Some said 1000's of experiments support superposition but

In summary, the conversation discusses the concept of superposition in quantum mechanics and clarifies that it does not mean a particle can be in two mutually exclusive states at once. Superposition refers to the ability of a state vector to be expressed as a linear combination of basis vectors, and the choice of basis is arbitrary. The conversation also touches on the importance of understanding abstract linear algebra in fully grasping this concept.
  • #1
mike1000
271
20
In another thread, that is now closed, someone said that 1000's of experiments support the proposition that a particle can be in two, mutually exclusive states at the same time.

The results of experiments show just the opposite. The measured result is not a superposition state. They never measure a result that is a superposition of eigenstates.

Here is a link to the closed thread.
https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/still-unclear-on-superposition.910949/

For an observable with a finite (=n) , discrete spectrum, there can be at most n possible outcomes of a quantum experiment, regardless of the basis chosen to represent those outcomes. If you consider the superposition states to be allowed outcomes then there would be an infinite number of allowed outcomes for all operator (which I think implies a continuous spectrum as well)
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #3
mike1000 said:
In another thread, that is now closed, someone said that 1000's of experiments support the proposition that a particle can be in two, mutually exclusive states at the same time.

The results of experiments show just the opposite. The measured result is not a superposition state. It cannot be for discrete states.

Here is a link to the closed thread.
https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/still-unclear-on-superposition.910949/

For an observable with a finite (=n) , discrete spectrum, there can be at most n possible outcomes of a quantum experiment, regardless of the basis chosen to represent those outcomes. If you consider the superposition states to be allowed outcomes then there would be an infinite number of allowed outcomes for all operator. If that were the case then there should be 3 allowed states, and three eigenvalues, for the spin z operator. As far as know there are only 2.

That's not what superposition means. Other posters have expressed doubts that you understand what a vector space is, and that understanding happens to be critical to this issue.

ANY state vector (that's the simplest kind of quantum state) is in an infinite number of different superpositions when expressed in different bases. If a state vector is an eigenstate of operator A with eigenvalue a, it will be in a superposition in the eigenbasis of non-commuting operator B.

The status of being "in superposition" is NOT a characteristic of the state itself (which is ALWAYS unique, up to a phase factor, for vector ("pure") states), but of the arbitrary basis chosen to represent it.

Example: you measure z-component of a 1/2 spin particle, you get the "up" value, if we adopt a collapse point of view, immediately after measurement the particle is in the "spin-up along z" state, but is ALSO in a superposition in ANY other basis.

You will continue to have trouble with this until you study abstract linear algebra (the maths of vector spaces).
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Likes DrClaude, bhobba and Mentz114
  • #4
Oudeis Eimi said:
That's not what superposition means. Other posters have expressed doubts that you understand what a vector space is, and that understanding happens to be critical to this issue.

ANY state vector (that's the simplest kind of quantum state) is in an infinite number of different superpositions when expressed in different bases. If a state vector is an eigenstate of operator A with eigenvalue a, it will be in a superposition in the eigenbasis of non-commuting operator B.

You will continue to have trouble with this until you study abstract linear algebra (the maths of vector spaces).

I understand there are an infinite number of bases. I understand that an eigenvector of one basis may resolve into a superposition of basis vectors in a different basis. What I do not see, is how that somehow justifies the statement that a particle can be measured to be simultaneously in two (or more) mutually exclusive states.

Maybe what you are saying is that given the result of any quantum measurement, that is a single eigenstate of an operator, you can always find a different basis in which that single eigenstate is expressed as a linear combination of other basis vectors. That does not mean that the particle was actually in those two(or more) mutually exclusive states.
 
  • #5
mike1000 said:
I understand there are an infinite number of bases. I understand that an eigenvector of one basis may resolve into a superposition of basis vectors in a different basis. What I do not see, is how that somehow justifies the statement that a particle can be measured to be simultaneously in two (or more) mutually exclusive states.

Maybe what you are saying is that given the result of any quantum measurement, that is a single eigenstate of an operator, you can always find a basis in which that single eigenstate is expressed as a linear combination of other basis vectors.

It does not justify the statement, because that statement is not correct. The state is unique up to a phase factor, a particle is never in two different states (from two different rays in the Hilbert space anyway).

Using the example of a spin 1/2 system, a state | z up > can be expressed as a linear combination of | x up > and | x down >, but both the "original" and the "combination" state are one and the same. It's the same vector in two different bases. That's all there is to it.

