Say I present my friend a box. The box contains a coin. I ask my friend whether the coin is heads or tails. Unable to see what’s inside, she answers she could only give a set of probabilities: 50% heads, 50% tails. It is only when I open the box that she finally knows for sure the state of the coin.
Physicists can generate a wave function that gives sets of probabilities regarding the position and velocity of a subatomic particle. However, upon observation, this wave function collapses to just one outcome.
I want to know why this is a frustrating problem for physicists. If they observe a subatomic particle, and they get a definite answer, isn’t that a good thing? Doesn’t that mean they figured out that electron’s position or velocity accurately? I thought that’s what probability means: the likeliness that something is at a particular place. It doesn’t mean that it will certainly be there.
I’m just puzzled about why this seems such a big deal among physicists.
In: Physics
Radiation decay is a great example. There should only be half of the material after one half life, but depending on measuring it, you can have three outcomes: more than half, exactly half, or less than half. Also, your measurement device could be broken.
The beauty of physics is that no one is technically wrong, but just doesn’t have measured (observed) record of their theories. It’s the mathematicians who deal is absolutes and are no fun.
Latest Answers