Uncertainty Principle (Revised) : Accurate Quantum Measurement Is Impossible

[petrushkagoogol]

Instead of what Heisenberg stated in his Uncertainty Principle, namely, that momentum and position of a particle cannot be measured accurately simultaneously, I propose to amend this.

 

Postulate 1.0.0.1 : Accurate Quantum measurement is impossible.

 

Hypothesis : Any photon used to track another photon disturbs the energy-field of the target particle.

 

Control :  Energy neutral environment for measurement which is practically impossible, since whichever particle is used for measurement, energy field of the target particle is affected. This means that we cannot set up a control for this experiment, as no incident particle means effectively no measurement.

 

Proof : The inability to create a control for the experiment makes it infeasible to prove. (what Heisenberg stated in terms of accurate measurement).

 

Q.E.D. 

Edited June 7, 2017 by petrushkagoogol

[exchemist]

 

Instead of what Heisenberg stated in his Uncertainty Principle, namely, that momentum and position of a particle cannot be measured accurately simultaneously, I propose to amend this.

 

Postulate 1.0.0.1 : Accurate Quantum measurement is impossible.

 

Hypothesis : Any photon used to track another photon disturbs the energy-field of the target particle.

 

Control :  Energy neutral environment for measurement which is practically impossible, since whichever particle is used for measurement, energy field of the target particle is affected. This means that we cannot set up a control for this experiment, as no incident particle means effectively no measurement.

 

Proof : The inability to create a control for the experiment makes it infeasible to prove. (what Heisenberg stated in terms of accurate measurement).

 

Q.E.D. 

 

Yes, I can fart too.

 

But I try to avoid doing so in public. 

[exchemist]

Oh we've made a lot of experimental breakthroughs since Heisenbergs day, so much so we can even half the Heisenberg uncertainty that he originally predicted. Others are formulating ways of violating it entirely. 

 

 

Just watch this space ;)

Can you provide a reference for this remarkable claim? 

 

My understanding is that the uncertainly principle is a a fundamental feature of QM, due to the existence of pairs of conjugate variables: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conjugate_variables

 

I am not aware of any evidence that Heisenberg's uncertainty relations can be broken. 

[exchemist]

Here is their original paper

 

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/13258482_Curious_New_Statistical_Prediction_of_Quantum_Mechanics

Aha well that's a bit different, surely?

 

All I can access is the abstract, but it seems this is to do with the precision with which one can know values of conjugate variables during a time interval between a pair of measurements. Whereas the HUP itself is concerned with the precision with which one can simultaneously determine such variables.

 

In fact the first link makes plain that the HUP is alive and well and is not challenged by these new findings.  

Edited June 10, 2017 by exchemist

[exchemist]

But the question of attempting to violate the UP is an old one, according to the second link.

That's not how I read it. The "old question" seems to be to do with the second scenario, which is not - so it seems to me - simultaneous measurement of conjugate variables.

Edited June 11, 2017 by exchemist

[OceanBreeze]

Oh we've made a lot of experimental breakthroughs since Heisenbergs day, so much so we can even half the Heisenberg uncertainty that he originally predicted. Others are formulating ways of violating it entirely. 

 

 

Just watch this space ;)

 

 

Is there any end to the amount of crackpot bullshit you will post on this forum?

 

First, you decided, without any justification, that the universe is spinning and took it upon yourself to "modify" the  Friedmann equations, and the FLRW model, completely ignoring the fact that your crackpot "theory" is not consistent with observations from COBE and WMAP.

Now, you are making another crackpot statement that Heisenberg's uncertainty principle has been halved! As usual, you have no support for your ludicrous crackpot statement.

 

In fact: One Thing Is Certain: Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle Is Not Dead

 

What the new research has shown is his original formulation was not entirely rigorous:

 

"Heisenberg would be pleased that the limitation we can know about the world, which he aimed to expressed, was this time clearly revealed with the new rigorous, experimentally verified formulation. The new uncertainty relation between measurement error and disturbance is no more just conjecture, but physical law"

 

Nothing about the HUP being "half" of what was originally predicted.

 

[petrushkagoogol]

Yes, I can fart too.

 

But I try to avoid doing so in public. 

 

 

Oh we've made a lot of experimental breakthroughs since Heisenbergs day, so much so we can even half the Heisenberg uncertainty that he originally predicted. Others are formulating ways of violating it entirely. 

 

 

Just watch this space ;)

 

Is there any end to the amount of crackpot bullshit you will post on this forum?

 

First, you decided, without any justification, that the universe is spinning and took it upon yourself to "modify" the  Friedmann equations, and the FLRW model, completely ignoring the fact that your crackpot "theory" is not consistent with observations from COBE and WMAP.

Now, you are making another crackpot statement that Heisenberg's uncertainty principle has been halved! As usual, you have no support for your ludicrous crackpot statement.

 

In fact: One Thing Is Certain: Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle Is Not Dead

 

What the new research has shown is his original formulation was not entirely rigorous:

 

"Heisenberg would be pleased that the limitation we can know about the world, which he aimed to expressed, was this time clearly revealed with the new rigorous, experimentally verified formulation. The new uncertainty relation between measurement error and disturbance is no more just conjecture, but physical law"

 

Nothing about the HUP being "half" of what was originally predicted.

 

 

Thanks for the feedback.

What I am attempting to do is approach the proof from an interesting and unconventional way.

Rather than using conventional methodology, I am trying to validate the hypothesis by demonstrating that conducting a control (null test case) is impossible.  :xmas_tree: 

[exchemist]

Anyway, here is something related, ways physicists are trying to ''get around'' the uncertainty principle. Ignore Ocean, they weren't contributing before, they only came in here to attack me 

 

https://phys.org/news/2017-03-scientists-evade-heisenberg-uncertainty-principle.html

Yes that seems perfectly reasonable and in accordance with the treatment of angular momentum components under the uncertainty principle.  

