Ask Science
Ask a science question, get a science answer.
Community Rules
Rule 1: Be respectful and inclusive.
Treat others with respect, and maintain a positive atmosphere.
Rule 2: No harassment, hate speech, bigotry, or trolling.
Avoid any form of harassment, hate speech, bigotry, or offensive behavior.
Rule 3: Engage in constructive discussions.
Contribute to meaningful and constructive discussions that enhance scientific understanding.
Rule 4: No AI-generated answers.
Strictly prohibit the use of AI-generated answers. Providing answers generated by AI systems is not allowed and may result in a ban.
Rule 5: Follow guidelines and moderators' instructions.
Adhere to community guidelines and comply with instructions given by moderators.
Rule 6: Use appropriate language and tone.
Communicate using suitable language and maintain a professional and respectful tone.
Rule 7: Report violations.
Report any violations of the community rules to the moderators for appropriate action.
Rule 8: Foster a continuous learning environment.
Encourage a continuous learning environment where members can share knowledge and engage in scientific discussions.
Rule 9: Source required for answers.
Provide credible sources for answers. Failure to include a source may result in the removal of the answer to ensure information reliability.
By adhering to these rules, we create a welcoming and informative environment where science-related questions receive accurate and credible answers. Thank you for your cooperation in making the Ask Science community a valuable resource for scientific knowledge.
We retain the discretion to modify the rules as we deem necessary.
view the rest of the comments
One of the best things I've read recently (wish I could find it again) said that quantum mechanics isn't about reality, it's a model of what we can measure and study. We simply can't know what reality is like at atomic and subatomic scales, we can only model what the measurements say. It turns out we can do a lot of really impressive science with those models (nuclear power, semiconductors, lots of other stuff), but acting as if we know what's actually going on at those levels is fooling ourselves. Even the people who laid the foundation for modern quantum theory knew this:
So what does this have to do with your question? Well, I'm not saying that fundamental reality does not exist at subatomic scales. But I am saying that we can't really know anything about that reality until we measure it.
Did the electron have its spin at creation, or at measurement? We can't really say, and it's not especially important.
A bit of a tangent: we don't fully understand quantum entanglement over distances (e.g., the fact that we can know the spin of one particle from another entangled particle's spin even over great distances), but the explanation I like is that both particles' states are just the propagation of their combined wave equation since they were first entangled. So were their spins assigned at entanglement or at measurement? Well, we don't know and it's not a meaningful question because we can't determine the answer without measurement.
Your chromosome analogy doesn't really work because your chromosomes are a classical system. They have been entangled with countless other molecules for as long as they have existed, so we can use our human intuition to reason about their past and future in ways that we can't reason about things at quantum scales.
Ah yes, the classic mistake I made was trying to understand something about quantum physics XD
Your quotes explain it well.
I once knew I shouldn't do that, that's why we have these seemingly ridiculous theories. But it's been a while since I've occupied my mind with the subject.
I'm now reminded of this old joke by Dutch commedian Herman Finkers