>>10982524>Correct me, I thought treating the particle as a wave was just short hand for "it's roughly here" and you can plug that into maths, Not that it doesn't have a fixed point until observed.Well truth is particles do not behave like a small clump of physical matter would, and neither do they behave as a wave. That's because whatever it is atoms are made of are neither particles nor waves. They are a substance that seems counterintuitive to us macroscopic beings so we call it waveparticles.
Particles aren't tiny balls. There is a diffuse 'something' in a certain energy range, smeared across a small bit of space and time (superposition). That 'something' is in several places at once, has a range of energies and momentum and can be observed in several places in time. But most importantly, all of these properties are interrelated and if you change one, the others must conform such that all properties combined result in one of many physically possible configurations, and all of them move as a unit. So we call this thing a waveparticle.
For you to 'observe' a physical system, you force it to settle into one of the many equivalent configurations and lose superposition. You effectively 'locked' it down or severely restricted it.
If particles had 'fixed points' instead of being actual probability based clouds of waveparticleness, quantum tunnelling wouldn't work, and so you wouldn't have QTE microscopes, MRAM in computers, etc.
