All particles are waves.
Does a car have a velocity and a position at the same time? Show me! If you try to measure its velocity and its position at the same time you're going to have trouble.
I do it all the time in my GlaStar with a GPS.
The problem is that "Position" at the root level refers to a static location, while velocity refers to a non-static location. So to say that something has a position and a velocity at the same time (without mentioning a timeframe) is contradictory.
I hardly know where to begin. First off nothing is static, measurements are always in relationship to another non static entity. If the relationship doesn't change then it is considered static in regards to the two items.
As far as position and velocity being contradictory, will you do a little experiment for me? Drive down a road at a constant velocity, say 50 mph and when you pass a mile marker, note your time, location and speed. You have just determined position and velocity at the same time, they are not contradictory : ) in the macro world anyway.
I'd ask what constitutes a particle - an atom? any molecule? -- but I already know that you'll say that all mater is waves of nothing so I won't bother.
I do it all the time in my GlaStar with a GPS.
First of all, I never said that an object could not pass through a certain position at a certain time.
But just for fun, no matter how slow of a near-stall you're flying your GlaStar, your gps still takes time to measure velocity. And when it gives you a position and a velocity reading, they will be from slightly different times. And besides, by the time the position is displayed on your gps, you're not in that position anymore anyway.
As far as position and velocity being contradictory, will you do a little experiment for me? Drive down a road at a constant velocity, say 50 mph and when you pass a mile marker, note your time, location and speed. You have just determined position and velocity at the same time, they are not contradictory : ) in the macro world anyway.
I realize it's not polite to quote one's self but I'm going to anyway. What I said was "So to say that something has a position and a velocity at the same time (without mentioning a timeframe) is contradictory."
But just for fun, my speedometer takes time to measure velocity, and it averages the velocity over a second or so period. (Longer in the winter. or above 60MPH.) Furthermore, the reason I need a speedometer is because I have no way to control my speed accurately otherwise, so I cannot just go 50mph except by what my speedometer says. So considering that my speed varies some, but even if I keep my 1-second average right at 50 even, and I note the time I pass through a certain position, I still won't know what my exact speed was as I passed that point because all I know is that the velocity reading will be an average for the second near when I passed the marker - but I won't know exactly where I was when I was actually going at the average speed.
And besides, if something is moving in relation to a certain reference, it doesn't have "a" position - it passes through an infinite number of positions every second.
So how are particles any different? I know that light and radiowaves travel at a predictable velocity. The waves coming from the GPS satellite to your GPS receiver have a path and pass through certain positions at certain times just like a fast moving car would. Electrons moving towards the face of a cathode ray tube move at a velocity controlled by the electric field which accelerated them, and they take time to reach the phosphor screen, do they not?
-Jesse