If particles have wave properties, we should be able to observe their diffraction through apertures of appropriate sizes. Let’s look at the electron first. It has a mass of 0.00000000000000000000000000000091 kilogram (30 zeros). Let’s say we send a beam of electrons toward an aperture with a speed of 12000000 meters per second (a typical speed used in electron diffraction experiments). Then its momentum is approximately 0.000000000000000000000011 in scientific units; and its wavelength is the Planck constant divided by this number, or 0.0000000000602 meter. So, an aperture of this size should be able to diffract electrons *if they can pass through it*. It turns out that the diameter of an electron has been estimated to be less than 0.00000000000000000001 meter, which is over 6 billion times *smaller* than the aperture. The electrons indeed diffract, and their diffraction was observed for the first time in 1926-27 … another Nobel Prize accomplishment.

###### Can an ordinary object wave?

Now let’s look at an ordinary object, say a bullet. It has a typical mass of about 5 grams or 0.005 kilogram, and moves at a typical speed of about 400 meters per second. So, its momentum is 400×0.005 =2 in scientific units. Its wavelength is again the Planck constant divided by this number, or 0.0000000000000000000000000000000003313 meter. So, an aperture of this size should diffract bullets *if they can pass through it*. A typical bullet is approximately 5-10 millimeters, or 0.005-0.01 meter, in size. This is more than 15 million trillion trillion times the required size of the aperture! There is absolutely no way that a bullet can pass through an aperture this small and exhibit diffraction! Therefore,

Ordinary objects cannot exhibit wave properties.

You cannot apply QM to ordinary objects.QM is suitable only for the description of atomic and subatomic particles.

N.B. QM *has* been successful in explaining the bulk properties of ordinary objects. The properties of magnets, semiconductors, and superconductors have been understood through the application of QM to materials. However, this application has been restricted to the *individual microscopic constituents* of the materials and the forces between them.

###### You can’t cross the Atlantic with a bicycle!

Now listen to what Chopra has to say about * quantum* non-locality: “In the everyday world, however, non-locality is about people, not particles.” I can just as well make the statement: “In the everyday world, however, crossing the Atlantic is about bicycles, not airplanes or ships.” You can as much use quantum non-locality for people – or any other ordinary non-quantum objects – as you can use bicycles to cross the Atlantic!

Overlooking this restriction of the quantum theory is at the heart of all its abuses and all the preposterous, meaningless, groundless, and mystical “scientific” nonsense you hear from the promoters of woo!

Dear Dr. Hassani,

Do you think the age of 27 is too late to start learning physics and mathematics?

Is there any chance to make a contribution to science for a person who has started at the age of 27?

Best,

Arthur

Hi Arthur,

It is never too late to do anything, including physics and mathematics. If you have a deep interest and persevere, you can master the field and even contribute to it. You are only eight years behind a typical physics PhD! Eight years may seem a long time, but considering the fact that most physicists are active until they are into their sixties and seventies, they are insignificant.

Best of luck,

Sadri