Are Particles Theoretically Tangible?

[polymath257]

Perhaps the most fundamentally counter-intuitive aspect of quantum mechanics is that it is probabilistic at base.

probabilities are used in other areas of physics. For example, statistical mechanics describes pressure and temperature in terms of the mass behavior of very small molecules. The probabilities, though, are not fundamental. They are simply averages of the behavior of all those atoms and reflect our lack of desire and ability to follow all those molecules individually. The probability is used as an alternative to modelling all those molecules. it reflects our ignorance of what is happening underneath.

Similarly, when we flip a coin, we *could* model the air currents and the strength and direction of the force from the thumb, the texture of the area the coin lands, etc. Given enough physics and a fast enough computer, we could potentially say whether the coin would land as heads or tails before it actually does so.

Instead, we use probability and say there is a 50% chance of getting heads and 50% of getting tails. Once again, we ignore all the underlying complications and use probabilities to simplify our analysis.

But that is NOT what happens in quantum mechanics. Based on the theory *and* observations, the probabilistic aspect of QM is fundamental: it is NOT based on some 'hidden variables' underneath. This is actually testable using Bell's inequalities and the actual observations put quite stringent constraints on 'hidden variables' (including that they would violate special relativity).

So the probabilities are NOT the result of something deeper, but appear to be simply an aspect of how the universe works. The universe is fundamentally probabilistic.

So then… the one particle could theoretically exist in multiple places at once? The wave of multiple places and probability of the location of the particle then becomes the very particle itself?

At this point though, is there even a location/locations within the probability wave? Isn’t it easier to understand the wave itself to be the whole particle, if that’s the case?

The particle is never detected at two places at the same time. But there are multiple places where it has non-zero probability of being detected.

Yes, there are locations within the probability wave. For example, the electron orbitals are 'standing waves' for the electrons. But the different orbitals have different shapes, different energies, and different properties. And the nucleus is at the center of that, with the *proton and neutron* 'standing waves' inside of that smaller space. When two atoms bind together in a chemical bond, the probability waves overlap and interfere, which reduces the total energy and gives the strength of the bond.

Furthermore, the actual detected positions are much smaller than the 'size' of those standing waves. So it really doesn't work to regard the wave as the whole particle.

Here's a thought viewpoint: imagine throwing dice. After the throw, the result of the throw is not determined: it can be any integer from 1 to 6 with equal probability. An observation happens when the dice lands and gives a result. After that observation, though, the dice is re-thrown.

We don't say the dice is in all those states at the same time. Instead, we say the state is not determined.

The same is true for the positions of particles: the position isn't determined, but the particle isn't in all positions at the same time. The position *could be measured* to be anywhere the probability wave says there is a non-zero probability.

The dice analogy isn't perfect. It gets closer to the reality, but doesn't explain things like superpositions and entanglement.