":our universe will be about 5.4 x 10¹⁰m radius"

The universe does not have a radius,. It is not exploding into anything, just expanding. It may be a closed surface like a balloon or an open (infinite one) like a hyperboloid. It close to being 'flat' in either case.

You can think of it has an sheet that is expanding like a balloon. The distance between 'points' on the surface grows.

How far we can see has a radius given by the speed of light, i.e., the visible universe.

Dear Akinbo,

What do you think of the idea that our universe originated through a collision between a massless particle like a photon with a virtual particle?  This might result in the release of a tremendous amount of energy (because of the high speed of light and the high speed of disintegration of the virtual particle).  The ensuing universe might then evolve according to your above scenario.

Best Wishes,

Richard Sieb

Hi Traruh,Yes, the universe is not exploding but expanding. That implies it must have been smaller in the past. When it was three minutes old, how much mass (or energy) did it have? What was the temperature and energy density at three minutes?The parameter Omega is what tells whether the universe is flat or not. Flat if Omega ~ 1, closed if Omega >1 and open if Omega <1. Yes, Omega is close to being one now with the universe having a mass about 10⁵²kg. More discussion on how to calculate Omega can be found in the ebook, Hypotheses Fingo. But if you already know how, can we continue the discussion by you telling us the value of Omega at three minutes?
Regards

Hi Richard,All ideas must be entertained and subjected to reductio ad absurdum type scrutiny or interrogation. So the idea is okay.
However in interrogating it, we need to define what a universe is. If in my opinion, a universe is "all there is", then the photon before collision will not be "all there is". Same will apply to the virtual particle.
Another problem is how far (distance) and for how long (time duration) the photon will travel before the collision? If for example you say a kilometre, then some distance would be traversed before the universe originated, there is nothing stopping this from being above 10 billion light-years, the estimated distance a photon would have been travelling since the origin of our universe.
Do you have an estimate for how much tremendous amount of energy will be released from the collision? And what the temperature and energy density will be characteristic of the earliest epoch?
Regards,
Akinbo

I am flattered with the numbers so confidently derived from the mathematical models. But my question are:
1.  What it has to do with philosophy?
2. What is the meaning of meter and second standards before the first particles have emerged?
3. What does temperature mean when it is so hot that there is no particles?
4. Is it not temperature a statistical measure of mean kinetic energy of partilcles confined in closed space?
 

Hi Akinbo,

Virtual particles are thought to pop in and out of existence in a vacuum (like space).  If a photon (travelling at the speed of light) hits a virtual particle popping out of existence at or less than the speed of light, then the release of energy cannot be greater than the speed of light (according to special relativity) and so cannot be additive (speed of light plus speed of light).  Hence the energy would be released in a graduated (potential) fashion generating very high temperatures, mass, and accelerated expansion of the universe.  Perhaps eventually this graduated potential release of energy (dark energy) will lessen and the acceleration of expansion of the universe will lessen.

Regards,
Richard

).  "If a photon (travelling at the speed of light) hits a virtual particle popping out of existence at or less than the speed of light, then the release of energy cannot be greater than the speed of light (according to special relativity) "

The 'speed of light' is not an energy. It is a speed. No matter how much energy a photon has it speed is never greater then the speed of light.

Richard,Now I see your hypothesis. It looks okay, although I cannot help but wonder where the photon was travelling before hitting a virtual particle. Was it in this our universe or a pre-existing one? Then, in our universe such collisions could be common, does it mean new universes are being created from ours? Are you a supporter of the multi-verse concept? Was there a very first universe from which all subsequent universes emerged? Or do we have an infinite regress into the past without a first universe? Do you have a link to where you further discuss your hypothesis?

