[Multifaceted (OP)]

I've heard that atoms exist in multiple, even infinite places at once.

Today, when I googled it, I kept getting articles about atoms existing in 2 places at once. Is that because 2 is the maximum number of places it can be in or is it just because we're all familiar with the phrase "I can't be in 2 places at once"?

And then I read that atoms are only ever in 1 place and anything else is just a misunderstanding.

So which is it?
And please try to put it in layman's terms.

Also I read someone say that quantum physics is like religion, there are zealots on each side of the arguments with claims their side is right. And that the quantum realm is so different to how we normally think, we don't even have language to adequately describe it.

[Halc]

I've heard that atoms exist in multiple, even infinite places at once.

Today, when I googled it, I kept getting articles about atoms existing in 2 places at once. Is that because 2 is the maximum number of places it can be in or is it just because we're all familiar with the phrase "I can't be in 2 places at once"?

Your google results are mostly pop articles and such and are a poor source of information.
Atoms are essentially quantum objects and the articles are trying to express an quantum concept using classical terms, which is a mistake.
So atoms existing at a place at all is something that cannot be demonstrated. In the quantum world, there may be equal probability that the atom will be measured here or there or elsewhere (more than two places), but is is never 'existing at those places all at once'.  It cannot be simultaneously measured in two different places.

And then I read that atoms are only ever in 1 place and anything else is just a misunderstanding.

This is true only under counterfactual interpretations of quantum mechanics, and cannot be proven. A counterfactual interpretation denies locality (that cause must precede effect and cannot be separated faster than light). The principle of counterfactual definiteness says essentially that a given thing, even unmeasured, is in a definite state at a given moment in time.

Also I read someone say that quantum physics is like religion, there are zealots on each side of the arguments with claims their side is right.

There are those types, yes,. but real quantum physicists concentrate on the observables and not on assertions of what goes on unobserved. Anyone who claims their interpretation is necessarily correct is making nonsense claims since there are no falsification tests for any of the valid interpretations.

So I'm not going to tell you that either the principle of locality or the principle of counterfactual definiteness is necessarily true or false, but it has been shown that they can't both be true.
Personally I favor the locality principle, but I'm not a zealot about it, demanding that alternative views must be wrong.

[Eternal Student]

Hi.

It depends on the model(s) you are using.  From what you've said, it looks like Quantum Mechanics is the main topic under consideration.

It's more interesting if atoms can be in 2 places at the same time, so that's why you'll see that quite often in the Popular science articles and videos.  Although an atom is quite a big particle, a composite particle made up from many smaller particles.  You're more likely to see Quantum Mecahnics discussed with respect to partciles smaller than an atom where the effects of Quantum Mecahnics are more obvious.   Anyway, you've done well just realising that there isn't a clear answer or universal agreement on these issues.

(looks like Halc has just put in a reply.  I'll stop)

[evan_au]

One famous test of the nature of light is the "Double slit experiment"
- and indeed it applies to all quantum systems, including atoms (and even molecules)
- It's just that you have to look at lot closer at more massive particles like atoms and molecules to see these quantum effects than with less massive particles like electrons or photons (photons are particles of light)
- The idea of this experiment is that you may expect a particle to go through one slit or the other, and produce two clumps behind the two slits.
- In fact, it produces a more complex pattern - as if it were a wave, and went through both slits at the same time.
- We say that, in the quantum world, matter exhibits "wave particle duality" - it has some properties of both, and it doesn't exist in just one precise position

multiple places at once, 2 places or 1?[

Because the double-slit experiment looks like the particle took 2 paths, it is common to say that the particle looks like it was in 2 places at once (even though it is only ever detected in one place at a time, as Halc said).

You can also do a 3 slit experiment (but it's trickier to set up), so you may as well (loosely) say that an atom can be in more than 2 places at once.

Some of the new 5G mmWave antennas act like a 256-slit experiment (but it takes a lot of electronics and number-crunching to configure it properly!).

See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double-slit_experiment

[Multifaceted (OP)]

Anyway, you've done well just realising that there isn't a clear answer or universal agreement on these issues.

Actually I've not quite realized that. To me, science is all about absolutes and it's full of people, including scientists who say "This is true, this is the way this exists, we know this and anyone who says otherwise is wrong."

I put that part about uncertainty in partly because I wanted people to open mined and partly because I wanted people to tell me if that were true.

