|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
>> 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
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |