Or is it because our instruments can’t read faster than the speed of light (when measuring on the quantum level)?
I’m having trouble with quantum mechanics.

The concept of objects having a single, definite location is not accurate, especially on the small scale, according to quantum mechanics.
For example, an electron does not stay confined in a circular orbit around the nucleus. It has the largest probability of being found there, but there is also a non-zero probability of it being found somewhere else. Quantum mechanics describes the locations of particles as probability distributions, rather than precise coordinates. It has nothing to do with the speed of a measuring instrument, and everything to do with making a measurement. The probability distribution collapses when you make a measurement. All of a sudden, the particle has a definite location. Over time, it spreads out again, resuming its normal ‘fuzzy’ position.

You have determined that perhaps our instruments are not precise enough to provide a definite answer to your question – and you are correct.
Common sense would tell us that a single particle cannot be in two places at exactly the same time – even if we are unable to precisely determine where it is at any point in time. A particle simply occupies a certain position in space at any given point in time – regardless of where it might be at the next point in time. If this time span is so insignificant as to be measured the “same”, it will certainly appear to be in two places at the “same” time – but, in reality, I strongly suspect that is an illusion and not the real case.
If it makes you feel any better, Einstein himself “had trouble with quantum mechanics” (the non-relativistic theory) and was a staunch opponent throughout the most part of his later years. His equations were a smooth continuum and he had no patience for uncertainty or chaos in his ordered universe.

Yes matter can exist in two places at once the technical term is called (quantum non locality).Its the ability of particles to exert powerful influences on each other instantaneously across vast distances.

Yes . When two masses collide they exist at two places at the same time. Not all collisions are at the speed of light.
If you have trouble with quantum mechanics = I sugest you make up your own theory and you may have a discovery.
Note the theory is not set in cement. It does need change in order to agree with Einstein relativity.

Thumbs up for virgo! “matter exists everywhere on the planet”.
Next time, phrase you question more carefully. You should have asked, “Can an elementary particle exist is two places at one time?” A free particle with a precisely defined kinetic energy, for example, exists everywhere at the same time; it is completely nonlocalized.

i dont see why not

define “places”

The concept of objects having a single, definite location is not accurate, especially on the small scale, according to quantum mechanics.

For example, an electron does not stay confined in a circular orbit around the nucleus. It has the largest probability of being found there, but there is also a non-zero probability of it being found somewhere else. Quantum mechanics describes the locations of particles as probability distributions, rather than precise coordinates. It has nothing to do with the speed of a measuring instrument, and everything to do with making a measurement. The probability distribution collapses when you make a measurement. All of a sudden, the particle has a definite location. Over time, it spreads out again, resuming its normal ‘fuzzy’ position.

Matter cannot exist in the same state and the same place.

matter exists everywhere on the planet

You have determined that perhaps our instruments are not precise enough to provide a definite answer to your question – and you are correct.

Common sense would tell us that a single particle cannot be in two places at exactly the same time – even if we are unable to precisely determine where it is at any point in time. A particle simply occupies a certain position in space at any given point in time – regardless of where it might be at the next point in time. If this time span is so insignificant as to be measured the “same”, it will certainly appear to be in two places at the “same” time – but, in reality, I strongly suspect that is an illusion and not the real case.

If it makes you feel any better, Einstein himself “had trouble with quantum mechanics” (the non-relativistic theory) and was a staunch opponent throughout the most part of his later years. His equations were a smooth continuum and he had no patience for uncertainty or chaos in his ordered universe.

Yes matter can exist in two places at once the technical term is called (quantum non locality).Its the ability of particles to exert powerful influences on each other instantaneously across vast distances.

Yes . When two masses collide they exist at two places at the same time. Not all collisions are at the speed of light.

If you have trouble with quantum mechanics = I sugest you make up your own theory and you may have a discovery.

Note the theory is not set in cement. It does need change in order to agree with Einstein relativity.

The same matter can’t be two places at the same time, but a wave function can.

Thumbs up for virgo! “matter exists everywhere on the planet”.

Next time, phrase you question more carefully. You should have asked, “Can an elementary particle exist is two places at one time?” A free particle with a precisely defined kinetic energy, for example, exists everywhere at the same time; it is completely nonlocalized.