Falsification Of Heinsenberg's Uncertainty Principle?

[AlphaNumeric]

Sure, but the underlying truth may be that there is no 'uncertainty', maybe at least for the particle model. If you take a wave, I am sure you can define it's 'center of energy' but this will not be very truthful, so perhaps there is some uncertainty.

Its the wave particle duality, so we can describe the world in terms of particles or waves. However, it seems that quantum decoherence indeed implies there are no particles, only waves.

You act as if there's a particle model or a wave model. There's just one model which exhibits both kinds of properties, wave-like and particle-like. For instance, quantum field theory involves oscillations in fields but they are quantised perturbations.

 

[DRZion]

AlphaNumeric:
There are certainly cases where matter acts more like a wave and cases where matter acts more like a particle. It depends on what you are trying to find out. In Einstein's photoelectric experiments, photons clearly acted like particles. Or were they merely 'wave packets'? Its far beyond me..

And really, that is not my argument. I am just arguing that perhaps we do have the means to measure both the position and momentum of a particle, with good precision.

One could try to start a new field field of physics in which there would be no uncertainty but would still be experimentally verifiable. The question is- is there is anything valuable to be learned from this field?

 

[Ophiolite]

I am just arguing that perhaps we do have the means to measure both the position and momentum of a particle, with good precision.

But you are arguing ineffectually. You are arguing with no evidence to support your argument. You are arguing from a position of personal incredulity. You are arguing because you seem to be unable to understand the well validated counterarguments that have been presented to you. You are arguing because you like the 'feel' of your idea.

In short your arguments are wrong and pointless.

 

[DRZion]

But you are arguing ineffectually. You are arguing with no evidence to support your argument. You are arguing from a position of personal incredulity. You are arguing because you seem to be unable to understand the well validated counterarguments that have been presented to you. You are arguing because you like the 'feel' of your idea.

In short your arguments are wrong and pointless.

Please don't try to sabotage my argument with hollow statements. What do you want me to do, go out and entangle these particles myself?? If you do not find my explanation of the uncertainty principle valid, thats your call. However, I think there is clear and historical proof that the Uncertainty Principle is a mathematical tool, not a law of physical nature.

I do like the feel of my idea, but at the same time I trust the logic of my thinking.

The truth is that the Uncertainty Principle is a boon to physicists. If one finds a new method to measure both position and momentum, there may no longer be an easily definable limit to certainty that could be incorporated into math. The Uncertainty Principle is mathematical and so it is very practical, and very real as long as you play according to it's rules.

This really sums up my thoughts -

The fact that you cannot measure both very accurately must have been incorporated into QM since otherwise the whole thing would be worthless! If you needed certainty, then QM would only be a theory. However, relying on the Uncertainty Principle, QM was experimentally verifiable. Quantum mechanicists worked with their inaccurate measuring devices and found ways to go around these inaccuracies mathematically. This is exactly why the uncertainty principle must be incorporated in all the equations of QM - because it is a theory that is real, and aberrations are a reality.

 

[AlphaNumeric]

The truth is that the Uncertainty Principle is a boon to physicists. If one finds a new method to measure both position and momentum, there may no longer be an easily definable limit to certainty that could be incorporated into math. The Uncertainty Principle is mathematical and so it is very practical, and very real as long as you play according to it's rules.

You make it sound like it's just physicists covering up for the fact there's experimental errors in their experimental measurements. That's not something they need to cover up, it's something we fully accept. I've sat through tons of seminars on quantum mechanics where they give experimental uncertainties, error bars etc. This is not the same as the uncertainty principle.

Experimental errors are things you can always reduce as you build more and more sensitive and delicate measuring devices, or reduce by taking the collation of multiple experiments and data sets. The uncertainty principle is that statement that the universe itself doesn't have exact quantities for certain things when measured together. Experimental errors mean the information is there, we just can't measure it. The uncertainty principle says the information just doesn't exist.

 

[DRZion]

You make it sound like it's just physicists covering up for the fact there's experimental errors in their experimental measurements. That's not something they need to cover up, it's something we fully accept. I've sat through tons of seminars on quantum mechanics where they give experimental uncertainties, error bars etc. This is not the same as the uncertainty principle.