So is there no current answer? Do people not know either way? Is there one way that most people agree on but might be changed?

[Multifaceted (OP)]

So I'm not going to tell you that either the principle of locality or the principle of counterfactual definiteness is necessarily true or false, but it has been shown that they can't both be true.
Personally I favor the locality principle, but I'm not a zealot about it, demanding that alternative views must be wrong.

I'm confused, which way do atoms exist?

[Halc]

like religion, there are zealots on each side

including scientists who say "This is true, this is the way this exists, we know this and anyone who says otherwise is wrong."

I think you maybe need to give some specific examples of such claims. The religious zealots are not scientists if they're claiming things for which there are alternate interpretations, but I'm unsure of which statements are thus qualified. QM itself (not the interpretations) is about the science that is taught in the college courses, and not the philosophy that surrounds it.

I'm confused, which way do atoms exist?

Things exist because they are measured. That's pretty much how I would define it. It's all about the measurement, which is a relationship between the measuring thing (M) and the thing measured (X). A measurement of X by M makes X exist to M at the moment of measurement.

There is no known requirement for X or M to be any type of thing in particular, such as a person for instance.

[Eternal Student]

Hi again.

I'm confused, which way do atoms exist?

   Well that's the thing.  Atoms don't have to exist in the way you (or we) might imagine them.  Historically, we were quite sure that atoms were solid little things with the properties of a particle.   These days, we're aware that they are nothing like this.
     I think it was Halc that first mentioned this.  An atom does not have to have a definite location until such time that an observation is made which forces a single definite location to be assigned to it.
     This is confusing, so let's just consider a smaller simpler idea:  An atom may not be a particle, it might be a wave of energy and like most waves you should usually expect to find it spread out or smeared over a region of space.

   There are many theories in Physics.  The PopSci articles and videos will always favour the most interesting and frequently simplify some arguments - sometimes simplifying to the point that they just aren't especially correct or useful.

(Many scientists say...) "This is true, this is the way this exists, we know this and anyone who says otherwise is wrong."

     Scientists (the good scientists) don't usually claim to know "the truth".  There are some theories which are well tested and can make predictions.  It's nice if these models match up with some underlying truth about the universe but it's not required.  Provided we can model various situations and make predictions that turn out to be verified later, then the theory is useful science.
     Most early scientific theories (for example the extraordinary work of Newton) have now been modified; completely replaced  or shown to have a limited range of applicability.   It would be unwise to assume that the current theories of today are going to fair better in the future developments of science.

[Multifaceted (OP)]

   Well that's the thing.  Atoms don't have to exist in the way you (or we) might imagine them.  Historically, we were quite sure that atoms were solid little things with the properties of a particle.   These days, we're aware that they are nothing like this.

Actually that was going to be my next question. If atoms aren't in many places at once, does that mean they're like the grains in a sand castle or uniform marbles? When they come together do they knock up against each other until they can go no further like this?

This is confusing, so let's just consider a smaller simpler idea:  An atom may not be a particle, it might be a wave of energy and like most waves you should usually expect to find it spread out or smeared over a region of space.

To me a wave is something that you find at the beach, it's not exactly a thing, its a disturbance that dissipates back into the water. I know about how light has a wave length but I don't understand how anything solid can be made out of it. If things were made of waves shouldn't they dissipate too?

Scientists (the good scientists) don't usually claim to know "the truth".  There are some theories which are well tested and can make predictions.  It's nice if these models match up with some underlying truth about the universe but it's not required.  Provided we can model various situations and make predictions that turn out to be verified later, then the theory is useful science.
     Most early scientific theories (for example the extraordinary work of Newton) have now been modified; completely replaced  or shown to have a limited range of applicability.   It would be unwise to assume that the current theories of today are going to fair better in the future developments of science.

So are you saying no one knows what atoms are like?

[Halc]

If atoms aren't in many places at once, does that mean they're like the grains in a sand castle or uniform marbles?

Atoms are pretty large things, as has been pointed out by several posters. A big atom in a crystal (like the Oxygen in an ice molecule) is fairly locked into a narrow range of mobility and the probability of measuring it significantly away from that narrow range is pretty slim. In other words, atoms are practically classic particles in many cases.

