Hacker News Reader

You are right, I understand. But professional physicists too refuse to define the meaning of the word particle. For instance I asked physicist Joan Baez if he had an article where he clearly defines particle and he said "No." https://twitter.com/cavendish_exp/status/1580176599391285248...

View on HN

There are some weird things that a "particle" can do. I'm counting like 3 ways particles can be weird, very weird, extremely weird.

Anyway, for these experiments, a particle is just a photon (or an electron). It can be approximated quite well using a small ball that is like a small rock. And even with the small ball approximation, you can reproduce the Bell's inequality experiment. It does not depend in the weirdest parts.

Photons, by definition, exhibit both properties of waves and particles. But here too a clear definition of particle is lacking. Physicists say photons are quanta, and use quanta and particles as synonyms. Photons have zero mass so they don’t have a finite radius as miniture billard balls. So, we have no idea what Victor sends. By convention he sends “particles” and we are forbidden to ask how this word particle is defined. A good example showing that physics is done by authority.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com