[Retric]

Except saying that the volume of space is filled is also incorrect. Multiple particle’s probability distributions may overlap without those particles interacting with each other. They don’t “fill” space.

It’s common to say they behave as a particle and a wave, but it’s equally valid to say they don’t behave as a particle or a wave. It’s a distinct phenomena and thinking in terms of large scale things you’re familiar with is simply misleading.

[aeternum]

Saying it behaves as a particle is wildly misleading, we should really remove it from the curriculum. If electrons ever behaved as particles or even if the wave function 'collapsed' into particles, they would immediately crash into the nucleus and the universe as we know it would cease to exist.

Quantized fields is a much better term. Also collapse of the wave function never happens, only increased entanglement.

[caf]

Treating an electron as a particle is the most natural way to understand the operation of devices like an electron synchrotron or a cathode ray tube, though. Not helpful for atoms or molecules though, I agree.

[aeternum]

I'm not sure about even the synchrotron, most people have the very incorrect perception that a single electron is being circled around rather than a continuous beam. This is so far from reality where we're doing something like 600 million collisions / second that I question the value of the analogy entirely.

The concept of a single particle as a point charge that isn't really interacting with everything around it is similarly flawed. We learn from a very young age to conceptualize that as the building block of matter, and entanglement as something weird. Instead it's the other way around: a single particle with a pure (unentangled) wavefunction is pretty near statistically impossible.

[Retric]

Particles unlike waves bounce off each other. For all the wavelike behavior in QM, bouncing just doesn’t fit.

[613style]

It sounds like you might disagree that the room I'm in right now is filled with air or that my cup is full of tea.

This article is trying to help laypeople have better intuition about things from the quantum point of view. It's full of evocative prose. Arguing about the definition of the word "full" is completely tangential to the point.

[Retric]

More, I just think it’s misleading. Even the most basic introduction to physics should cover the idea that the air in the room has a pressure to it rather than the room being full.

The point of physics is to have a unified system where the same description applies to the widest possible number of phenomena. Calling atoms empty or full isn’t a great description but neutrino’s behavior for example lends itself to calling them empty.