The "z basis" will be the more convinient if further measurements will be done along the z axis, the "x basis" would be the one to use if they are to be performed along the x axis. The superposition in that case would mean that both x up and x down results are possible outcomes.
 
  • Like
Likes bhobba
  • #6
Oudeis Eimi said:
It does not justify the statement, because that statement is not correct. The state is unique up to a phase factor, a particle is never in two different states (from two different rays in the Hilbert space anyway).

The way I see it, if you are using a basis to express your result and in that basis the result is expressed as a linear combination of mutually exclusive states, then that should tell you to look for a different basis.
 
  • #7
mike1000 said:
The way I see it, if you are using a basis to express your result and in that basis the result is expressed as a linear combination of mutually exclusive states, then that should tell you to look for a different basis.
Try this then. You prepare a spin in the state ##| +x \rangle##, i.e. spin up along x. You then want to measure the spin along z. In what state is the spin just before measurement, and right after measurement?
 
  • #8
mike1000 said:
In another thread, that is now closed, someone said that 1000's of experiments support the proposition that a particle can be in two, mutually exclusive states at the same time.
That's not true! At least I (and I think also several others) have told you that being in a superposition doesn't mean that the particle is in two states at the same time. Choosing another basis you could even say it's in infinitely many states at the same time. That's wrong, and repeating wrong nonsense doesn't help you nor others reading this forum!

The results of experiments show just the opposite. The measured result is not a superposition state. They never measure a result that is a superposition of eigenstates.

Here is a link to the closed thread.
https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/still-unclear-on-superposition.910949/

For an observable with a finite (=n) , discrete spectrum, there can be at most n possible outcomes of a quantum experiment, regardless of the basis chosen to represent those outcomes. If you consider the superposition states to be allowed outcomes then there would be an infinite number of allowed outcomes for all operator (which I think implies a continuous spectrum as well)
As we have also explained several times, it is of utmost importance to dinstinguish clearly between observables and states. You don't measure states but observables. To completely determine a state, is much more complicated than just measuring a single observable. You rather have to make many different measurements on an ensemble and make a statistical evaluation of the outcomes. For a very detailed discussion of all these fundamental things like state determination, measurement, etc. read Ballentine, Quantum Mechanics - A modern development, Addison-Wesley.
 
  • #9
Oudeis Eimi said:
It does not justify the statement, because that statement is not correct. The state is unique up to a phase factor, a particle is never in two different states (from two different rays in the Hilbert space anyway).
Of course this is correct, but a little subtlety is also important (also on a much more advanced level than we discuss at the moment to eliminate misconceptions of the OP he seems not to be willing to overcome). A state is uniquely determined not only up to phase. More precisely: states are uniquely represented by statistical operators (i.e., self-adjoint positive semidefinite operators with trace 1). A statistical operator represents by definition a pure state if and only if it's a projection operator, i.e., if ##\hat{\rho}^2=\hat{\rho}##. This determines (now indeed up to phase factor!) a normalized vector in Hilbert space, ##|\psi \rangle##, such that ##\hat{\rho}=|\psi \rangle \langle \psi|##. This makes it evident that any phase factor drops out when forming the projector that represents the statistical operator in this case.

On the other hand, you can as well give an arbitrary "unit ray" in Hilbert space, i.e., an equivalence class of normalized Hilbert-space vectors ##[|\psi \rangle]## where all vectors that deviate from ##|\psi \rangle## only by a phase factor are identified, and in this way uniquely determine the state, represented by the above give projector. So it's the rays (or equivalently the projection operators as statistical operators) in Hilbert space that actually represent the pure states.

That's very important, because, e.g., it enables phenomena like half-integer angular momenta (spins), and all matter surrounding us is made of spin-1/2 particles on a fundamental level (quarks and leptons). It also enables Galilei invariant non-relativistic quantum theory that makes physical sense, because for that you need unitary ray representations of the Galilei group. Proper unitary transformations of the Galilei group do not lead to any useful quantum dynamics to work with! The true Galilei group is a non-trivial central extension of the covering group of the classical Galilei group with mass as a non-trivial central charge! See Ballentine, QM for details.
 
