1

Can reality be fuzzy? If so, how would this look like?

In quantum mechanics, a particle can be in a superposition of two states before measurement. In the many worlds interpretation, this is neatly dealt with: each outcome occurs. In Bohmian mechanics, particles do have definite positions.

But without these interpretations, to take position as an example, a particle does not have a definite position in space at any time before this measurement.

How can a particle with an indefinite position cohere with reality if there is only one, real world? If there is only one reality, then one should be atleast able to imagine a snapshot of what that reality would look like at any moment. What would this image be in the case of entangled particles before measurement?

Improve this question
1

2 Answers 2

Reset to default
4

But without these interpretations, to take position as an example, a particle does not have a definite position in space at any time before this measurement.

Without these "interpretations", there would be no "particles" or "positions" or even "time" and space", it would all just be a bunch of mathematical formulae. Namely, physics, similarly to many other disciplines, from sciences to engineering to logic and to philosophy even, uses mathematics but does not reduce to mathematics: mathematical are the/some theoretical models in these disciplines.

Is the notion of a fuzzy reality coherent?

QM is definitely "coherent", it is in fact a pretty solid and quite unproblematic piece of mathematical theory, but "coherence" is not enough: the physics problem is to have a (physical, not mathematical) theory that does in fact match and possibly explain reality, the physical reality, aka what we can (physically) "measure".

QM is not "fuzzy" either: as also pointed out in a comment to the question, modulo the "measurement problem", which is anyway again not a mathematical problem, QM is in fact fully deterministic.

Improve this answer
8
  • I wholeheartedly agree. One needs a coherent physical description but a superposition of states in mathematical terms needs to translate into the physical world. How is this done in a coherent way without resort to the theories I mentioned?
    – user74135
    Commented May 6 at 10:31
  • 1
    You might want to find and watch Feynman's physics lectures/interviews available on YouTube: "I cannot explain you magnetism with an analogy, say, with rubber bands: magnetism is just like... magnetism". Nature is as She is, superpositions and all: that we have little intuition for some of it comes with the extension of the field to regimes we cannot experience personally/directly.
    – Julio Di Egidio
    Commented May 6 at 10:36
  • Right. What do things really look like when seen in UV or IR? What are the 'colors' there? I really want to know!
    – Scott Rowe
    Commented May 6 at 10:41
  • 1
    @ScottRowe The "colors" we experience, and the philosophical problems if any, in physics reduce to/exist only as "the wave-length of the received light signal". Only a physicalist would ask how "really" things are and insist in using only physics to answer the question. And, only a radical sceptic would say that nothing is really knowable.
    – Julio Di Egidio
    Commented May 6 at 10:54
  • 1
    "What you’re saying amount to nothing being really knowable @JulioDiEgidio" I have said no such thing. And, past that, you just repeat for the most part my very remarks. Please drop your comment and re-read.
    – Julio Di Egidio
    Commented May 6 at 11:02
3

According to Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics (QM), reality is not fuzzy. The dichotomy is between a world of potentialities on one hand and on the other hand the real world.

According to Copenhagen interpretation, QM considers the microworld between two observations to be a world of potentialities. While each observation realizes one of these potentialitities and creates a new state of the real word. See Werner Heisenberg: Physics and Philosophy, p. 186.

Improve this answer
4
  • How are the potentialities before measurement described as, physically?
    – user74135
    Commented May 6 at 12:17
  • @Curious In the Schroedinger picture you develop the time-dependent psi-function into the eigenvectors of the selfadjoint operator in Hilbert space of the specific observable. - If the operator does not have a complete basis one needs a bit more mathematics.
    – Jo Wehler
    Commented May 6 at 13:06
  • you are merely telling me what the mathematical formalism is. I am asking what it represents, physically before measurement
    – user74135
    Commented May 7 at 4:53
  • 1
    @Curious The interpretation of the psi-function from the viewpoint of physics is due to Max Born: From the amplitude derives the probability of future measurements of the observables. The phase of the psi-function determines the interference phenomena with the psi-functions of other physical systems. - We have to accept and still have to learn that physics on the microscale requires a new interpretation.
    – Jo Wehler
    Commented May 7 at 5:37

You must log in to answer this question.