A electron can exist in everywhere ?

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter big_bounce
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Electron
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion centers around the nature of electrons in quantum physics, particularly the concept of their existence in multiple locations simultaneously and the implications of wave functions. Participants explore theoretical interpretations, the relationship between wave-particle duality, and the philosophical implications of these ideas.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Debate/contested
  • Conceptual clarification

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants propose that the wave function of an electron can exist everywhere, while the observed position is limited to one location.
  • Others argue that there is no such thing as a part of an electron, and that the wave function is a mathematical tool rather than a physical reality.
  • Quantum superposition suggests that an electron exists in all possible configurations until measured, but this does not imply it is in multiple places at once.
  • Some participants question the implications of particles being everywhere, suggesting it raises philosophical questions about the nature of reality.
  • There is a contention regarding whether the wave nature of particles is real or merely a mathematical abstraction, with some asserting that both wave-like and particle-like behaviors coexist.
  • Discussions also touch on the complexity of defining what it means for a particle to exist everywhere and the lack of consensus on interpretations of wave functions.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express multiple competing views regarding the nature of electrons and wave functions, with no consensus reached on the interpretations of these concepts or their implications for reality.

Contextual Notes

Participants highlight limitations in understanding the wave function and its implications, noting that it is a mathematical abstraction and not directly observable. The discussion reflects ongoing debates in quantum mechanics regarding the interpretation of particle behavior and existence.

  • #61
bohm2 said:
If you read the papers linked above, Leifer argues that PBR rules out an option favoured by Einstein:

I have read what Leifer says and think he is correct but is drawing the wrong conclusion - or rather just because it is sick does not mean the theory (under that interpretation) still can not be used.

The PBR theorem only applies to standard QM - not to some hypothetical theory that QM may be the approximation of like classical thermodynamics is the approximation of quantum thermodynamics. This was Einsteins belief - QM was not incorrect - just incomplete and he would have thought the PBR theorem is simply a symptom of that incompleteness. Classical thermodynamics has problems such as the black-body radiation problem quantum theory fixes up. There are similar issues with Electrodynamics such as the infinite self energy of the field and acasual runaway solutions in some circumstances. But again it is not an issue because it is only an approximation to QED that resolves the problems (but of course has others) - in virtually all practical situations classical Electrodynamics is applied to no problems arise - but to be sure it is in fact a sick theory. Einstein would be smiling merrily and looking over to Bohr who really couldn't care less because like me he thought the state, although fundamental, was simply knowledge about the system and not something real and physical.

In fact one version of the Ensemble interpretation accepts Einsteins take and that when you make an observation it selects a pre existing outcome despite Kochen-Sprecker. It invokes some as yet unknown theory to resolve it. Conceptually actually a very neat solution. It has but one problem - what is this theory it is an approximation to - damn that pesky detail.

Funny how nothing really has changed on the QM interpretation front - each side simply retreats to their impregnable positions - hmmm - I seem to recall posting that before.

Thanks
Bill
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #62
I think Bohr would have been happier with the PBR theorem than Einstein. The reason, being that PBR leaves anti-realist approaches unscathed whereas it eliminates certain ontic models where ψ is epistemic/probabilistic. Not that there are any theorems that are likely to eliminate anti-realistic approaches. Having said that, there are other models that are also not affected by PBR or Bell's: superdeterministic ones.
 
  • #63
Yea Bohr may have liked PBR.

But really its this 'realist' view of the world that is the issue - for some of us its just so deeply ingrained its hard to shake and why I think there will always be disagreement.

Early on I was in the realist camp but after a while its baggage became too much and I jumped ship - long before PBR BTW.

Thanks
Bill
 
Last edited:

Similar threads

  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 19 ·
Replies
19
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
4K
  • · Replies 0 ·
Replies
0
Views
1K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
1K
  • · Replies 124 ·
5
Replies
124
Views
9K
  • · Replies 29 ·
Replies
29
Views
3K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
3K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
957