How do we know the idea that particles don’t exist in one definitive spot until we measure them, isn’t just our lack of knowledge due to not measuring them yet?
In: 17
First there is one important thing to state about physics: The goal of physics is to develope tools/theories to predict what will happen in certain scenarios. For example gravity is a theory that can be used to predict what will happen in certain scenarios, like dropping a pen.
You could also develope a theory that says the pen should fall up, or you could develope a theory that says some guy outside of our universe decides what will happen. But these two theories are not usefull, the first one contradicts our reality and the second one gives us no way of predicting what will happen.
Now coming back to your question:
The “normal” theory of particles in definitive spots is really good at predicting how our world works at big scale, for example in predicting how a tree falling on a house might be bad for the house.
But some time ago we noticed that our theories failed to predict the outcomes of certain experiments, like the double-slit experiment. That meant we needed a new theory, as our old theory contradicted reality. This is where some genius people came up with quantum mechanics, a new and more correct theory. This new theory only works, because we don’t require particles to have a definitive position. We had to “give up” that very intuitive idea, because we could not create a working theory that allowed particles to have a definitive spot.
If you want to know more about the double-slit experiment, you can google that or ask here again.
Latest Answers