>>11881478>>11881483I'd say no, but with some caveats. We do not have an analytical proof for a lot of chaos-theory questions like "can a small (finite) initial perturbation to an idealized fluid lead over time to a divergence in the state of the fluid (infinite slosh) due to chaotic interactions?"
However, when we break these idealized fluids (and other objects) into particles this problem changes form. We can measure the total kinetic energy of this mass of particles through its temperature and measure the mass's net momentum, and basic conservation laws rule out such random gains in momentum, with the assumption that the mass is not interacting with its environment.
Quantum mechanical uncertainty is trickier. I would say this also doesn't lead to such occurences. I believe that differing collapse occurs due to differing quantum-level setups of a classical measurement device. When we weakly measure quantum trajectories we see superluminal paths and teleportation, but it is not accurate to view nonlocalized waves as moving as particles. These strangely measured trajectories do not correspond to any teleportation but to differing phases between parts of the measurement device and the wave. And, as a system of particles grows larger not only due these "strange occurences" begin to become "smaller", but more and more does the wavefunction, which itself behaves entirely classically, come to be easily recognizable as in and of itself equivalent to the classical notion of an "object", sans quantum mechanical "measurement".