Akinbo

Hi Andrew,Thanks for your comments. Are you familiar with the Big bang model and if yes, do you have reservations with the math I posted? Then regarding your well reasoned questions, let me reply in the same numbered fashion as asked.
1. My dictionary defines philosophy as: study of realities and general principles; system of theories on the nature of things or on conduct; among others. Let me admit that I do not have a degree in philosophy, but I am of the opinion that being an area of study that is very wide is the reason the administrators of Philpapers.org have a classification for physics and cosmology. Natural philosophy was also the old name for physics.
2. Meter and second could not possibly have any standard before the first particles emerged. Their meanings are derived after the beginning and not fundamental.
3. To be honest, temperature remains a puzzle. But if the past is not infinite and there is a beginning from nothing, then it too like meter and second is a derived quantity. To fully answer the question you pose here would require answering the question what a particle is or could be. Is there an ultimate fundamental particle or atom of nature and what would be its most basic feature. This may take us outside cosmology unless you will like us to discuss it.
4. I think this is a bit related to question 3. We are told by quantum theorists that there are particles that are massless, so mass is not a prerequisite to define particles. In mentioning 'closed space', one may also ask whether space itself could be made of particles. In a sense, the answer is Yes, and the name of the particle of space is referred to as a 'point' in geometry. However, in the details there are differences which  I discuss in my book. One school says that the particle of space is of zero-dimension, while the other says it must be extended and have some measure. This debate dates back to Plato, Euclid, Proclus and the Pythagoreans (references can be provided). However, the mainstream view today is that the 'particle of space' is of zero dimension, making space infinitely divisible.
 Your question also mentions kinetic energy of particles and I ask in return whether the point, the particle of space can move? If it can, what effect will this have on our natural philosophy (physics).
All the best,
Akinbo

Hi Akinbo,

Thank you for your response. I am only familiar with the Big Bang model superficially. One of the reason I am not diving deeper is that statements made in the name of the model do not appear coherent to me. Like this one for example from the influential Wikipedia:

"In the most common models the universe was filled homogeneously and isotropically with a very high energy density and huge temperatures and pressures and was very rapidly expanding and cooling. Approximately 10^-37 seconds into the expansion, a phase transition caused a cosmic inflation, during which the universe grew exponentially."

This is like reading cheap science fiction story episode:

What was the early universe filled with? Answer:
The universe was filled:
a. with high energy density
b.with huge temperatures
c.with huge pressures
The question to this:
Could I fill a balloon with high energy density but not with pressure?
What surface would be the pressure acting on? The boundary of the universe that has no boundary?
What is the definition of energy, temperature in the early universe?
We agree that if one using a term in physic, this term should be precisely defined. There is neither energy nor "energy density" filling anything. There are things in the universe to which the quantity of energy can be attributed within a suitable mathematical model. 
And the energy density is the amount of energy of a kind calculated in a confined space divided by the volume of this space. So how does that  "energy density"  fill anything?
I think cosmology is filled with mathematicians who have no sense of reality.
I think You can understand my grounds for skepticism.

1. I was probably a bit careless with the formulation. After all Newton's Principia were under the label of Natural Philosophy. But these days a fuzzy line should be drawn between philosophy an physics. As physic cannot be ignored by philosophy it should be used as a synthesis of the current knowledge in relation to ontology in general and issues covered by philosophy of time and space. But it is just my personal bias.
2.I understand the extrapolation methods but the hard bit is dependency of length and time standard on the concentration of mass in space. You can imagine NOW the universe of a size of the pin's head but relative to what if there is nothing else but the universe. What would be my height in the early universe? The same or much smaller? I am finding some well defined physical relations today meaningless when discussed in the context of the early universe. Every physical equation has a reference point. Where is the one in the early universe where there is nothing to particularly refer to Bold claims are made physical constant were changing. Relative to what?
3. Temperature has been defined by Celsius as an arbitrary measure of perceived heat. Later on this measure was reflected by the kinetic theory of gas and it is a function of a mean square velocity of the particles which are randomly distributed in mnagnitude and direction relative to a common rest reference frame. Since then the temperature is used out of the original context. Some claim it may gen negative as if average square of a real number could ever get negative. You say past is not infinite but for every differential equation it is. The reference point t=0 can be arbitrary set which is an arbitrary now. What is the differential equation of the exploding universe what boundary and initial conditions. What physiclal quantity as a function(s) of (x,y,z,t) is in that differential equation? What is then temperature and pressure?
4. You raise some interesting issues there which I would like to think about in the future after I finish my battle with relative simultaneity. The number of interesting problems is not shrinking. Before then I would to look at time reversibility and time travel.
 
Overall it is good people attempt theories like Big Bang but I feel we have not matured enough to have a consistent picture of reality. We always describe new in terms of old then something new altogether enters the scene and makes the description better.

The description of combustion using phlogiston was acceptable at some stage in history even with the nonsensical negative mass of the phlogiston. The discovery of oxygen explained the combustion without this exotic entity and claims.

I think in terms of dark energy, dark mass and negative temperature we are where the phlogiston theory was.

