I anticipated somebody coming along and "picking" my explaination apart for contradictions ... so I tried to word it as unambiguously as possible, as well as accurately accounting for "what really happens". I believe I failed miserably....

Do you rememeber the post, "Thanx for the compliment my friend"?, where I said that scientists wonderred if our limited human language was even capable of describing "quantum reallity"....
Well uncertainty, particle/wave duality, virtual particles...etc... are all prime examples of touchy language subjects! All the contradictions that popped up in my explanation above, were due to MY choice of words, not the Copenhagen Interpretation itself. Did you notice I put a lot of words in quotes? i.e. "nothingness", "virtual particles", "non-existent", because some of these are very sensitive words to use when trying to explain "reallity". To say that a particle doesn't exist and then to turn around and say that it can effect momenta of other particles is "in essence" what happens, but I can't believe I even tried to use such an ambiguous, and contradictory, method of wording. When I say "in essence", what I mean is that this is what happens mathematicaly. But as is usualy the case ... trying to give "meaningfull" interpretation to raw mathematical equations, can sometimes give seemingly unreal and contradictory possibilities. I'll try to get back at you with a better explaination, Alan... I hope it will answer all your questions. I take the blame for this blunder...

• Thanks, Roger Penrose & co. might help - dolphin - September 28, 2001 - 21:22 UTC