>> No. But you could, in principle, construct some kind of meaninful 
>> visual representation of them.
> 
> No, actually, you can't. That's the whole point of "quantum 
> uncertainty." It really is impossible to look close enough.

I don't see how "you can't measure where this really is" implies "you 
can't draw a picture where you pretend it's at position X".

>> As far as I understand it, phycasists still don't really understand 
>> exactly what these particles "are" yet. But they know many of their 
>> properties and how they interact, which is probably the most useful 
>> thing to know if you're trying to design coherant theories about them...
> 
> It depends on the definition of "is", as our president once said. If you 
> can predict the behavior of something in all ways that matter to 15 
> decimal places, can you really say you don't know what it is?

One set of theories say that an electron is a wave. Another set of 
theories say that it's a particle. And both sets of theories seem to be 
completely correct. AFAIK, nobody has figured out how that can be.

Post a reply to this message