Best regards,
Andrew

Dear Andrew,

Your scepticism is appreciated and probably well founded. You don’t have to take Wikipedia as gospel truth but more as an introduction to the topic. For instance you are quite correct in questioning the presence of pressure in a universe that has no boundary. I question that too.

When you say, “You say past is not infinite but for every differential equation it is”, take note that differential equations are premised on the assumption of infinite divisibility of time and space. This is how Calculus is made use of. And in making use of differential equations the ‘infinitesimal’ is resorted to. Since you are more inclined to philosophy than physics then let me raise a point I raised in my book, Hypotheses Fingo: Can there be a quantity that is indistinguishable from zero, equal to zero, not equal to zero, tending to zero (i.e. dx ≈ 0, dx = 0, dx ≠ 0, dx → 0), all at the same time?

I may advise that you not waste your precious intellect on relative simultaneity, time reversibility and time travel. Just my opinion.

All the best

Have you taken calculus?

dx=0 means dx IS 0.
dx->0 does not mean dx=0.

It means infinitesimal small or ... however close you are, you can go closer. The limit as you approach 0 is the thing your after. x=0 is the limit as x->0, but you never quite get to the limit.

In some pathological cases this can be weird. x->0 followed by y->0 will not give same result as y->0 followed by x->0, I.e., it depends which order you take the limit.

z=exp(-x/y)

x=y=0 is undefined. The limit of z depends on which way you do it.

...

I agree with Traruch 
Regards,
Andrew

Traruh and Andrew,Actually there is no disagreement. Calculus is a mathematical tool seeking to conquer the phenomenon we call 'motion'. Has it met with success? Yes, to a reasonable extent enabling us to make predictions. Has it uncovered the fundamental aspects without contradictions? My answer is No. And Zeno's paradoxes, particularly his Dichotomy argument illustrate this.
dx = 0, means there is no motion
dx → 0, means there is motion but it cannot attain its destination (the limit). As Traruh said, "...however close you are, you can go closer", but we know from experience that the runner always crosses the finish line.
This discussion may best be on a topic dedicated to motion, its paradoxes and how to better understand it.
Regards,
Akinbo

Dear Akinbo, I agree the understanding of motion is still not great as it can be seen from reoccurring debates on this subject. This is despite of universal success of relativity theories.
I am still puzzled that old Zeno paradoxes are still on the agenda. You might think we should not talk about motion in the cosmology thread, but how one can say anything about the universe when we still have trouble of understanding motion here and NOW (which is said to be an empty concept).

I do not think for instance that Zeno's Achilles and Tortoise paradox has any merits today, and it could have been resolved long time ago logically without calculus as I show amongst other things in my short overview of the problem:

www.researchgate.net/publication/284715183_What's_Wrong_With_Zeno

or check the same link on my publication list in PP
Regards,
Andrew

Calculus works for me. The more abstract mathematicians and philosophers may get hung up in subtle likely linguistic issues.

Hello Andrew,I went through your article What's Wrong With Zeno? on researchgate. It was nice but I think you still overlook a number of things. I don't know if this forum topic is the best avenue to discuss or argue this.
In your proposed solution, you started with "Assume motion is possible", which is the very assumption meant to be proved that things can move from place to place. Secondly, it is not just the distance that is composed of an infinite number of points, even the turtle's head consists of an infinite number so how can Achilles reach the middle point. Let me mention however that Zeno's Dichotomy argument seems to bring out the issues more clearly. 
Perhaps I should frame things this way:
Andrew Wutke is a place of a certain size, weight, etc. In his daily activities Andrew travels the city and retires home. On a fundamental examination has Andrew moved from his place? Is it possible for Andrew to move away from Andrew? If impossible how then is the impression conveyed that Andrew is moving? Is it possible that what is actually changing/moving is something outside of Andrew? Could what is changing/''moving'' be the distance between places and not the places themselves?  Or are there two Andrews in the place we call Andrew, a moving one and a stationary one?
Even assuming that Andrew can leave his place is there a first point that he must encounter and which can it be if there is no nearest first point as in an infinitely divisible space?
These are the actual questions that were under scrutiny by Zeno, Newton and Descartes.
I have come to realize that there are restrictions/moderation on the forum so let me stop here for now. 
By the way Calculus is a math trick that works well but sweeps quite a number of things under the rug.
Regards,
Akinbo

Dear Akinbo
I raelise the main thread diverts to a different path but after all reasoning about the physical world it is difficult. Encountering elementary difficulties in interpretation of the most obvious phenomena begs for answers. I tried to prove that at least one Zeno paradox is no longer a paradox although the mystery of motion must be redirected elsewhere. But there is no paradox for ordinary logic in Achilles Tortoise (ACHT) race. Reasoning about infinite series of waypoints and matching time intervals is simply incorrect. The correct one is demonstrated by algebra or simple observation illustrated on the diagram in my "article".