There are clear exceptions. They've gotten bucky balls (C₆₀) to interfere in a double slit experiment. That's a really big molecule, bigger than any huge atom, and yet when passing through the slits, there is no evidence that it passes through one slit or the other. If you measure which path it takes, the interference pattern goes away. This seems to demonstrate that there is no clear boundary between the realm of classic vs quantum behavior.

When they come together do they knock up against each other until they can go no further like this?

No two particles can physically 'touch', so there is never a case of them being actually up against anything, or having no freedom of mobility. It just gets more probably that the particle will be measured near point X as the structure gets solid and the temperature lowers.

To me a wave is something that you find at the beach, it's not exactly a thing, its a disturbance that dissipates back into the water.

A disturbance in a field is actually a pretty good description of something fundamental like a photon. An atom is more complex, and isn't one disturbance. Quantum things may have some particle-like and wave-like properties, but they're not actually either of those classic things.

So are you saying no one knows what atoms are like?

I think that's a reasonable statement, along the lines of “The Universe is not only queerer than we imagine—it is queerer than we can imagine.” - J. B. S. Haldane

Science is about making predictions, and it is very good at that. It isn't about proof or 'knowing' about things to the extent that it could be categorized as 'truth'.

[Multifaceted (OP)]

I think you maybe need to give some specific examples of such claims.

Ok, I'll tell you a few personal experiences I've had on other forums. But I'm only mentioning them as examples, I don't want to debate these in this particular subjects is this thread.

I asked if the universe will come to end, not how or when but if. And the first reply I got was "Of course it will."

I was talking with someone on a similar site to this and somehow the conversation turned into weather there was an afterlife, this 2nd party was absolute in his opinion that there was no afterlife, he diddn't even think of it as an opinion. I said that science had no proof to the negative and he said there was no proof there was one and that plus the fact no one had ever come back from the dead was proof of no afterlife.

On the same site I got into another debate with someone over atoms. He to was extreme in his position and provided a link to a site backing up his claim. Interestingly, his reference source said that was they were saying was just a theory.

I googled if there was a limit to how many memories a person's brain could store and I found an answer written by a neurologist that the answer was absolutely yes. And just now I saw the same thing on Scientific American "There must be a physical limit to how much the brain can store."

There is a theory that matter can only be arranged a finite number of ways in a finite space. There are finite number of different objects that can exist and events that can happen within that space. This also means that somewhere out in the universe there are exact copies of Earth, you and me doing exactly what we are doing right now. By pure coincidence.   
My father told me that, he was a scientist, he worked for a chemical company and later as consultant setting up laboratories. He subscribes to multiple science magazines, he has a hobby in astronomy. He's the most intelligent, knowledgeable and scientifically minded person I've ever known. And he talked about this theory like it was gospel, a perfectly known fact, he diddn't even call it a theory. There is no doubt in his mind about it at all. And later he told me his scientists friends believe it too.
I looked on the web to find out if it was true and the reply I go was quote "Yes, next."
I asked on a science website and most of them said it was true, including one who said it was true, certain and obvious "as 2+2=4."

[Eternal Student]

Hi again.

    Firstly, forums are one type of environment.  I wouldn't judge all scientists on what you find there.
I think many people do originally get interested in science because they were trying to find out some truth about how things work and why they are the way they are.  Some of that desire or interest remains in most scientists.  However, science doesn't offer absolute truth, just some models which explain some things and allow some predictions to be made.
     We've already had some discussion on what science is and there is actually no universal agreement on that.   Atoms are a very useful theoretical idea so we can (and still do) use the concept but we recognise that the model is limited. 
 
    You've listed examples of questions and answers where you presumably already know there are many interpretations or possibilities.   If you're still interested in any of them, you might like to post those questions again in this forum.   You might also like to ask them again in 20 years and some of the answers will have changed again.

[alancalverd]

There is a theory that matter can only be arranged a finite number of ways in a finite space. There are finite number of different objects that can exist and events that can happen within that space. This also means that somewhere out in the universe there are exact copies of Earth, you and me doing exactly what we are doing right now. By pure coincidence.   

Non sequitur. You can only be certain that an arrangement is reproduced somewhere if both space and the number of objects in it are infinite. However if you accept that there is nothing unique about any one local arrangement of objects, then all local arrangements must be replicated somewhere, including the arrangement of arrangements, so there must be more objects than there are in your infinite space, which must be bigger than itself.. 