  • Like
Likes Oudeis Eimi
  • #10
vanhees71 said:
Of course this is correct, but a little subtlety is also important (also on a much more advanced level than we discuss at the moment to eliminate misconceptions of the OP he seems not to be willing to overcome). A state is uniquely determined not only up to phase. More precisely: states are uniquely represented by statistical operators (i.e., self-adjoint positive semidefinite operators with trace 1). A statistical operator represents by definition a pure state if and only if it's a projection operator, i.e., if ##\hat{\rho}^2=\hat{\rho}##. This determines (now indeed up to phase factor!) a normalized vector in Hilbert space, ##|\psi \rangle##, such that ##\hat{\rho}=|\psi \rangle \langle \psi|##. This makes it evident that any phase factor drops out when forming the projector that represents the statistical operator in this case.

On the other hand, you can as well give an arbitrary "unit ray" in Hilbert space, i.e., an equivalence class of normalized Hilbert-space vectors ##[|\psi \rangle]## where all vectors that deviate from ##|\psi \rangle## only by a phase factor are identified, and in this way uniquely determine the state, represented by the above give projector. So it's the rays (or equivalently the projection operators as statistical operators) in Hilbert space that actually represent the pure states.

That's very important, because, e.g., it enables phenomena like half-integer angular momenta (spins), and all matter surrounding us is made of spin-1/2 particles on a fundamental level (quarks and leptons). It also enables Galilei invariant non-relativistic quantum theory that makes physical sense, because for that you need unitary ray representations of the Galilei group. Proper unitary transformations of the Galilei group do not lead to any useful quantum dynamics to work with! The true Galilei group is a non-trivial central extension of the covering group of the classical Galilei group with mass as a non-trivial central charge! See Ballentine, QM for details.

Ballentine is indeed an invaluable reference. Yes, I was restricting the discussion to pure states, so as not to further confuse the OP, but the distinction is always worth making indeed.
 
  • #11
Oudeis Eimi said:
That's not what superposition means. Other posters have expressed doubts that you understand what a vector space is, and that understanding happens to be critical to this issue.

ANY state vector (that's the simplest kind of quantum state) is in an infinite number of different superpositions when expressed in different bases. If a state vector is an eigenstate of operator A with eigenvalue a, it will be in a superposition in the eigenbasis of non-commuting operator B.

The status of being "in superposition" is NOT a characteristic of the state itself (which is ALWAYS unique, up to a phase factor, for vector ("pure") states), but of the arbitrary basis chosen to represent it.

Example: you measure z-component of a 1/2 spin particle, you get the "up" value, if we adopt a collapse point of view, immediately after measurement the particle is in the "spin-up along z" state, but is ALSO in a superposition in ANY other basis.

You will continue to have trouble with this until you study abstract linear algebra (the maths of vector spaces).

Exactly what did I say that made you think I do not understand what is superposition? When I said the following in my original post
If you consider the superposition states to be allowed outcomes then there would be an infinite number of allowed outcomes for all operator (which I think implies a continuous spectrum as well)

I was playing devils advocate. I was trying to make my point that superposition states do not represent possible outcomes, by which I mean, a particle cannot be found it two opposing states at the same time, even when you are using the spin z basis. That is a side-effect of the basis you used to measure the spin. By measuring in that basis and staying in that basis you promote the idea of "Schrodingers cat", ie the mis conception that a quantum particle can physically be in two mutually exclusive states at the same time.
 
Last edited:
  • #12
mike1000 said:
Exactly what did I say that made you think I do not understand what is superposition? When I said the following in my original postI was playing devils advocate. I was trying to make my point that superposition states do not represent possible outcomes, by which I mean, a particle cannot be found it two opposing states at the same time, even when you are using the spin z basis. That is a side-effect of the basis you used to measure the spin. By measuring in that basis and staying in that basis you promote the idea of "Schrodingers cat", ie the mis conception that a quantum particle can physically be in two mutually exclusive states at the same time.

Hello OP, the above makes IMHO a good example of your present confusion on this subject. I'll try to clarify some things here:

Outcomes, for the simplest, ideal case of a "projective measurement", are eigenvalues of observable operators (I'm restricting discussion to discrete spectra here for simplicity). They are in no way represented by or dependant on the state, except in the sense that the state contains information about the probabilities of different outcomes being realized. We could indeed say that consists a "representation", but that'd be sloppy language (and would cause confusion with other meanings of the term "representation").

The claim you've made that makes me think you don't understand superposition is your insisting that it implies the system being in more than one state at the same time. It doesn't, in the same way that someone having 7 grapes doesn't mean he or she has simultaneously 21 and minus 14.