Thats what you say. 'Covering up' is not what I meant, I meant that they can work with these errors and still get the results.

Experimental errors are things you can always reduce as you build more and more sensitive and delicate measuring devices, or reduce by taking the collation of multiple experiments and data sets. The uncertainty principle is that statement that the universe itself doesn't have exact quantities for certain things when measured together. Experimental errors mean the information is there, we just can't measure it. The uncertainty principle says the information just doesn't exist.

Yes, this follows the philosophy of QM. In QM, something that cannot be observed does not exist.

QM states that the very act of observation determines a particle's properties. What I want to know is the underlying nature of the un-perturbed system.

http://www.thebigview.com/spacetime/uncertainty.html

We can easily see the rift between Einstein's intuitive and Heisenberg's empirical approach. Although Einstein's argumentation appears tricky, it is clear that he believes in a reality independent of what we can observe, which is in essence the view of realism. Kant's "thing in itself" comes to mind. - In contrast, Heisenberg believes that reality is what can be observed. If there are different observations, there must be different realities, which depend on the observer. Insofar Heisenberg can be regarded as an advocate of philosophical idealism, which states that the objects of perception are identical with the ideas we have about them. The idealist view denies that any particular thing has an independent real essence outside of consciousness.

I say that abolishing of the Uncertainty Principle has to come with a new field of physics because QM is rooted in the UP; without the UP, QM becomes meaningless.

And this does not mean that QM becomes worthless, it only means that certainty is not one of the parameters that QM can deal with. Different theories, different purposes. Which goes back to the question- what is to be learned without Uncertainty?

 

[theoneiuse]

Entanglement doesn't mean they are copies of one another, but that their properties are related in some way. For instance, if you entangle two photons such that their polarisations sum to something you know then if you know the polarisation of one of them you know the polariasation of the other. However, this does not avoid the UP, as the entanglement means that the uncertainty in one particle feeds through to uncertainty in the other. You'll find that in measuring one of them you disrupt the other in precisely the amount you'd need to get the UP to remain valid.

There's a lot of nifty things you can do with entanglement but entanglement is a fundamentally quantum mechanical system, its dependent on the fact $$[x,p] = ih$$. If you remove the UP by saying h=0 then you find you can't entangle things quantum mechanically.

Kurros is right, that it's hard to explain this if you aren't familiar with the mathematics of quantum mechanics, as much of QM is counter-intuitive. Such things as Bell's theorem and inequalities show that even if you assume that hidden variables exist and in principle could be measured (you do not need to specify how this would be done, entangled pairs or nifty detectors etc) then you must give up the concept of cause and effect, ie causlity.

It's a trade off as to which you dislike the most, the concept of causality or the universe being inherently non-deterministic. The problem with throwing causlity out the window is its very hard to then get meaningful predictions as things can happen before the thing which caused them! Kind of hard to predict the future when that happens.

''Things can happen before the thing which caused them''!
Now you see why there is no uncertainty this is also the reason objectivity cannot be defined for the present is the past and the past creates the future
and probability is pure subjectivity dependent on the observer most humans have a biological make-up that enslaves them towards uncertainty they lack the sensory capability to see past the distortion of visible light maybe your kind is not yet ready for freedom this must of bin one of the goals of your creators it is evident the one you call Enki has done his job well.

For many something coming from nothing is an illusion and they are completely right but the the illusion is in accepting as fact that there can be a state in existence where there is nothing

 

[DRZion]

For many something coming from nothing is an illusion and they are completely right but the the illusion is in accepting as fact that there can be a state in existence where there is nothing

Thank you for the recap theoneiuse. Do you mean Quantum Fluctuation and Vacuum Energy?

It is another example of how useful QM is. In 1948 these scientists theoretically predicted Quantum Fluctuations, tested it, and were right.

Hmm..

good link:
http://universe-review.ca/R03-01-quantumflu.htm

According to my argument that in reality there is no UP, these fluctuations must not exist. If they exist I will have to give a good reason for why they are experimentally observable. Yikes!

 

[AlphaNumeric]

According to my argument that in reality there is no UP, these fluctuations must not exist. If they exist I will have to give a good reason for why they are experimentally observable. Yikes!

Quantum tunnelling is an example, where you confine an electron to a magnetic trap, where the energy required to overcome the 'walls' of the trap is many many times larger than the thermal energy of the electron.