[Halc]

I was talking with someone on a similar site to this and somehow the conversation turned into weather there was an afterlife, this 2nd party was absolute in his opinion that there was no afterlife, he diddn't even think of it as an opinion.

You can safely categorize them as zealots, yes. Science just says there's no evidence either way. In fact, it is completely outside the realm of methodological naturalism under which science has made most of its progress. That means its a philosophical topic, not a scientific one at all.

I said that science had no proof to the negative and he said there was no proof

Sounds like you're in agreement with this other guy then. Science has no proof of anything. Proof is for the mathematicians. Science makes predictions based on evidence. It does not assert truth or demonstrate proofs.

plus the fact no one had ever come back from the dead was proof of no afterlife.

He apparently lacks a logical argument if he thinks that the absence of evidence is proof (not even evidence) of absence. Nobody's ever come back from Mars either, but it doesn't prove Mars doesn't exist.

On the same site I got into another debate with someone over atoms. He to was extreme in his position and provided a link to a site backing up his claim. Interestingly, his reference source said that was they were saying was just a theory.

Not sure what the claim was. X is possible?  X is the only answer? Regardless of what X is (you just said it concerned atoms), the latter is wrong. It doesn't sound like you're talking about the assertions of knowledgeable scientists, but rather the assertion of some random guy on a web forum (like me). People on forums make all sorts of random claims and assert their absolute truth despite self-contradictions and evidence to the contrary. This site certainly has its share of these types.

I googled if there was a limit to how many memories a person's brain could store and I found an answer written by a neurologist that the answer was absolutely yes.

Interesting to try to demonstrate that. It seems actually a pretty outlandish claim to suggest otherwise, so I'd actually be more interested in hearing the counter-argument to it. Maybe we ditch the assumption that a given brain is confined to a reasonable volume in a human head.

There is a theory that matter can only be arranged a finite number of ways in a finite space.

Really?  I can think of an awful lot of ways 3 balls can be arranged in a room. Can't think of a limit in fact, but given a Planck limit, there seems at least to be a limit to the number of arrangements that are measurably distinct. Based on that, you don't need to be a neurologist to expand the argument to the brain-memory thing.

There are finite number of different objects that can exist and events that can happen within that space. This also means that somewhere out in the universe there are exact copies of Earth, you and me doing exactly what we are doing right now. By pure coincidence.

In fact, it's been calculated (Tegmark) how far away the nearest such copy is, and it unreasonably assumes counterfactual definiteness, without which the nearest copy of you is* much closer. The interesting thing is that the exact copy of you also has an exact copy of me nearby.
* Depends heavily on your definition of what 'is' is  - Clinton.

I digress.

My father told me that, he was a scientist, he worked for a chemical company and later as consultant setting up laboratories.

That makes him a scientist, but it doesn't make him an expert on all the opinions he might express. I certainly know many things that some real scientist (like my sister-in-law) does not, but she certainly can out-jargon me in her field.

He subscribes to multiple science magazines, he has a hobby in astronomy. He's the most intelligent, knowledgeable and scientifically minded person I've ever known. And he talked about this theory like it was gospel, a perfectly known fact, he diddn't even call it a theory. There is no doubt in his mind about it at all. And later he told me his scientists friends believe it too.
I looked on the web to find out if it was true and the reply I go was quote "Yes, next."
I asked on a science website and most of them said it was true, including one who said it was true, certain and obvious "as 2+2=4."

You sound like you doubt it or at least refuse to accept the absolute truth of it. Do you have a reference so I can add my humble opinion? I try not to say loaded comments like 'it's gospel', but you make it sound like a very well accepted thing and not some crackpot idea or philosophical interpretation of some scientific topic. Yes, there's a theory that predicts the sun rising tomorrow, but technically it's still a prediction of a theory and not a proven thing.

Non sequitur. You can only be certain that an arrangement is reproduced somewhere if both space and the number of objects in it are infinite.

Non sequitur, yes, even given your infinite space and matter. What is mathematically certain is that if there is a defined state to all that matter (a huge and unreasonable if, but one that Tegmark assumes when making his calculation), then there will be pairs of observable universes which are identical within a finitely calculable separation distance (along lines of constant cosmological time) from each other.