You question  "Assume motion is possible", but it is appropriate to ACHT. The other paradoxes deal with no motion. The old succinct description left by Aristotle says:
 
.."The second [problem] is the so-called 'Achilles', and it amounts to this, that in a race the quickest runner can never overtake the slowest, since the pursuer must first reach the point whence the pursued started, so that the slower must always hold a lead."



Note the highlighted bold words are attributes of motion. Without the concept of motion, the statement of the problem would be impossible.
 
It is something quite different to assume that knowing how motion works we arrive at the conclusion that it is impossible or that it does not occur as it is known from experience, which is what Zeno was trying to prove. 
For me if reasoning does not match observation, most likely the is a fault in reasoning. [see Copernicus works].
 
I have already shown that moving objects enclosing infinite number of points have designated reference points to represent them. We see quite clearly that the evolution of motion whether described mathematically or verbally translates geometric outlines towards each other. Changing the way you think about the same motion of diffeent parts of objects changes the outcome of this thought experiment. All of the sudden the middle points converge while the relation of the runner's middle to the turtle's head is still suffeing their "paradoxical" condition. Thinking about this motion does not change the way it works.

Andrew is not a place but a process nowhere in particular, which is aware of himself. Yes it is possible to move away from Andrew. I do it almost every night :). 
I do not want to go into other aspects you describe using my persona. Each probably valid to spare a thought but I see this kind of discussion difficult because almost without exception most of the term loosely used have no formal definition but only appeal to imagination which might be different in different individuals.

Point in physics is an empty concept unless imagined to be attached to a physical object which is anything discernible to senses or instruments. Duration essential in description of motion is nothing else than mapping different states of objects to each other. But what is a state of an object and how do you know and map the states?  And it goes on and on and on...

If I learn anything from Zeno is that reasoning about the world is impossible and most certainly convincing other people about own views.
Regards,
Andrew

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P9dpTTpjymE

Here is the answer to all:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P9dpTTpjymE

Traruh,
A nice video to brighten my day and getting me to hum along with the song. Thanks. Calculus works and no one is disputing this. However in working it employs some tricks or should I say "cheating" and that is the problem.
 A = B and A ≠ B cannot both be true simultaneously allowing users of calculus to pick and choose which to use at different times depending on the obstacle confronted. If we allow the picking and choosing, calculus works.
Having said this, great mathematicians/physicists/philosophers have expressed the possibility that our confidence in calculus and its necessity for an infinitely divisible space may be misplaced. Among them Roger Penrose, Lee Smolin, Einstein, Newton (who occasionally opined that space is a substance).
I will give references if requested but I have one quote and one link readily at hand:
Quote
"I consider it quite possible that physics cannot be based on the field concept, i.e., on continuous structures. In that case, nothing remains of my entire castle in the air, gravitation theory included, [and of] the rest of modern physics" - Einstein 1954

Link
Current physical theory is coming round to the idea that space may have a discrete nature, called "atoms of space" in this article in Scientific American, Atoms of Space and Time, http://www.phys.lsu.edu/faculty/pullin/sciam.pdf. The leading theories being Loop quantum gravity and String theory. I don''t agree totally with the two but basically both are doing away with the zero dimensional particles and aligning more with the fundamental constituent of nature having a finite size.
In summary, if angels now fear to tread on continuous space, why do you walk on it so confidently?
Akinbo 

A=B and A.NE.B are not true simultaneously. A=B and A-->B are true simultaneously, because A-->B is A approaches B as close as you like to specify, but never quite gets there.

dy/dx=(y(x+dx)-y(x))/dx is undefined for dx=0, but defined approaches dx _approaches_ 0. A continuous that has this property is call, ah, differentialable.

The chapter usually near the front of the calculus book on taking limits is critical to understanding this, but usually as little application to practical problems. The song is more about the practical.