In principle you could then push the walls of the trap closer and closer and closer together, eventually confining the particle to a region of space so small that it can't move and then you have it's position and momentum, in violation of the UP. Except this isn't what occurs. As you become more certain of the electron's location QM says you're more and more uncertain of its momentum. Eventually the momentum is enough to overcome the walls of the trap and the particle tunnels out, becoming free.

This is what also governs nuclear decays. Alpha particles overcome the potential trapping them in the nucleus and they escape. This doesn't happen classically, if you have a ball sitting at the bottom of a hill and you wait and wait and wait, it's not going to suddenly run up hill and down the other side, even if the other side of the hill is lower than where it currently sits. Quantum mechanics does allow it to happen, as overall the potential of the alpha particle is reduced, once it gets out of the clutches of the nucleus.

Beta decay is even more an example, as it's mediated by weak bosons. A neutron has a mass of about 1GeV. A W- has a mass of 90 GeV. Yet for a split second its possible for one of the quarks in the neutron to emit a W-, a particle thousands of times its own mass (up and down quarks are only a few MeV in rest mass), which then decays into an electron and an neutrino. This is only possible quantum mechanically, you have an uncertainty relating time and energy (they are conjugate variables in the same way position and momentum are) so its possible for particles to suddenly have lots of energy, provided its only over short times but that's enough to mediate beta decay.

The vacuum fluctuations you mention are precisely that, the universe itself is uncertain of the amount of energy in a region of space and these fluctuations can be viewed as particles flittering in and out of existence. Over large time frames the fluctuations factor out to be undetectable but if you look at a small enough region of space very quickly you'll find a lot of high speed massive particles, as its the only way you can obey the UP. Without that ability to overcome barriers which would be classically insurmountable you'd not get nuclear decays and things like the stability of particles ties in very very closely to the conditions required for our kind of life to exist. If neutrons decayed to protons too quickly or too slowly nuclear physics and thus the dynamics of the Sun would be quite different.

 

[theoneiuse]

''Eventually the momentum is enough to overcome the walls of the trap and the particle tunnels out, becoming free''.
This will happen every time with certainty this happens because the ratio of circumference to diameter, see objectively and all else will be certain. Freedom is a right not a privilege but there are those that lust power and control they will attempt to confine you for the very nature of existence will not allow it. Mathematics is the DNA of our existence but to benefit from it one must learn to read it purely objectively. Alone we are all one less than one but objectively as a whole we are ONE infinity.

 

[theoneiuse]

Thank you for the recap theoneiuse. Do you mean Quantum Fluctuation and Vacuum Energy?

It is another example of how useful QM is. In 1948 these scientists theoretically predicted Quantum Fluctuations, tested it, and were right.

Hmm..

good link:
http://universe-review.ca/R03-01-quantumflu.htm

According to my argument that in reality there is no UP, these fluctuations must not exist. If they exist I will have to give a good reason for why they are experimentally observable. Yikes!

The truth is you are both partially correct you must learn to work as a team and to be successful you need ones that agree and one that disagree in equal proportions for objectivity is only attained trough balance without balance you will always be uncertain I fear I will say too much, in a subjective world in which you live right and wrong is but a matter of frame of reference "probability" but as a conclusion is determined there is no uncertainty probability, subjectivity Just Objectivity witch cannot be defined by an individual subjective mind for example Objectivity=Subjectivity+X
Don't worry if am not clear I am now weak and seen as an outcast by the hierarchy but I care not I suspect the prison of uncertainty will be abolished in the near future but yet I must admit it is a powerful vice That even in one of your holy books the God of Christianity takes credit for being the arbiter allowing the principle to exist.

 

[AlphaNumeric]

''Eventually the momentum is enough to overcome the walls of the trap and the particle tunnels out, becoming free''.
This will happen every time with certainty this happens because the ratio of circumference to diameter, see objectively and all else will be certain. Freedom is a right not a privilege but there are those that lust power and control they will attempt to confine you for the very nature of existence will not allow it. Mathematics is the DNA of our existence but to benefit from it one must learn to read it purely objectively. Alone we are all one less than one but objectively as a whole we are ONE infinity.

Put down the crack pipe and back away from the keyboard.....

