The real conundrum in QM for me is it's philosophical implications, there's not a single theory I've researched that does not sound down right absurd to me http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interpretations_of_quantum_mechanics#Summary_of_common_interpretations_of_quantum_mechanics
Imo, yuri, I think this is wrong, because the question becomes - what's the difference between an electron and a wave? And not how the electron acts like a wave? To reiterate, I personally believe the question that comes into doubt is whether an electron is a wave, and not how a particle acts like waves. Would you agree/disagree, yuri?
Sorry I'm not of much help here but I did read that plants collect light particles and convert them from wave to particle with some method I forgot, I find it very interesting though. It said they eventually wanted the plants to convert it to ac/dc.
Another thing, when you're driving, as long as your eyes are closed, the traffic light is simultaneously green, amber and red... or none of them. It's only when you open your eyes that the light decides which colour to be. A subatomic particle can be in several different places at once or nowhere at all as long as you not watching it. Only when it is being observed does the particle commit to a specific state What's the role of the observer ? Why does the act of observation change the state of a particle? This very same phenomena bothered Einstein who hated the theory and later had to accept it and said "I like to think the moon is there even if I am not looking at it"
Its rubbish so is plank theory. I'm happy to argue the point. Sent from my ZTE B795 using Grasscity Forum mobile app