Questions about the position of the particle

[SLSPS]

TL;DR Summary

Questions about the position of the particle

How is it possible for a particle to be in two different states/places at the same instant?

 

[anuttarasammyak]

It would be possible for a particle to have indeterminate positions at a time when you do not see it. https://static01.nyt.com/images/2006/12/03/books/YAGO600SPAN.jpg?quality=75&auto=webp

 

[Vanadium 50]

Summary: Questions about the position of the particle

How is it possible for a particle to be in two different states/places at the same instant?

It's not,

 

[Nugatory]

How is it possible for a particle to be in two different states/places at the same instant?

Although you’ll often hear it described that way, quantum mechanics doesn’t really say that a particle is in two places at once. Unfortunately, knowing what it does say requires a fair amount of math so people will often fall back on this misleading “two places at once” story when they’re trying to explain QM to a non-technical audience.

It would be more accurate to say that the particle isn’t anywhere unless and until we measure its position.

 

[strangerep]

It would be more accurate to say that the particle isn’t anywhere unless and until we measure its position.

Are you sure you don't want to work on that sentence a bit more?

 

[anuttarasammyak]

At time t between the two observations of particle positions, probability amplitude or wave function or state vector of the particle is defined in all the space as $\psi(\mathbf{r},t)$ the normalization property of which is
$$\int \int \int \psi(\mathbf{r},t)^* \psi(\mathbf{r},t) dV=1$$

I am not good at literature how to describe this situation in daily words, e.g. the particle has no position, the particle exists but without position, the particle has multiple positions or the concept of particle position is not applicable here.

 

[SLSPS]

Although you’ll often hear it described that way, quantum mechanics doesn’t really say that a particle is in two places at once. Unfortunately, knowing what it does say requires a fair amount of math so people will often fall back on this misleading “two places at once” story when they’re trying to explain QM to a non-technical audience.

It would be more accurate to say that the particle isn’t anywhere unless and until we measure its position.

Thanks. I understood