A case for Natural Design

I am no Physicist, but I always thought that that the probabilistic nature of QM results from measurement. I did not think it implies that wavefunctions of particles are intrinsically probabilistic or random. Therefore, I wonder if particles really EXIST as probabilities? My impression is that the probability part of this stems from our "interaction" with wavefunctions when we measure them.

I am not sure that this is a misconception. My impression is that many Physicists adhere to this view. As of 1997, the Copehagen Interpretation, which was formulated by Niels Bohr and Werner Heisenberg, was still probably adhered to be many if not most Physicists according to a poll. This poll was made five years after the Scientific American article that you cited: Shortened link. Use Peek to see how it was done.Regarding the wave/partical duality and measurement, I found Erwin Schroedinger's "Cat in a Box" thought experiment to be very interesting: And again. Plese use this format so that long links don't expand the messagePart of the problem that I am having with this subject is that I don't really understand the topic because I don't understand most of the Physics and Math. When people describe QM using words such as "measurement" and "wavefunction", these have very specific meanings in this context that I cannot truly understand because I don't know the Physics. Therefore, I think I am going to bail out of this discussion so I don't make more of a fool of myself then I already have!This message has been edited by AdminJar, 08-05-2005 01:01 PM

Actually, I had always been under the impression that every interpretation of QM takes a probabilistic view. My point in bringing up the Copenhagen interpretation is that it suggests that the probabilistic nature of QM stems from "measurement". In a previous post you said this was a "misconception" and you cited a 1992 Scientific American article as evidence that Physicists no longer subscribe to this idea. However, based on a poll that was taken 5 years after your Scientific American article, it seems that many if not most QM physicists still accepted the Copenhagen Interpretation as of that date.

The existence of a wave function does not necessarily imply what you call a "probabilistic nature".