3 ms·

The old "is" strikes again. An electron is definitely not a cloud, nor a particle nor a wave, we don't know what the hell it is and stopped trying to describe

The old "is" strikes again. An electron is definitely not a cloud, nor a particle nor a wave, we don't know what the hell it is and stopped trying to describe it in those terms many years ago. Instead, we limit ourselves to trying to come up with models that accurately predict how they behave, and call the models useful when they predict the right answers to experiments. "All models are wrong but some are useful", as the saying goes. Like all subatomic particles, electrons don't seem to have a discrete location; when we try to measure their location, we get different results each time, as you said. However, these apparently-random results follow a predictable pattern, so we describe it using an equation predicting where it is most likely to be found (the Schrodinger wave equation). For electrons in some stable states, that area is roughly spherical, meaning that there is some point where it is most likely to be found, a fuzzy area near that point where it is fairly likely to be found, and a distance from that point past which it is very unlikely to be found. We can therefore model the electron as being a tiny discrete thing that whizzes around in a roughly spherical area, which is the "cloud" in this article. All that "can be modeled as" stuff is unwieldy, so people say the electron "is" a spherical cloud when they mean that modeling it as a spherical cloud is useful for understanding the matter at hand. What this article is describing is an attempt to measure whether that spherical region is perfectly spherical. If it weren't - meaning, if the electron was slightly more likely to be found on one side of the sphere than the other, then it would have an electrical dipole moment, which is what they were trying to find.

ineptech 3y ago
Fake edit: this is why it's helpful when discussing quantum mechanics to banish "is" from your vocabulary. For example, the debate over whether an electron "is" a particle or "is" a wave is much more tractable when you switch to debating whether it behaves like a particle or a wave in some situation. In college, I found this very similar to how it is useful when learning relativity to avoid the word "simultaneously".
- gitfan86 3y ago
  Yes, if you view Time, Space, Intelligence and Consciousness as emergent, things make a lot more sense. This upsets people because it implies that the most fundamental parts of their existence are not "real", but to your point it is very helpful to approach them as if they are not "real" regardless of what is actually fundamental to reality.
  - jacquesm 3y ago
    This makes absolutely zero sense. I also have no idea why you replied to the GP who was making interesting points and spending a lot of brain cycles to do so. Maybe it upsets people because it is - apologies - interesting sounding bullshit?
    - gitfan86 3y ago
      It's certainly understandable that the concepts presented here may seem perplexing or even nonsensical. However, it's important to consider that modern physics, as we know it, is riddled with conundrums and enigmatic phenomena that continue to challenge our understanding of the universe. From the pursuit of a unified theory to grappling with the implications of quantum gravity and entanglement, it's clear that our perception of reality is not as straightforward as we might initially assume. In fact, it could be argued that this inherent complexity is precisely what makes these ideas so fascinating. Just as an entrepreneur might embrace uncertainty and forge new paths in uncharted territory, the scientists delving into these perplexing aspects of reality are pushing the boundaries of our collective knowledge. And in doing so, they may uncover new insights that will fundamentally reshape our understanding of the universe and our place within it. So while it's natural to feel skeptical or even incredulous when confronted with such seemingly "outlandish" ideas, I encourage you to remain open-minded and curious. After all, the history of scientific progress is replete with instances where established ideas were overturned by new discoveries, often spurred by those willing to entertain the seemingly impossible.
      - deleted 3y ago
        [deleted]
- criddell 3y ago
  In another thread I said an electron is an excitation of a quantum field. Is that a mistake as well? I don’t think quantum stuff will ever make sense to me…
  - ineptech 3y ago
    It's only a mistake if you take it too literally and forget it's a model, e.g. "I measured the electron to have a mass, but I can't see how an excitation in a field would have mass so I guess I must've measured wrong."
    - criddell 3y ago
      > it’s a model Maybe it is and maybe it isn’t. We don’t know what is actually happening. Max Tegmark makes a pretty good case for it actually being mathematics.

ineptech 3y ago

Fake edit: this is why it's helpful when discussing quantum mechanics to banish "is" from your vocabulary. For example, the debate over whether an electron "is" a particle or "is" a wave is much more tractable when you switch to debating whether it behaves like a particle or a wave in some situation. In college, I found this very similar to how it is useful when learning relativity to avoid the word "simultaneously".

gitfan86 3y ago
Yes, if you view Time, Space, Intelligence and Consciousness as emergent, things make a lot more sense. This upsets people because it implies that the most fundamental parts of their existence are not "real", but to your point it is very helpful to approach them as if they are not "real" regardless of what is actually fundamental to reality.
- jacquesm 3y ago
  This makes absolutely zero sense. I also have no idea why you replied to the GP who was making interesting points and spending a lot of brain cycles to do so. Maybe it upsets people because it is - apologies - interesting sounding bullshit?
  - gitfan86 3y ago
    It's certainly understandable that the concepts presented here may seem perplexing or even nonsensical. However, it's important to consider that modern physics, as we know it, is riddled with conundrums and enigmatic phenomena that continue to challenge our understanding of the universe. From the pursuit of a unified theory to grappling with the implications of quantum gravity and entanglement, it's clear that our perception of reality is not as straightforward as we might initially assume. In fact, it could be argued that this inherent complexity is precisely what makes these ideas so fascinating. Just as an entrepreneur might embrace uncertainty and forge new paths in uncharted territory, the scientists delving into these perplexing aspects of reality are pushing the boundaries of our collective knowledge. And in doing so, they may uncover new insights that will fundamentally reshape our understanding of the universe and our place within it. So while it's natural to feel skeptical or even incredulous when confronted with such seemingly "outlandish" ideas, I encourage you to remain open-minded and curious. After all, the history of scientific progress is replete with instances where established ideas were overturned by new discoveries, often spurred by those willing to entertain the seemingly impossible.
    - deleted 3y ago
      [deleted]
criddell 3y ago
In another thread I said an electron is an excitation of a quantum field. Is that a mistake as well? I don’t think quantum stuff will ever make sense to me…
- ineptech 3y ago
  It's only a mistake if you take it too literally and forget it's a model, e.g. "I measured the electron to have a mass, but I can't see how an excitation in a field would have mass so I guess I must've measured wrong."
  - criddell 3y ago
    > it’s a model Maybe it is and maybe it isn’t. We don’t know what is actually happening. Max Tegmark makes a pretty good case for it actually being mathematics.