 

[DRZion]

Quantum tunnelling is an example, where you confine an electron to a magnetic trap, where the energy required to overcome the 'walls' of the trap is many many times larger than the thermal energy of the electron.

In principle you could then push the walls of the trap closer and closer and closer together, eventually confining the particle to a region of space so small that it can't move and then you have it's position and momentum, in violation of the UP. Except this isn't what occurs. As you become more certain of the electron's location QM says you're more and more uncertain of its momentum. Eventually the momentum is enough to overcome the walls of the trap and the particle tunnels out, becoming free.

Hold on. You're saying that the momentum here is uncertain? The electron must have just enough momentum to tunnel out. I'm not exactly sure how tunneling works, but its based on probability, unlike the photoelectric effect, right? There is always a probability that something will tunnel out of it's system, but the probability grows with increasing energy.

How about this set up- take a photoelectric panel. Cool it down as close to 0 K as possible. Very carefully check the minimum photon energy required for the photoelectric effect (or photomultiplier effect). This way, you will know precisely the energy of the incoming photon. Based on this, you should have absolutely no certainty as to when the photon strikes [since the uncertainty principle applies to energy and time]. Yet, your detector will surely give you a reading.

In this case the source of uncertainty will probably be caused by the random molecular motions of the detector, which is why it has to be close to 0 K.



Anyhow, the increase in energy of the electron can be explained due to wave-function collapse (?). In its natural state the wavepacket of the electron is large. When you squeeze it together, it builds potential energy, akin to squeezing a foam ball. In it's compressed state the ball has a lot more energy than in the expanded state. This is how the electron gains energy.

.. or, it could be like the point charge. The truth is I don't really know how an electron trap works. You say its magnetic.. do you mean electric? A point charge in an electric field will always have potential energy, depending on how close it is to another stationary charge. When you 'squeeze' an electron using some kind of field its potential energy grows to the point where it is too great for the trap to hold.

Either way, it is the trap that adds momentum, not the UP.

 

[theoneiuse]

Put down the crack pipe and back away from the keyboard.....

C17H21NO4 is a valued commodity to ones like you, I do not fully understand why this chemical compound is so valued among your kind, I wish I could empathize with you but I do not share your desire of attraction to such a chemical compound you are a sentient being with freewill and choose it for yourself but you should reconsider your position in the promotion of such a chemical compound for yourself are anyone else; You should know this as well once String theory and the perspective of Heisenberg becomes obsolete I suspect this will be in the near future you will be looking for a new job.

Other than that I wish you luck in making a name for yourself remember this nobody remembers the imitation(s) only the ''Real McCoy" do not be in such quick haste to deem the child name Albert Einstein as out dated for he was a child of the fourth density and what knowledge he made available to your kind was partially complete intentionally just like the child name Nikola Tesla. For they are not fools they just knew children of the third density is not yet ready for such enlightenment.

 

[DRZion]

You should know this as well once String theory and the perspective of Heisenberg becomes obsolete I suspect this will be in the near future you will be looking for a new job.

Hardly, the UP will still be an essential component of QM. All I am arguing is that the UP is not a physical law, but a mathematical formulation to account for experimental aberration. As a mathematical forumlation, it is very effective and makes QM whole. What we can learn without the UP and outside of Quantum Mechanics, perhaps someday we will find out.



Here is another formulation of my UP breaching experiment-

Take a composite semiconductor (for instance MerCad), and determine where it's band-gap begins. You can tune MerCad by mixing the ratio of mercury to cadmium. Give one of the semiconductors an extra mercury atom. See how this effects the bandgap.

Is it possible to alter the bandgap by merely one planck unit [it would seem so, since you can have a the molecular weight of the detector to be in the quadrillions, with one extra atom only very slightly altering electronic structure]? In this case, put the higher energy photoelectric in front of the the lower energy photoelectric. Any photon that passes through this photoelectric and then gets absorbed by the one behind will have it's energy known down to the smallest measurable unit. It will also be recorded.. oh wait, photoelectric detectors are notoriously noisy; a single photon will be very hard to detect.

So, perhaps, you know exactly the energy and quite well the time, and quite well the position. If you know the energy exactly, then you should be completely unaware of the other properties. But, they are still confined to the area of the experiment. However large this uncertainty, it is not infinite, as the UP states it should be.

