What I have learnt: We can't talk about an electron's position,momentum,angular momentum,energy...anything 'before the measurement'. An electron simply doesn't have these physical parameters before measurement. The measurement/"interaction with a classical object" creates these dynamical variables. Electrons have no trajectory. We can't say it goes through one slit or another. If we demand so we will not be able to explain the collective interference pattern,in this way of thinking this phenomenon will appear to break the casuality. It is also wrong to imagine it spreads out like a classical wave and goes through both the slits, interfere with itself and somehow becomes localized when measured,this way of thinking is absurd because it can't explan the disappearence of interference pattern if an experiment is performed which is capable of determining whether one or another slit is actually taken. What we know about an electron is the wavefunction which is not a property of ensemble but associated with each and every electron. It is a complex function, a 'mathematical tool' we use to calculate the probability amplitudes of different events, using it we calculate the weightage of different possible values of a certain dynamical variable of an electron when a measurement i.e 'interaction with a classical object(a physical object which is governed, with sufficient accuracy, by classical mechanics) takes place. Wavefunction doesn't have a physical significance,it is just a'mathematical tool'(similarly path integral approach doesn't tell us electron takes all possible paths in the configuration space, it's also a mathematical tool which tells us about electron after the measurement). QM refuse to talk about an electron before the detection happens(even don't answer such questions as why it takes a particular value among so many possible values of a physical parameter when measured,QM states there is no machinary behind it), also, QM is a peculiar theory which contains classical mechanics as a limiting case, yet at the same time it requires this limiting case for its own formulation. But an electron should certainly have a measurement independent physical reality. Outside measurement We are basically representing it as an abstract mathematical object which has no physical significance but successfully predicts the possible outcomes of a measurement along with there relative weightage.But if an electron doesn't have a measurement independent physical reality then what's about its 'mass' and 'charge', are they also 'created' by the measurement?
My question is simple: What is the 'charge' of an electron (which, unlike other properties as position, momentum or energy takes only one unique value in each and every measurement possible) before the measurement? Is it also 'created' by the measurement process itself, in the same way that its momentum or position is?
N.B: I may be completely wrong, I am just a bigginer, trying to learn QM and having serious problem with it.