That's kind of like saying that (without peeking) we cannot prove there is a second '3' in the decimal representation of Pi, but there will be a dup digit somewhere in the first 11 digits.

However if you accept that there is nothing unique about any one local arrangement of objects, then all local arrangements must be replicated somewhere, including the arrangement of arrangements, so there must be more objects than there are in your infinite space, which must be bigger than itself..

Which is the mathematical equivalent of saying something like ∞² > ∞ which is wrong. It doesn't even have a different cardinality.

[Multifaceted (OP)]

It seems to me that Halc and alancalverd both believe in this theory about matter and I find that upsetting.

To be honest, all the things on that list were things that filled me with dread, that's why I went out into the internet desperately searching for someone to tell me they weren't true. I was going to put that in the post but I thought it might not be a good idea to go public with such powerful feeling with people I don't know anything about.

When my father told me about the matter theory, it was the worst thing I'd ever heard. I'm a creative person and the idea that all possibilities are finite, that everything I or anyone else have or will ever create are part of a limited set... it sent me into a spiralling depression unlike anything I'd ever experienced. It was the worst thing that ever happened to me and I still haven't gotten over it years later. And it doesn't help that most people, including my father, don't understand why it would bother me no matter how painstakingly I explain the reason for my feelings.
And I really hope you wont ask for that now because it's so upsetting, frustrating and exhausting.

Incidentally, this thread started because I was looking into a specific aspect of the theory. One thing that gave me hope the theory might not be true is what I'd heard about atoms not existing like the marbles in the picture I posted.

I specifically said that I diddn't want to discuss these things here because I diddn't want to get drawn into obsessively debating it with people again, as I have done so many times in the past.
And now, thanks to Halc and alancalverd, I am faced with a renewed feeling that this theory is 100% true because I can't help but believe people who say things, especially if I think they know more then me. Frankly, what you said was not unlike the zealots I was talking about before.

And yes I know I've argued with people before but that was going against the grain for me and I never know if my arguments are justified, valid or even permittable.
I posted that list because I wanted you to tell me they at least have room for doubt and now you've just told me one of them is true.

Also, I am still waiting for Eternal Student to reply to when I quoted him about atoms.

[evan_au]

It seems that you are rebelling against a theory that your father espoused some time ago.
- This theory hasn't been stated very clearly here, so we are just guessing (and it sounds like the guesses from alancalverd and Halc were somewhat close)...
- But it seems that you are concerned that the possibility of a finite universe constrains your creativity...
- And/Or the possibility of an infinite universe limits the uniqueness of your creativity
- Both possibilities seem to cause you deep distress

These two possibilities arise from opposite and incompatible assumptions, and we can't tell which assumption is correct, because it has no practical impact on our day-to-day lives. This is because, as Douglas Adams said...

Space is big. You just won't believe how vastly, hugely, mind-bogglingly big it is. I mean, you may think it's a long way down the road to the chemist's, but that's just peanuts to space.

- It's so big that we can't tell if it is finite or infinite
- Even in a finite universe, the number of arrangements of atoms is so huge that the finiteness of space imposes no limitations on it (or on your creativity)
- Even in an infinite universe, the number of arrangements of atoms is so huge that we have no possibility of finding, let alone meeting someone who created the same artwork as yourself. The infiniteness of space imposes no limitations on it (or on your creativity).

So you may have unresolved issues with your father, but don't blame the universe for it...

[Halc]

It seems to me that Halc and alancalverd both believe in this theory about matter and I find that upsetting.

What theory? That "atoms exist in multiple places at once"? There's no such theory and nothing called "the matter theory" and I never said I held a belief in such a statement. I didn't see any such statement from Alan either. If that's not the theory you're talking about, then you need to be a lot more clear about which theory it is that you and possibly your father are talking about.

Yes, matter is generally accepted as often being composed of atoms, but not all matter is. Somehow I don't think that that's what you're calling "the matter theory".

When my father told me about the matter theory, it was the worst thing I'd ever heard. I'm a creative person and the idea that all possibilities are finite, that everything I or anyone else have or will ever create are part of a limited set... it sent me into a spiralling depression unlike anything I'd ever experienced. It was the worst thing that ever happened to me and I still haven't gotten over it years later. And it doesn't help that most people, including my father, don't understand why it would bother me no matter how painstakingly I explain the reason for my feelings.

