Submitted by Vico1730 t3_z0s4dw in philosophy
Honest-SiberianTiger t1_ixadz4l wrote
Reply to comment by chromeVidrio in On the advantages of believing that nothing is true by Vico1730
Quantum physics has to deal with this problem because of the issue of observation of basic particles. To observe an event you have to use a constant stream of colliding particles. To see a cup of tea on the table, the photons have to hit the cup and reflect into your eye. But what if the cup was so small or the photon is so big, that when they collide the position and velocity of the cup has already changed way before the photon comes back to the retina? This is a fundamental problem in quantum interactions as the particles used to observe are at a comparable size to the particles observed. In other words, it's hard to say if there is a way to firmly determine positions of small particles (at least for me, as I'm not a physicist), so that is your prime candidate in nature for the third option.
chromeVidrio t1_ixajxt4 wrote
Nah, this doesn’t create a third option. It’s actually a good example of my point.
The particle is here or it is not.
We don’t know where the particle is located, but it is here or not here.
P = Particle
X = Location
P = X or Not X
aiquoc t1_ixb3orj wrote
Before the particle being observed, however, it exists in a superposition of states, meaning it is at both X and Not X. But as soon as you detect it at X, then it is at X and X only.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_superposition
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments