In case of electron clouds, it moves in waves which describes length and height. However since it is a clound, there would be depth also. Hence the electron clound would be 3D.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fredrick  Dipayankar,
I like it that we agree to a large extent on this. But I see a remark you make here that makes me write the following:
If 3D is a man-made construction that functions really well in our human thinking, while reality is only reality plus the option to create fake/art in that reality, then we need to be careful about how to communicate about spatial concepts, especially if these concepts exist at the edge of ordinary conceptual thinking.
I think I can use the simple example of 1, 2, 3, 4, E, F, 7, 8, in which we can both recognize that E and F do not really belong to this line-up, though they may indeed represent 5 and 6 in an alphabetical numbering. If put to the test, one person may even insist that E is indeed the fifth part, etc. It is vital to see that we are communicating then in two different concepts at the same time which can easily lead to confusion.
I think we can both communicate well when using the idea of 3D with each other, because we are both really familiar with it. Yet when communicating about the theory of everything we must make sure not to confuse one spatial concept with information from the other spatial concept. They are not identical, while covering the exact same ground.
In other words, there are two ways to be correct, but these ways will not automatically be correct within the other's version. So your words that the electron cloud moves in 3D is then unexpected after your words that QM is more 2D. It is not incorrect, but it is easily confusing to describe our reality using parts of both concepts at the same time. |