This post has been de-listed
It is no longer included in search results and normal feeds (front page, hot posts, subreddit posts, etc). It remains visible only via the author's post history.
It started with RRC's explanation on how an electron can be "round", in which a free particle was used.
Then this question was posed, and a discussion ensued.
Throughout the discussion I've been told that the prevailing understanding of QM is that - to paraphrase the user with whom the I had the discussion - "[a] particle [does not have] any properties such as location or spin or anything until they are measured(and again, it's meaningless to say something without a location, or spin, or momentum, etc... exists) . This is the orthodox view of quantum mechanics, often called the Copenhagen Interpretation."
Now I'm horribly confused. It is my understanding that the existence of a free particle is given when discussing any such system. That's why we start with "let's consider a free particle", and we get a trivial solution of 1 when integrating the probability distribution over all space. The act of observing (or lack thereof) does not change this.
I listed the scenarios in my discussion:
1) No free particle.
2) Free particle that has not been observed.
3) Free particle that has been observed, and therefore has taken a particular state for some observable property.
Is there, within the prevailing view of quantum mechanics in the physics community, an explanation where the act of making an observation causes a switch from scenario 1) to 2)? Any input would be great! Thanks.
Edit: I have a feeling the answer is likely "there is no difference (to us) between 1) and 2), and therefore the question is moot."
Subreddit
Post Details
- Posted
- 13 years ago
- Reddit URL
- View post on reddit.com
- External URL
- reddit.com/r/askscience/...