A function like y=x^10 for x rational otherwise 0 is not differentialable, though it is mostly 0.

Calculus no doubt has some subtle issues that mathematicians worry about as does the whole fieled of every greater infinities. As a physicist I don't lose sleep over 'em and leave the mathematicians to work it out. I doubt philosophers will be able to help though it might be of some interest to them when the mathematicians make progress or perhaps run into some Gödel like wall.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Limit_(mathematics)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=riXcZT2ICjA
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o6Eqpr6YmUs (wrap song)

A=B and A.NE.B are not true simultaneously. (together if time is not involved) - Correct

A=B and A-->B are true simultaneously, because A-->B  - Not true, because as you say:
A approaches B as close as you like to specify, but never quite gets there.

but:
A=B and lim =B where A is a variable B is a constant
               A->B

dy/dx=(y(x+dx)-y(x))/dx is undefined for dx=0,  Correct but this is not what dy/dx usually means
dy/dx=lim (y(x+h)-y(x))/h

           h->0
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Derivative

A function like y=x^10 for x rational otherwise 0 is not differentialable. This is not a surprise when you define an arbitrary piecewise function where you have two different functions stitched together at an arbitrary point.
Mixing complex numbers here is counterproductive because it changes the scope of the discussion. A complex number is in fact a pair of real numbers. If something can be described by one real number than it is out of scope to add what happens if the same thing is described by two independent numbers instead of one.

Allow me my philosophical two-bit, even though I have no intention of actively participating in the discussion of the technical aspects of the Big Bang.

The Limits of Calculus philosophically speaking lie according to me in the fact that we want to reconcile two opposite ideas: exact knowledge of a continuous field.
The paradox is multi-layered.
1) knowledge can only be expressed in finite elements (words, sentences, variables...);
2) we see as continuous discrete surfaces, unless we observe them through a microscope;
3) we experience space and time as continuous, just like motion and speed. At the same time we need to consider them as being divisible in discrete units (meters, second, meters per second).

Calculus would not exist if we were capable of freely zooming in on objects spatially as well as temporally. We would never see circles or curves but polygones and broken lines, and every motion would be experienced as a stroboscopic series. In such a situation we would not need calculus and its limits.

see also  http://philpapers.org/post/17434 .

This just shows that Mathematics is a human tool and that we should be cautious in lending it divine powers like scientists have been prone to since Galileo (the book of Nature written in mathematics), or even Plato (let no one enter here who is not a geometer).

Concerning the expansion of the universe I would like to point out that it is no more than a conjecture however strong the feelings maybe in the scientific community. As I said, I hope there are better arguments for it than the red shift or Doppler effect.
http://philpapers.org/post/19698
http://philpapers.org/post/19706

You will hopefully notice that my arguments are not so much physical than they are (epistemo)logical. There is of course a fundamental weakness in  such an approach. It reminds us of the ancient arguments against the motion of the earth. Those were quite rational arguments that stood the trials of time for centuries, and still proved wrong in the end. Logic and intuition are formed by the Zeitgeist and cannot be taken as the ultimate test. Still, logic and intuition are something that cannot be turned off at will, and they remain, side by side with experimentation, our most formidable weapons. We must be ready to acknowledge that they might be sometimes misleading as to the nature of the truth. Still, until Relativity and QED it was always possible to reinstore logic and intuition based on newly acquired knowledge. This is no longer the case. That is why I think that, parallel to the scientific research, philosophers must still be involved in the discussion for the simple reason that a pure technical approach has revealed, or so it seems to me, its limitations. The debates between, on one hand, Einstein and the anti-relativists, and on the other,  Einstein and the Copenhagen School have been buried under a wealth of scientific results that seem to all point to the same conclusion. Still, my own modest philosophical research has convinced me that the war has not been lost yet, and that many results can be re-interpreted critically.

