3 ms·

Thanks for this! Never thought about it this way, but it's a terrific perspective / way to frame and explain probabilistic measurements in an intuitive way.

fsflover 6y ago
The difference though is that for a quantum particle, there is no "particle second" in the sense that you can't measure exactly where it is however fast you try.
- drran 6y ago
  "we can't measure it" doesn't imply "it doesn't exist". Maybe it exists, maybe not. Let's improve our tools and try again. For example, it's impossible to measure distances shorter than photon wave length using photon stream, but it's easy to do using beam splitter and interference.
  - fsflover 6y ago
    I never suggested that it didn't exist. It's just not a simple ball-like or point-like object, more like a cloud changing its form perhaps.
    - goldenkey 6y ago
      Your understanding of what is quantum and what is not, is dead wrong. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/giant-molecules-exist-in-two-places-at-once-in-unprecedented-quantum-experiment/ https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/giant-molecules-e...
      - drran 6y ago
        IMHO, you should look at this video, where water droplet at macro scale «exists in two places at once» (demonstrates self interference when passing two slits). https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nsaUX48t0w8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nsaUX48t0w8
drran 6y ago
Our solar system is just a few galaxy years old. Our circles (I hope they will be circles) around Big Attractor and Shapley Cluster are just started, so we are at year one. If we scale up infinitely, then we will see that our Universe is "forever young", frozen in time. If we scale down, we will see more and more exceptionally stable "dead" objects, completely missing short living ones, so our Universe will look "forever dead" for us again. Anything interesting will happen at our own scale only.

fsflover 6y ago

The difference though is that for a quantum particle, there is no "particle second" in the sense that you can't measure exactly where it is however fast you try.

drran 6y ago
"we can't measure it" doesn't imply "it doesn't exist". Maybe it exists, maybe not. Let's improve our tools and try again. For example, it's impossible to measure distances shorter than photon wave length using photon stream, but it's easy to do using beam splitter and interference.
- fsflover 6y ago
  I never suggested that it didn't exist. It's just not a simple ball-like or point-like object, more like a cloud changing its form perhaps.
  - goldenkey 6y ago
    Your understanding of what is quantum and what is not, is dead wrong. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/giant-molecules-exist-in-two-places-at-once-in-unprecedented-quantum-experiment/ https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/giant-molecules-e...
    - drran 6y ago
      IMHO, you should look at this video, where water droplet at macro scale «exists in two places at once» (demonstrates self interference when passing two slits). https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nsaUX48t0w8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nsaUX48t0w8

drran 6y ago

Our solar system is just a few galaxy years old. Our circles (I hope they will be circles) around Big Attractor and Shapley Cluster are just started, so we are at year one. If we scale up infinitely, then we will see that our Universe is "forever young", frozen in time. If we scale down, we will see more and more exceptionally stable "dead" objects, completely missing short living ones, so our Universe will look "forever dead" for us again. Anything interesting will happen at our own scale only.