Your example of the Schroedinger's cat is not a good one, as a cat cannot be in a superposition of living and dead due to its being a macroscopic object whose degree of interaction and entanglement with its environment forces a selection rule preventing any state other than "alive" or "dead". But, assuming we had a system with a two dimensional Hilbert state space, and calling "alive" and "dead" the two eigenvalues of some "L" observable, with eigenvectors | alive > and | dead >, a general vector state in that space would NOT represent a simultaneous state of being "alive" and "dead", but something other for which we have no name. More to the point, there is an observable, let's call it "N", for which the state vector, whatever it happens to be, is an eigenvector with eigenvalue "n". If we measured said observable "N" instead of "L", we would obtain "n", with probability 1, and perform a non-collapse measurement as the initial state was already an eigenvector of "N".
 
  • Like
Likes bhobba
  • #13
Oudeis Eimi said:
Hello OP, the above makes IMHO a good example of your present confusion on this subject. I'll try to clarify some things here:

Outcomes, for the simplest, ideal case of a "projective measurement", are eigenvalues of observable operators (I'm restricting discussion to discrete spectra here for simplicity). They are in no way represented by or dependant on the state, except in the sense that the state contains information about the probabilities of different outcomes being realized. We could indeed say that consists a "representation", but that'd be sloppy language (and would cause confusion with other meanings of the term "representation").

The claim you've made that makes me think you don't understand superposition is your insisting that it implies the system being in more than one state at the same time. It doesn't, in the same way that someone having 7 grapes doesn't mean he or she has simultaneously 21 and minus 14.

Your example of the Schroedinger's cat is not a good one, as a cat cannot be in a superposition of living and dead due to its being a macroscopic object whose degree of interaction and entanglement with its environment forces a selection rule preventing any state other than "alive" or "dead". But, assuming we had a system with a two dimensional Hilbert state space, and calling "alive" and "dead" the two eigenvalues of some "L" observable, with eigenvectors | alive > and | dead >, a general vector state in that space would NOT represent a simultaneous state of being "alive" and "dead", but something other for which we have no name. More to the point, there is an observable, let's call it "N", for which the state vector, whatever it happens to be, is an eigenvector with eigenvalue "n". If we measured said observable "N" instead of "L", we would obtain "n", with probability 1, and perform a non-collapse measurement as the initial state was already an eigenvector of "N".

I am not insisting that the superposition be interpreted as the system being in more than one state at the same time. I am arguing completely against that. I sense that others, in this forum, have argued that. I am trying to counter that argument.

1)The vector space in which the state vector lives is a probability amplitude vector space.
2)The dimension of the vector space is determined by the number of possible outcomes.(Lets call it n)
4)The n possible outcomes form a natural orthogonal basis for the vector space. (Because all outcomes are mutually exclusive)
3)A arbitrary point in that space would be defined by a vector that has n components.
4)Each component of that vector represents the probability amplitude that the associated outcome will be observed.
5)Each vector in that space defines a probability amplitude distribution, This is superposition, ie. each vector defines a particular way that the probability amplitudes are partitioned among the n possible outcomes.
6)There are an infinite number of probability distributions.
7)There are only n possible outcomes.

You can change bases til your hearts content but you will not change the number of possible outcomes or what those possible outcomes are. Regardless of basis,you can only observe one of the n possible outcomes.

(While writing this the thought came to me, are there any cases where the set of possible outcomes are not mutually exclusive?)
 
Last edited:
  • #14
mike1000 said:
The results of experiments show just the opposite. The measured result is not a superposition state. They never measure a result that is a superposition of eigenstates.

Ok. Let me have a try. Say that we measure a position of the particle. The result of the measurement is a position. We can think that our measurement measures the state of the particle being at a particular position - simple as that. That is what classical mechanics says.

Now QM says that there actually exist many more other, superposed states of the particle, i.e. states which "combine" a state of the particle being at one position and some other(s). That combination even includes some complex coefficients so that we may have "very many" possible combinations of the particle being at coordinate X1 and coordinate X2. Now, each such a "combination of states" is considered in QM as a state by itself. It is not "mix", not really a "combination", just a pure state, as pure as the state of being at one particular point. It is called "superposition".

Now, what happens when we measure a coordinate of such a superposition state? The answer is - we get back just one coordinate - either X1 or X2.

