[unspun]

This is the simplest way I know of to explain it. When you design an experiment to look at objects as waves, then they look like waves. When you design an experiment to look at objects as particles, then they look like particles. Objects never look like both waves and particles. This lead to the idea that nature was somehow undetermined until observed, which is the current orthodox interpretation of QM.

Thanks. Well, did anyone expect these to look like anything else? Did anyone design an experiment expecting these quanta to look like a teddy bear, or the letter P, or a trombone? I doubt the quanta would, even if the experiment were designed as such. ;-) That being the case, it seems that has been said, the observer isn't the issue, but that we have these really tiny, tiny little ongoing effects here that act like particles in some ways but aren't and oscillate in some manner, but have to do with more than mere, oscillating "raw" energy.

That may be an exercise in relationships/behavior/semantics more than in science, but is that not inappropriate, when faced with the attempt at understanding something beyond the context of our measurement-based logic?

[unspun]

That being the case, it seems that as has been said...

(It's that time of day/night, again.)

[unspun]

...but is that not inappropriate, when faced with the attempt at understanding something beyond the context of our measurement-based logic?

Good night.

[Alamo-Girl]

Thank you so much for your post!

That may be an exercise in relationships/behavior/semantics more than in science, but is that not inappropriate, when faced with the attempt at understanding something beyond the context of our measurement-based logic?

What it boils down to is that we cannot apply the "sense" that we have of this macro world, when we look at the quantum world.

Up here at the macro level, common sense tells us that a thing is unique and it is in only one place at a time. But in the quantum world a thing is both a particle and a wave and it's in more than one place at once - at least until it is "observed."

The term "superposition" describes the condition where a range of states are true all at once in the quantum world. In Schrodinger's scenario, the cat status is a "superposition" - it is both alive and dead - but when you look, the cat is either alive or dead.

The example I drew earlier is even more extreme, where if you measure the particle's partners both here and on Jupiter at the same time - a paradox exists because the measurement itself instantaneously determines the partner as well. So both statements can't be true. This example was raised in one of Penrose's books.

IMHO, to understand the quantum world it is helpful to lay aside one's concept of physical "reality" --- the same approach is helpful in understanding space/time and higher dimensions.

Just my two cents...

[<1/1,000,000th%]

Previous to the experiments leading to QM, objects were believed to be either a wave or a particle, but not both.

Like most things in science, QM attempted to explain what was seen. While God's universe is too much for mere mortals to understand, we can still chip off the little chunks we can handle and create technology. I'm not giving my computer back.