When your imagination and your thought are in conflict, your imagination will inevitably win.
The Quantum Cheshire cat is a paradox that is proving to be true. What it amounts to is, though we think of things as being concrete objects, having distinct characteristics, the supposed object and its traits are not necessarily one and the same thing, like a photon and its spin, say. They also feel like we have found the ultimate degree to which we can measure any physical thing with accuracy, and it is less generous than they previously thought, more prone to error.
Everything that seems to occur in our physical world, seems to have trouble being confined to what we consider real space. More or less the geometry that we use to apply traits like location in any given space, apply weakly and maybe not at all. So as much as it seems like something like an atomic particle, and thus by extension any physical object like your body, has the traits it has of itself and is self contained, this may not be the case.
So physics is obviously things your body does, right? Oh, physics relates to everything. The body as well as everything else.
Where as ‘quantum’ is things your body… is? Ah, they used to believe that quantum effects were few, limited or even impossible in a biological system. They have found this to be very far from the truth. If I understand your question, your body, and what they have discovered even with the quantum entanglement effects, is not necessarily a localized object. It’s more an emergent phenomena like a side effect of some other process.
They have discovered that things they thought should have no effect on quantum interference, things like the specific spin of a particle, actually do. What this means on the normal physical level is that things that should have no effect on your body the way we understand these things, actually can and will like the fact that you are wearing a white shirt instead of a blue one.
Is quantum like computer software? As far as the relationship between the quantum level of physics versus normal physics, normal physics would be closer to the software. Quantum physics would be the background field or memory that the software is running on. Hardware, though not hard. Strangely, it’s much more mutable than the represented thing.
Quantum is what happens at the very, very smallest sizes. Normal physics is at normal sizes but now they are discovering quantum at normal sizes. So they need a new term. Yes, it occurs at the macro level also. I think I can explain a bit better. Should I give it a shot?
Let’s say you have a grid of balls. Let’s say the balls represent protons, a type of atomic particle. If you started kicking those balls around, you would be able to observe classical physics as one smacks into another and things get scattered.
Oh, now let’s say you don’t do that. You leave all the balls in place, and instead you bring in a new kind of ball. This different coloured ball is, let’s say, an electron. If you started experimenting with how the electron ball and the proton balls compare to each other, how they interact based entirely on their individual behaviour instead of the chaos that comes from smacking them around like a big system… Say, you let go of the electron ball and it started hovering over one of the protons and not any of the others. That would be quantum physics.
So quantum is behaviour? Yes, except, everything is behaviour. The apparent particles don’t actually exist.
Quantum is action. Yes.
Particles are useful concepts, but don’t accurately model what is going on.
Your thoughts are welcome. Be well friends.