That is basically all. The only remaining question is why do we believe at all that the superposition states exist if we always get just one coordinage in our measurement? But the reasons to believe that the superposition exists is a separate topic.
 
  • #15
mike1000 said:
There are only n possible outcomes.

No. There are n possible outcomes for each possible measurement operator. The outcomes for different measurement operators are different outcomes; the outcome "spin z +1/2" is not the same outcome as "spin x +1/2".

You have (despite this being pointed out multiple times in previous threads) left out the measurement operators entirely from your discussion. You need to put them back in.
 
  • Like
Likes bhobba
  • #16
PeterDonis said:
No. There are n possible outcomes for each possible measurement operator. The outcomes for different measurement operators are different outcomes; the outcome "spin z +1/2" is not the same outcome as "spin x +1/2".

You have (despite this being pointed out multiple times in previous threads) left out the measurement operators entirely from your discussion. You need to put them back in.

I have always only been speaking of one measurement operator. Of course there are different outcomes for different measurement operators. That was not the topic of this thread. This thread is about the definition of superposition.
 
  • #17
mike1000 said:
The measured result is not a superposition state. They never measure a result that is a superposition of eigenstates.
I completely agree that superpositions are not measured. As I see superpostions are inferred from observations of interference effects i.e. one has so called superposition state and then different modes of superposition are mixed in some experimental arrangement. At different outputs of that setup we observe interference effects and consider that as confirmation of superposition.
So I rather think about superposition as a tool to track relative phase between different modes of complete state.
 
  • Like
Likes Mentz114
  • #18
zonde said:
I completely agree that superpositions are not measured. As I see superpostions are inferred from observations of interference effects i.e. one has so called superposition state and then different modes of superposition are mixed in some experimental arrangement. At different outputs of that setup we observe interference effects and consider that as confirmation of superposition.
So I rather think about superposition as a tool to track relative phase between different modes of complete state.

I would like to get very specific.

In the double slit experiment interference effects are obviously observed. Do we observe interference because the electrons have a certain probability of going through either slit and because of that, many different electrons end up taking different paths, some through one slit others through the the other slit and because of that they have different path lengths and different phase? (or something like this?)

Or, do we observe interference effects because the electron is actually in a superposition state of some sort?
 
  • #19
mike1000 said:
I would like to get very specific.

In the double slit experiment interference effects are obviously observed. Do we observe interference because the electrons have a certain probability of going through either slit and because of that, many different electrons end up taking different paths, some through one slit others through the the other slit and because of that they have different path lengths and different phase? (or something like this?)

Or, do we observe interference effects because the electron is actually in a superposition state of some sort?
The barred patterns that are observed can be produced without interference. If the experiment is sending 1 particle at a time throught the slits, there can be no single-shot interference without superposition.
 
  • #20
Mentz114 said:
The barred patterns that are observed can be produced without interference. If the experiment is sending 1 particle at a time throught the slits, there can be no interference without superposition.

Your statement is very ambiguous. When you say there can be no interference without superposition what do you mean? Are you saying that a single electron goes through both slits at the same time?
 
  • #21
mike1000 said:
Your statement is very ambiguous. When you say there can be no interference without superposition what do you mean? Are you saying that a single electron goes through both slits at the same time?
I meant to say "there can be no single-shot interference without superposition".

I do not believe the single-shot experimental results are caused by interference. I have no overwhelming evidence so it is a minority view.
 
  • #22
Mentz114 said:
I meant to say "there can be no single-shot interference without superposition".

I do not believe the single-shot experimental results are caused by interference. I have no overwhelming evidence so it is a minority view.

By single shot you mean just firing one electron at the screen? Are you saying that when they fire one electron at a double slit they observe interference with just that one electron?
 
  • #23
mike1000 said:
By single shot you mean just firing one electron at the screen? Are you saying that when they fire one electron at a double slit they observe interference with just that one electron?
Yes. For instance, if each electron leaves a dot on a screen, then a barred pattern emerges. ( You should get out more :wink:)
 
  • #24
Mentz114 said:
Yes. For instance, if each electron leaves a dot on a screen, then a barred pattern emerges. ( You should get out more :wink:)

But if they only fire one electron they cannot tell anything. You mean they fire many electrons one at at time.
 
  • #25
mike1000 said:
But if they only fire one electron they cannot tell anything. You mean they fire many electrons one at at time.
Normally 'each electron' implies many electrons. Yes, obviously.
 
