Quote:
|
Originally Posted by JaysonR
Kepler;
My point in that was that the way in which we determine the probability of where a given particle is, is not itself a representation of how the particle behaves in appearing.
Meaning, because we use collapsing to determine the location, should not be confused with the idea that the particle is popping in and out of existence in literal fashion of the probability computations.
The probability of a particle being in a given range does not indicate that it literally is everywhere at once in that given range until observed and only then finite (it's riiiiight...there!).
|
Yes, I get your point. Your position is
not the standard view. This is not a completely resolved issue (I doubt it will be anytime soon since it is more of a philosophical thing) but there
is reason to think what you are saying is incorrect.
Again, see
counterfactual definiteness ('realism') and note that
most interpretations do not include this.
I know, I know. It's weird to think that an electron doesn't have a position until it is measured.
This is very strange! But it is
part of many interpretations of QM.
If you want to stand by your position, you're going to have to give me a little more to work with. (I've been including a bunch of links [too many, probably
] in each of my posts, supporting my assertions and for the curious reader that wants to learn more.) Otherwise, I'm going to keep referring you to EPR and Bell's theorem (and relatedly the
Kochen-Specker theorem).