanley Eddington|A.S. Eddington]] proposed in 1927 that "We can scarcely describe such an entity as a wave or as a particle; perhaps as a compromise we had better call it a 'wavicle' ".<ref name="Eddington">[http://books.google.com/books?id=PGOTKcxSqMUC&pg=PA201&lpg=PA201&dq=We+can+scarcely+describe+such+an+entity+as+a+wave+or+as+a+particle%3B+perhaps+as+a+compromise+we+had+better+call+it+a+%60wavicle&source=bl&ots=K0IfGzaXli&sig=zgrQiBJbHRLuUzVBT-yy8jZhC1Y&hl=en&ei=i8g1SpOHC4PgtgOu_4jVDg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1 A.S. Eddington, ''The Nature of the Physical World,'' the course of Gifford Lectures that Eddington delivered in the University of Edinburgh in January to March 1927, Kessinger Publishing, 2005, p. 201.]</ref> This term was later popularised by mathematician [[Banesh Hoffmann]].<ref name="Hoffman">Banesh Hoffman, ''The Strange Story of the Quantum,'' Dover, 1959</ref>{{rp|172}}
The concept of waves and particles, and the analogies which make use of them, are mechanisms of [[classical physics]]. Quantum mechanics, which seeks to explain nature at a level underlying that of the atoms which comprise matter, cannot be understood in such terms. The classical concepts presuppose an artificial division
==Uncertainty principle==
| |||