  • #26
Mentz114 said:
Normally 'each electron' implies many electrons. Yes, obviously.

I know but in the post I replied to you did not say "each electron" you said "single shot".
 
  • #27
OK. I assumed you would know about it.
 
  • #28
mike1000 said:
I would like to get very specific.

In the double slit experiment interference effects are obviously observed. Do we observe interference because the electrons have a certain probability of going through either slit and because of that, many different electrons end up taking different paths, some through one slit others through the the other slit and because of that they have different path lengths and different phase? (or something like this?)

Or, do we observe interference effects because the electron is actually in a superposition state of some sort?
It seems you won't be able to replay for some time. I will post my answer anyways.

In science we can't say what happens in reality. However we can examine different explanations and reject those that produce predictions inconsistent with experimental results.
That said, I consider that at least for photons the first option is viable explanation and second option is falsified by this experiment: Interference of Independent Photon Beams
 
  • #29
The answer is very simple and known since 1928, when Davisson and Germer did the double-slit experiment with electrons in the lab: You get an "interference pattern" for an ensemble of electrons not for a single electrons. Each single electron gives one spot on the photo plate. That's one of the most simple experimental confirmations of the correctness of Born's probability interpretation, and I answered this to mike1000 several times already!

So what's described by the interference pattern, i.e., ##|\psi(\vec{x})|^2## are position-probability distributions, not the behavior of single electrons! I think this thread is overdue to be closed!
 
  • #30
vanhees71 said:
The answer is very simple and known since 1928, when Davisson and Germer did the double-slit experiment with electrons in the lab: You get an "interference pattern" for an ensemble of electrons not for a single electrons. Each single electron gives one spot on the photo plate. That's one of the most simple experimental confirmations of the correctness of Born's probability interpretation, and I answered this to mike1000 several times already!
The question as I see it is not about confirmation of one model but instead about falsification of the other (single particle interference) model.
I suppose that wave function collapse in position space was proposed as explanation of single spot on photographic plate for single particle interference model so it is supposed to be consistent with your example.
 
  • #31
Don't start again the collapse debate. My opinion is well-known: There's no justification of it, it's not needed, and it's contradicting fundamental properties of relativistic QFT. There's Born's rule, giving the physical meaning of the quantum state, and nothing else.
 
  • #32
vanhees71 said:
The answer is very simple and known since 1928,
... and answers the OP's initial question.
vanhees71 said:
I think this thread is overdue to be closed!
Agreed, the more as it seems we're steering towards another subject, which by the way has already dozens of threads that can be read.

Thread closed.
 
  • Like
Likes berkeman and vanhees71

1. What is superposition and how does it relate to scientific experiments?

Superposition is a principle in quantum mechanics that states that a quantum system can exist in multiple states or locations simultaneously until it is observed or measured. This concept has been supported by thousands of experiments in the field of quantum mechanics.

2. How do scientists conduct experiments to support the concept of superposition?

Scientists use a variety of techniques and tools, such as double-slit experiments and quantum entanglement, to demonstrate the phenomenon of superposition. These experiments involve manipulating and observing particles at the quantum level to show their ability to exist in multiple states at once.

3. Why is the concept of superposition important in understanding the quantum world?

Superposition is a fundamental principle in quantum mechanics and helps explain the behavior of particles at the subatomic level. It also has practical applications in technologies such as quantum computing and cryptography.

4. Are there any experiments that contradict the concept of superposition?

To date, there have been no experiments that have conclusively disproven the concept of superposition. However, there are ongoing debates and research in the scientific community about the interpretation and implications of this principle.

5. How does the concept of superposition challenge our traditional understanding of reality?

Superposition challenges our classical understanding of the world, where objects are thought to exist in one specific state at a time. It forces us to rethink our perceptions of reality and consider the possibility of multiple states coexisting simultaneously.

Similar threads

  • Quantum Physics
Replies
1
Views
1K
Replies
1
Views
778
  • Quantum Interpretations and Foundations
Replies
1
Views
787
Replies
93
Views
4K
  • Quantum Physics
2
Replies
45
Views
9K
  • Quantum Interpretations and Foundations
Replies
15
Views
2K
  • Quantum Interpretations and Foundations
Replies
12
Views
2K
  • Quantum Interpretations and Foundations
4
Replies
138
Views
5K
  • Quantum Physics
Replies
3
Views
1K
  • Quantum Physics
Replies
24
Views
3K
Back
Top