Does a sub-atomic particle really exist before being measured?
Do non-subatomic particles exist before they’re measured? They’re simply collections of subatomic particles in a particular configuration.
So the answer is yes, they do exist. You do not magically conjure non-virtual particles into existence simply by looking in the right direction.
Or are you asking “is it possible to measure a quantum particle without interfering with it? Does passive observation result in the same results as active observation?”
Define “real”, and then we’ll get back to you.
I’m not quite sure what I’m asking to be honest.
It seems to me that we are in a catch-22 situation here in that we cannot really say what sub-atomic particles are until we measure them but in doing so we change them into something that ‘interacts’ with our measuring techniques. It’s a bit more subtle than that even, because by ‘measuring techniques’ we should include not only the scientific apparatus used in experiments but our own mind also since our minds form part of the chain of the measurement. By this, I mean that if a scientific experiment were to take place automatically without any direct participation from conscious observers, perhaps because it had been set-up beforehand, would the results be equivalent to the results examined by conscious observers that were present? Again, you could argue that, yes, they would indeed be the same, even if nobody was about to scrutinize them, however, we are once again in a catch-22 situation because the only way you could prove it would be to make an observation, so how is it possible to confirm something that cannot be observed by making an observation? You are trying to prove something that relies on your own interpretative mental processes which would not be there if you were not there.
So when you say that sub-atomic particles are, in fact, there, but in a particular configuration, what does that really mean? Does it mean they are roughly what we observe when measured or are they nothing like this and only come into our ‘idea’ of sub-atomic particles once we have ‘processed’ them from data we obtain from a particular kind of scientific set-up? So I guess what I’m also asking is, depending on how we arrange a scientific experiment, do we ‘force’ phenomena to appeal to our conceptual predispositions (that have been formed through evolutionary processes) and in doing so select the kind of ‘reality’ we want?
That’s what I’m trying to do and It’s proving problematic.
Are you real? You are made of the same particles you are asking about.
Do you vanish when no one is looking?
Being able to satisfy our curiosity about what quantum particles **are **is different from satisfying our curiosity about their existence.
Consider it this way, there exists an object that when interacted in a variety of ways behaves in a consistent manner. We can now call that object an electron. Are there other aspects of this object we’re unaware of? Possibly, but that turns it into a question of plumbing the extent of that object’s interactions with the universe.
Well, good question.
Actually, yes, if you think about it. However, that’s not to say I cannot be detected as being there in ways other than looking. You could touch me, smell me, perhaps, hear me, and so on. If we were both standing on a trampoline you could detect if I got off, for example, so there are ways other than using light waves to detect me.
But don’t you think it’s because particles and us are made of the same ‘stuff’ that allows us to ‘communicate’ with one another? If for example, we were made of dark matter, what would we make of reality then, assuming of course that dark matter has the potential to form conscious, thinking beings. Or some other form of matter we are not currently familiar with? What I’m saying is that really we are ‘star stuff’ as well as many other constituents of the universe and, therefore, are able to ‘talk’ to one another.
“The Ravenous Bugblatter Beast is so mind-bogglingly stupid that it thinks that if you can’t see it, it can’t see you. Therefore, the best defense against a Bugblatter Beast is to wrap a towel around your head.”
Well, quantum particles are what we say they are based on the way we choose to detect them. Before the advent of particle physics there was effectively no quantum world so would it be outrageous to suggest that we actually invented it? Are we like some sorcerer who is able to conjure up images and spirits through the spells that we perform in the guise of scientific experiments? This may not be as far fetched as it sounds when you consider the puzzling, counterintuitive results of variations of the double-slit experiment. Maybe, far from there being a realistic interpretation of quantum mechanics, just maybe, we are the causal agents here and not some pre-existing situation.
Which has nothing to do with being 'real" or existing.
If we were were some sort of dark matter entities then we would be interacting with the universe in a different manner than how we baryonic bunch do it now. However, we would still be interacting with it; there is no privileged method of interaction between objects.
Do you have the same views for bacteria?
Yeah I know…just keep measuring! (But what are we really doing when we do that?)
But what does ‘interact’ mean? And what is the difference before interaction and post-interaction? Is the universe as it was after we have made a discovery, or have we brought such a discovery into ‘real’ existence? That there was a* potential* for this to happen is undoubtedly true but how much of the universe is held in potential and how much has, well… fulfilled its potential, if you like. In short, are we active agents in building reality…our reality.
No, because nobody had to devise scientific experiments to know that bacteria or most any other animal existed.
What do you call creating a microscope and looking at pond water?
Well the OP is treading a well worn path.
Trouble with this path is that unless you are careful you end up in the usual philosophical infinite regress, one that basically ends up with the fundamental question of philosophy: “why is there stuff?”. So if you want to reason usefully about the original question you are going to need to put some sort of basic axioms in place. Solophism and various existentialist viewpoints get you only so far, and down rather fruitless rabbit holes. For the purposes of your discourse you are going to have to adopt at least a viewpoint that you are not special. That what you observe of other beings, creatures and things is composed of the same stuff and laws as you are. This leads you to minimally allow that there are other conscious beings that you interact with.
Once you have other conscious beings you may want to place some limits on the manner that concious observation determines anything. Especially in the light of questions of causality. If you observe the actions of another conscious being, it it your conscious detection of their state that causes that state to resolve? What about someone observing you? Do you cease to exist in a resolved form if no-one is looking at you, only waiting to being to exist again when someone peeks? What if the observation is via some mechanical intermediary, such as a video link? What if I record a video of you? Are you resolved when the video is make, or do you wait in limbo until I play the video? What if I never play the video? What if I play it twice?
Try telling that to John Snow.
Edgar Allan Poe’s view may be relevant:
That’s an observation, not a scientific experiment. I grant you that a microscope can be considered a scientific instrument but in this case nothing is being done to the the pond water other than looking at it.