Dear Andrew, I liked your comments on Big Bang theory. There is very much mathematical phantasy entering this theory, especially into the "first three minutes". But another problem is that all fundamental laws used were originally defined to be time invertible and time should be "an illusion".So what time controls the first ten events? I disagree with such a concept and, in two recent publications (free access: http://www.scirp.org/journal/jmp   http://dx.doi.org/10.4236/jmp.2016.74037   and http://www.scirp.org/journal/jmp http://dx.doi.org/10.4236/jmp.2016.712133 ) I have studied a world subject to a fundamental time arrow (by the way derivable from the principle of least action). The result is a paradox-free " dynamic" quantum physics and a universe controlled by information. Information ( as used  for a 3-D printer) is triggering the start of the universe and not an explosion, which should create a maximum entropy situation, which is no good start for evolution. Helmut

 

Dear Hachem,your (epistemo)logical arguments make much sense and also stimulate additional questions: a logical explanation does not have to be correct. There can be better logical explanations. The question is whether a non-logical, counterintuitive explanation can be correct (e.g effect without cause, time travel, inflation of empty space..) or whether we simply do not know a logical explanation.  Can we contradict quantum physicists who claim that the foundation of physics is fundamentally non-logical, irrational ( e.g. A. Zeilinger, Foundations of Physics, 29,631; Nature 408,639)?
Our sense for logical thinking comes from evolution. People, who did not understand natural phenomena logically, had simply a lower chance to survive. And looking at complicated biological mechanisms we actually find that they can all be logically understood, provided we reach the required knowledge. Or let us look at mathematics, which seems to describe physics so well. If only one step in a complicated calculation is allowed to be irrational, non-logical, then the entire calculation is wrong. Why should we then accept irrational fundamental processes in physics? But do we have an alternative?

I believe that an important phenomenon to think about is time. Today time is claimed to be an illusion within a time invertible world. Physics knows only a statistical time arrow. All statistical procedures leading to it rely on a drastic simplification of the assumed initial reality. Information is simply thrown away. Today we know that information involves energy. This means that energy is thrown away. The calculated system (e.g. Boltzmann`s H-theorem) can therefore not any more find the way back to the initial condition.The result of a statistical time arrow is a mathematical manipulation! 

What is time then? For me it is the flow of action (energy times time), the consequence of the principle of least action. It is the ultimate reality of time in nature, resulting from an energy, which aims at generating action (within the constraints of a system). In a recent publications I have shown that such a fundamental time arrow has also to be applied to quantum processes and eliminates quantum paradoxes (http://dx.doi.org/10.4236/jmp.2016.74037). They become logically understandable. Therefore I agree with you that "the war has not been lost yet and that many results can be re-interpreted critically".

Helmut

Nobel physicist John Wheeler once said "if you are not completely confused by quantum mechanics, you do not understand it". Other famous scientists like Richard Feynman, Roger Penrose or Steven Weinberg came to the conclusion that quantum theory, while matching experiments (because it was adapted to do it) does not make sense or that they never entirely understood it. I myself have never understood why a radioactive particle can decay without reason or why a particle can be simultaneously on two locations.This quantum non-locality has been claimed to be a "property of the universe", independent of the way we are describing nature.  In addition, basing on Bell`s theorem and supporting experiments, quantum physicists insist today that no hidden (additionally introduced) variable can ever improve quantum theory. This may be sufficient evidence that there is no expectation among quantum physicists, that  the foundations of quantum physics will ultimately turn out to be logical. They are irrational and counterintuitive and therefore a challenge for philosophers. Can we explain nature with unexplainable and counterintuitive "symbolic forms"?
Helmut

>have never understood why a radioactive particle can decay without reason or why a particle can be simultaneously on two ...

Modern (well not that modern) decoherence theory can explain why certain detector+state evolve to 'ein-select' what the detector measures, but it doesn't explain how one particular, say, time gets to be the 'real' one.

You might find the essay 'The Strange (hi)story of particles and waves" by Prof. Zeh helpful. I link it here: https://skepticalsciencereviews.wordpress.com/science/but

But, no I can't explain. You might find 'many worlds' interpretation (MWI) more satisfying though I find it ugly (and it can't explain the Born probability rule either).

We just have to live with uncertainty -- at least for the time being.

Simultaneously in two places is easier. In Quantum Field Theory a particle is more wave than particle. The particle part is just the fact that the wave/excitations come in discrete bundles (quantum). When the waves are localized in a packet they act much like classical particles.  There is no problem with the wave being at both ends of the beach. The mystery comes one a wave with only one quantum excitation knocks over the sand Castle only on one end of the beach. This is a random selection effect similar to time-of-decay.

The mystery is more why that 'particle' is only seen in one place than how it can be in two. The answer is decoherence via interaction with the environment (Zeh), but that does not explain why one possibility get selected rather than another. That is random (or they all happen in some world in MWI).

Hi, I'm new on philpapers. I would like to say thank you for the all informations!