Invisible wrote:
>>> 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".

That would be the "meaningful" word up in that sentence, there.

You can construct a visual representation. It won't be very meaningful.

>> 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.

You're behind on your science about 40 years or so.

> And both sets of theories seem to be 
> completely correct. AFAIK, nobody has figured out how that can be.

You're mistaken.

Complex probabilities have much of the same math as waves.

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   "Ouch ouch ouch!"
   "What's wrong? Noodles too hot?"
   "No, I have Chopstick Tunnel Syndrome."

Post a reply to this message