Ouch. So ignore science then and hold whatever beliefs are required for you to keep your marbles together. That seems to be one of the primary benefits of being religious: to hold beliefs that one finds comforting rather than ones based on evidence.

I was looking into a specific aspect of the theory. One thing that gave me hope the theory might not be true is what I'd heard about atoms not existing like the marbles in the picture I posted.

I defined existence as being measured. We can measure atoms, so they exist, no? We can't measure one in two places at the same time, so they don't exist in multiple places. That's what I said. Still totally unclear exactly which theory you think all this is a part of.
If it has something to do with another 'copy' of you out there somewhere, that's actually impossible by my definition of existence since anything you can measure cannot be identical to you unless the universe is locally perfectly mirror-symmetric which it isn't.

And now, thanks to Halc and alancalverd, I am faced with a renewed feeling that this theory is 100% true because I can't help but believe people who say things, especially if I think they know more then me.

Unless it is about airplanes, Alan might not know more than you. I'm unclear what you're talking about, so I'm not sure if I'm agreeing with this unspecified theory or not.

Frankly, what you said was not unlike the zealots I was talking about before.

I said that my opinions are not in any way 'gospel'. I try to limit my opinions and only talk about what the scientists actually observer, and not what they might believe because of it. This hardly seems like zealot talk.

I wanted you to tell me they at least have room for doubt and now you've just told me one of them is true.

I told you no such thing. I deny any evidence of the bit about atoms being in more than one place at once, but you seem to read the opposite from my posts.

[Colin2B]

It seems to me that Halc and alancalverd both believe in this theory about matter and I find that upsetting.

What theory? That "atoms exist in multiple places at once"? There's no such theory and nothing called "the matter theory" and I never said I held a belief in such a statement. I didn't see any such statement from Alan either. If that's not the theory you're talking about, then you need to be a lot more clear about which theory it is that you and possibly your father are talking about.

It seems @Halc and @evan_au  have beaten me to it. I spent some time last night reading through your posts and couldn’t see what theory you are talking about; even having slept on it I am at a loss to understand how you could misinterpret the replies you’ve been given.
We cannot help you with any mental problems you have, but we can answer your questions about physics. However, you need to be clear about your questions and take the trouble to read and understand the replies. If you don’t understand some of the jargon say so.

- Even in a finite universe, the number of arrangements of atoms is so huge that the finiteness of space imposes no limitations on it (or on your creativity)

This is an important point. It’s worth remembering that the great master painters often worked with a limited palette of colours. Vermeer for example used only 5 basic colours in one of his famous paintings and the portion of the colour gamut he used is extremely limited, but it didn’t limit his creativity.

[Multifaceted (OP)]

It seems that you are rebelling against a theory that your father espoused some time ago.
- This theory hasn't been stated very clearly here, so we are just guessing (and it sounds like the guesses from alancalverd and Halc were somewhat close)...
- But it seems that you are concerned that the possibility of a finite universe constrains your creativity...
- And/Or the possibility of an infinite universe limits the uniqueness of your creativity
- Both possibilities seem to cause you deep distress

These two possibilities arise from opposite and incompatible assumptions, and we can't tell which assumption is correct, because it has no practical impact on our day-to-day lives.

I thought I'd explained it adequately. I don't see how they are incompatible. The theory says matter can only be arranged a finite number of ways in a finite space. It works weather the universe is finite or infinite. It may not have an impact on your lives but it had a huge one on mine, that's something few people understand or respect. They either don't understand why it bothers me, don't think it should or think I'm crazy for feeling this way.

Space is big. You just won't believe how vastly, hugely, mind-bogglingly big it is. I mean, you may think it's a long way down the road to the chemist's, but that's just peanuts to space.

I can't begin to tell you how much I HATE the Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy. 

So you may have unresolved issues with your father, but don't blame the universe for it...

This is not some daddy issue.

[Multifaceted (OP)]

What theory? That "atoms exist in multiple places at once"? There's no such theory and nothing called "the matter theory" and I never said I held a belief in such a statement. I didn't see any such statement from Alan either. If that's not the theory you're talking about, then you need to be a lot more clear about which theory it is that you and possibly your father are talking about.

"atoms exist in multiple places at once"? was what I was talking about before but I also wanted you to clarify your position on this other one. And I wash I had a better term then "The theory" for the other one but it's all I've got.