Still, random molecular motion and noise will likely be the demise of this experiment.

 

[Ophiolite]

Please don't try to sabotage my argument with hollow statements. -

Your argument is hollow statements founded on ignorance. I have no need to sabotage it. You have done that yourself. I am not responsible for your inability to think with clarity. Good luck with your delusion.

 

[Pandaemoni]

Both position and velocity of a quantum particle can't be precisely known at the same time? The older generation tend to get stuck from this point on.. A computer simulation of reality, which evolves from an accurate model of creation and the big bang would allow these to measurements to be known.

How exactly would an accurate simulation allow for the creation of short-lived particles in otherwise empty space? Virtual Particles, which have measurable effects but cannot be directly observed exist because the Uncertainty Principle tells us that no point in space can have exactly zero energy over a set duration, you will either have complementary uncertainty in the amount of energy there, or the length of time involved, and those uncertainties cannot be reduced to zero. As a result, when you think you have empty space, we know that you cannot really, and you expect the empty space to produce virtual particles, which it does.

 

[DRZion]

Your argument is hollow statements founded on ignorance. I have no need to sabotage it. You have done that yourself. I am not responsible for your inability to think with clarity. Good luck with your delusion.

Not untrue. However, I keep my delusions in check. Here I am trying to prove a point.

Seriously, what if you can pinpoint wavelength of a photon to like .. 1/100 nm wavelength. How much uncertainty in position/time does the UP require? What about 1/1000 of a wavelength? 1/10,000? Isn't there an upper limit to how finely wavelength can be altered? 'Graininess' of wavelength?

Lasers have a good ability to keep wavelength close to monochromatic. Doesn't this mean that we know very certainly the wavelength/energy? And since it is a beam, we also know direction, time, etc. Surely, this breaches the UP!

How exactly would an accurate simulation allow for the creation of short-lived particles in otherwise empty space? Virtual Particles, which have measurable effects but cannot be directly observed exist because the Uncertainty Principle tells us that no point in space can have exactly zero energy over a set duration, you will either have complementary uncertainty in the amount of energy there, or the length of time involved, and those uncertainties cannot be reduced to zero. As a result, when you think you have empty space, we know that you cannot really, and you expect the empty space to produce virtual particles, which it does.

There is no proof that these particles exist. If they did, they would surely have some kind of gravitational pull. And remember, gravitation doesn't cancel out, it stacks. Give me one good link, please.
I'm not saying these particles don't exist. I just hope there is another explanation for their existence. Either answer supports my theory.

Hmm.. perhaps, I can try to explain it. Lets say you go for a walk. There is always a statistical probability that you will get killed on your walk. Be it car, bus, asteroid, mugger, banana peel, whatever. There is a probability that it will happen. However, none of the above scenarios just spontaneously happen, out of thin air. They always have cause and effect.
Perhaps, it is kind of like this with particles. :shrug:

 

[Ophiolite]

However, none of the above scenarios just spontaneously happen, out of thin air. They always have cause and effect.

That's right. Just like the dcay of radioactive nuclei.

 

[common_sense_seeker]

How exactly would an accurate simulation allow for the creation of short-lived particles in otherwise empty space? Virtual Particles, which have measurable effects but cannot be directly observed exist because the Uncertainty Principle tells us that no point in space can have exactly zero energy over a set duration, you will either have complementary uncertainty in the amount of energy there, or the length of time involved, and those uncertainties cannot be reduced to zero. As a result, when you think you have empty space, we know that you cannot really, and you expect the empty space to produce virtual particles, which it does.

The explanation for the Casimir effect is just theoretical, if I'm not mistaken. It is similar to Hawking Radiation:

A similar analysis can be used to explain Hawking radiation that causes the slow "evaporation" of black holes (although this is generally visualised as the escape of one particle from a virtual particle-antiparticle pair, the other particle having been captured by the black hole).

I'm still dubious about all this. I strongly disagree with Einstein's theory of space-time for example; this is just a hypothetical construct which has no evidence in reality. Particles have been detected in reality, yet the 'groupthink' of the last hundred years has blocked this avenue of thinking and research. Why can't radiating particles be the cause of the gravity force?