[CraigS]

Originally Posted by xelasnave

And do we ever get to know exactly what a particle is doing or is it all probability.

Y'know Alex .. that's a very interesting question. I don't know myself.

A few articles have appeared lately that have thrown me when it comes to this question … here's a thread about 'The Shape of an Electron' .. one of the articles in the thread says ..

the electron is a perfect sphere, give or take barely one part in a million billion.
...
The result comes from the latest in a long line of experiments to probe the shape of the fundamental particle that carries electrical charge.

… so how is it that they can measure accurately the shape of an electron, at this degree of precision, and yet the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle is frequently cited as a reason why such precision cannot be achieved ? Clearly, it can be achieved ! What purpose does the Uncertain Principle serve in this case ? Is it as relevant as it once was ?

And I've been pondering another one … Startling thermal energy behavior revealed by neutron scattering.
.. in this one, they have found that the vibrations of atoms in a crystal lattice in thermal equilibrium, (the vibrations are indicative of thermal energy), self-organise into discrete packets, called intrinsic localized modes (ILMs) that break the symmetry of the crystal. They found that the ILMs self-organised according to a regular pattern. Whilst this is indicative of a chaotic phenomenon forming fractal patterns of both regularity and irregularity, (which is no great surprise to yours truly), my question is: How do they measure this kind of stuff when QM is telling us that its all a matter of probability ? This particular test made use of neutron scattering to collect the vibration data of atoms trapped within the lattice structures.

Another recent one is: Quantum physics first: Researchers observe single photons in two-slit interferometer experiment.
In this, they have developed a way to make momentum and distance measurements on photons which may ultimately lead to tracing their paths backwards to the specific slit they went through.

So I'm starting to wonder just how much use are these QM Principles going forward in such research ? Just about every day, I find that some scientists have put these 'guidelines' (ie: QM 'guiding principles') aside, and measured very small particles, such that very useful insights can be obtained.

What physical applicability do these principles have, if they are simply guiding researchers by challenging them to find ways around them ?

Are we not picking up on the message that these QM Principles are not quite the deterrent they once used to be and hence, are they applicable guidelines for researchers, going forwards ?

Interesting questions …

Cheers