so we know that it's in this cloud somewhere. now we just need to find out its trajectory through the cloud and we're set.

Use case?

>>16719311 (OP)
Do physicists really believe you can find an electron one million km away from its atom with a non-zero probability?

>>16719318
no they don't believe it, that's just how it works. if you want to try and say you know 100% it's not gonna be past a certain radius, go ahead. enjoy trying to explain how you got a function and its fourier transform to both sharply localize.

>>16719328
You mean that's how the currently used math works. No one has ever detected an electron a million km away from its atom, so I just don't have to accept it.

>>16719329
>You mean that's how the currently used math works
yes that's how science works, it uses existing math
>No one has ever detected an electron a million km away from its atom,
because there's no need, it's consistent with existing observations
>so I just don't have to accept it.
you don't need to

>>16719335
>yes that's how science works, it uses existing math
It uses *some* existing math. Under a finitistic system, numbers which are too small or too large wouldn't exist.

That electron just flew over my house

>>16719318
Yes. In more classical terms it is no different than the probability that all of the air in a given volume for a finite interval of time occupies exactly one half of the volume at 2 atm while the other is at a perfect vacuum. The probability is non-zero but it will not happen within the lifetime of countless universes if you choose a volume that isn't comically small and specifically chosen to defeat the point.
Also prove 'the electron' is 'the atoms electron'. In copper, which electron belongs to a specific atom. and how far is it allowed to go without an external field applied?

>>16719337
My God you guys are such schizos. I can't believe there is such a large contingent of people on here that are so retarded they actually believe in a "smallest number" and "largest number."

>>16719426
>t. doesn't know about planck lengths
>>16719420
The fact that you have to come up with these ridiculous imaginary scenarios as copes should give you pause for thought.

>>16719311 (OP)
Its probability density is scattered in the cloud, and any experiment you can conceive of to locate its position and momentum will change the dynamics of the whole system

>>16719328
What if probability is quantized and there is a hard cutoff to 0% instead of the vanishingly small nonzero probabilities predicted by the "applied math"?

>>16720433
What if all probabilities sum to something other than 1?

>>16719311 (OP)
Well yea it HAS a position. Its just that the known laws of measurement don't allow you to DETERMINE that position. If you can find a way to break that barrier I'm sure plenty of people would have some ten-figure jobs for you.

>>16719426
Oh, so when Leibniz, Gauss, and Maxwell do it, it's okay, but when I do it, everyone loses their minds?

>>16719426
>smallest number
0.

>>16719318
electrons escape their atoms all the time its called radiation