Are Particles Theoretically Tangible?

[polymath257]

If you think of all those Starlings as "pieces" of the electron wave, then the analogy isn't bad.

Just don't think of the electron as being "inside" the electron cloud.  It is the electron cloud.  There is no tiny thing zipping around.

If the electron is the wave, and it’s not zipping around, how is the wave a probability of location? Is this where we get into particles being multiple places at once, and quantum leaps, and weird stuff like that?

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.

[JairCrawford]

If the electron is the wave, and it’s not zipping around, how is the wave a probability of location? Is this where we get into particles being multiple places at once, and quantum leaps, and weird stuff like that?

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?

[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.

[JairCrawford]

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.

So instead of picturing an electron buzzing around within its probability wave at extreme speeds, or being the whole wave itself, would it be better to imagine the electron… teleporting within its probability wave? And the nature of where it teleports within the wave is truly random?

[polymath257]

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.

So instead of picturing an electron buzzing around within its probability wave at extreme speeds, or being the whole wave itself, would it be better to imagine the electron… teleporting within its probability wave? And the nature of where it teleports within the wave is truly random?

That is closer, but it still has the idea that the particle has a definite position at all times.

[JairCrawford]

So instead of picturing an electron buzzing around within its probability wave at extreme speeds, or being the whole wave itself, would it be better to imagine the electron… teleporting within its probability wave? And the nature of where it teleports within the wave is truly random?

That is closer, but it still has the idea that the particle has a definite position at all times.

That’s where my understanding disintegrates. The basics of how I’m understanding everything said so far is that the particle has location, except it actually doesn’t. But I also don’t think that’s what you’re saying. Unless it is and in that case I’m not sure how to visualize it at all.

Right now, I’m visualizing an electron orbiting a nucleus, and it’s essentially a cloud around the nucleus where it teleports around randomly within its wave function at a very high “rate”.

[Angrboda]

It's best not to think in terms of particles at all. There are "particle-like observations" and "wave-like observations."

[JairCrawford]

It's best not to think in terms of particles at all. There are "particle-like observations" and "wave-like observations."

Is it better to think of the observations as detecting the point of highest energy or charge within the probability wave?

[polymath257]

It's best not to think in terms of particles at all.  There are "particle-like observations" and "wave-like observations."

Is it better to think of the observations as detecting the point of highest energy or charge within the probability wave?

No. The 'energy' is also 'distributed' in the wave function.

[Angrboda]

It's best not to think in terms of particles at all.  There are "particle-like observations" and "wave-like observations."

Is it better to think of the observations as detecting the point of highest energy or charge within the probability wave?

Try not to think of points at all. I'm not very savvy about physics, so I hope somebody will correct me if I'm wrong or misleading, but I'll illustrate how I see it.

It's like those optical illusions where you look at it and you see one thing (see below). But then you look at it a while and it becomes something else. This is because our brains are conditioned to separate the elements of a visual perception into foreground and background. The illusion occurs because our brain keeps shifting between picking out one outline as the foreground and the other. I think in a similar way, looking at reality as consisting of either a particle or a wave is similar. From a young age we are conditioned to see the things in our perception as objects, as things which persist even when they leave our sight. We naturally think of things as consisting of substance or stuff, real, tangible material. That works for the macro world but when you get down to the most fundamental level, it's at best a metaphor; a set of filters through which we order our perception and thinking about the world. There's a Scientific American article about Bell's Theorem that would be well worth your time to read (Scientific American, Bernard D'Espagnat). In it, D'Espagnat argues that the results of the experiments testing Bell's Theorem suggest that at least one of three common assumptions about reality must be violated (realism, that there is a there there, induction, and separability). These three assumptions seem necessary to our traditional picture of reality, yet if the experiments and their assumptions are correct, one of them must give. Regardless of whether that's true or not, the point I'm making is that at bottom level, when you get down to the quantum level, our assumptions and intuitions -- the way our brains are geared in terms of thinking about the world -- likely mislead us. As an aside, there's a grey area regarding the interpretation of what might be termed quantum reality, so the details don't appear completely nailed down, but one thing is clear about it: our brains aren't equipped with intuitions which fit the quantum world. Is there an intuitive picture which we can summon up which would fit? I don't know.