[exchemist]

I was in a rush earlier but I can answer more fully right now. In time-symmetric theories you can theoretically know everything about the present, so long as you make a measurement of one conjugate in the past and one conjugate in the future. It has been suggested by scientists because of this picture, the past and future themselves may be complimentary and the present is sandwiched between the two.

OK but this is just another speculative hypothesis, is it not, unconfirmed as yet by observation?

 

There have been many such theoretical attempts to resolve quantum uncertainty and recover a deterministic physics, but to date none of them has worked, so far as I know. This paper was produced in 2005, apparently. Has there been any observational follow up in the last 12years? 

 

Excuse the scepticism, but my understanding is that the uncertainty principle is absolutely foundational in QM, due to the Fourier transform relationship between conjugate variables. I really do not see how it can be "broken" in any genuine sense unless QM is shown to be wrong. That would be headline news and I have not seen such headlines. 

 

It may be of course that breathless science journalists have made such claims, as a way to get people to read rather abstruse pieces of research, but that is something different. 

Edited June 11, 2017 by exchemist

[exchemist]

Going back to this link

 

https://phys.org/news/2012-09-scientists-renowned-uncertainty-principle.html#jCp

 

"In order to overcome this hurdle, Rozema and his colleagues employed a technique known as weak measurement wherein the action of a measuring device is weak enough to have an imperceptible impact on what is being measured. Before each photon was sent to the measurement apparatus, the researchers measured it weakly and then measured it again afterwards, comparing the results. They found that the disturbance induced by the measurement is less than Heisenberg's precision-disturbance relation would require.

 

 Now I have no idea if this was related to cutting in half thing from what I remember, but it seems like our techniques are trying to bypass the uncertainty principle. At least in this experiment, they have found similar to what I was stating in the first place, Heisenbergs uncertainty principle is less than he predicted. 

Aha thanks for this, I think I see the source of the confusion now.

 

The uncertainty principle is NOT a precision-disturbance relation. Historically the precision-disturbance problem in measurement was important in developing the idea but once the formulation of conjugate variables, related by Fourier transforms, was developed it became clear that the uncertainty was far more fundamental than this practical difficulty in measuring.

 

As I thought, the Phys Org journalists have taken the wrong idea and then jumped to the wrong conclusion - because it sounds sexier than the reality.    

 

I quote the relevant bit of the Wiki article on the uncertainty principle:

 

"Historically, the uncertainty principle has been confused^[5][6] with a somewhat similar effect in physics, called the observer effect, which notes that measurements of certain systems cannot be made without affecting the systems, that is, without changing something in a system. Heisenberg offered such an observer effect at the quantum level (see below) as a physical "explanation" of quantum uncertainty.^[7] It has since become clear, however, that the uncertainty principle is inherent in the properties of all wave-like systems,^{[8]........."}

 

^{What is for sure is that Heisenberg's fundamental uncertainty relations between momentum and position, and between energy and lifetime remain the same now as they have been since the development of the theory.}  

Edited June 12, 2017 by exchemist

[exchemist]

I believe it is cornerstone yes. But circumvention of such principle requires new understanding in the physics.

...which comes, in the end, only from confirmed observation.

[OceanBreeze]

...which comes, in the end, only from confirmed observation.

 But 006 hand waves away confirmed observations if they contradict his crackpot notions. Case in point is the confirmed observations made by COBE and WMAP of the CMB, which show no indication of a rotating universe. That doesn't stop 006 from modifying the well established and understood FLRW model to fit his unsubstantiated claim of a rotating universe.

It doesn't even matter if his math is self-consistent if it does not match observation.

His "friend" Matti  Pitkänen does exactly the same thing. for example, he thinks the gravity force should be related to R instead of R^2.

You can formulate an equation based on that but it does not correspond to real world observations and does not make any correct predictions. Therefore, Matti  Pitkänen is a recognized crackpot and so is 006. Of course, anyone who points this out is "attacking" his "theories"! What these people do not understand is the onus of proof is on them, not the person who is skeptical of their unsubstantiated claims.

[OceanBreeze]

As I explained before, and won't mention again in case of derailing the thread, my model matches experimental observation. The standard model cannot explain the chirality of galaxies nor can it explain dark flow. Mine can.

 

How can you get so many things wrong in just two sentences?

 

"my model matches experimental observation"  This is an outright Lie! Your model does not match the experimental observations made by COBE and WMAP, which both conclude the Universe is isotropic and homogeneous and has no direction, which would not be the case if it was spinning. I posted detailed information on this, which you ignored.

 

"The standard model cannot explain the chirality of galaxies nor can it explain dark flow"

More bullshit. There is no chirality of galaxies that cannot be attributed to human bias in viewing the galaxies from earth. What chirality there is, is not statistically significant, as stated in this paper.

 

excerpt:

We show that when a provably unbiased machine selects which galaxies are spirals independent of their chirality, the Swise

surplus vanishes, even if humans are still used to determine the chirality. Thus, when viewed across the entire GZ1 sample (and by implication, the Sloan catalog), the winding direction of arms in spiral galaxies as viewed from Earth is consistent with the flip of a fair coin.

 

 

As for Dark Flow, see Unknown "Structures" Not Tugging on the Universe After All?

excerpt:

the supernovae data show that matter is moving at a mere 550,000 miles (900,000 kilometers) an hour out to about 240 million light-years from Earth.This is a slightly faster than would be expected based on a standard model of the big bang theory, but "it is not a huge concern," said study leader Stephen Turnbull, of the University of Waterloo in Ontario, Canada.

"It is still perfectly consistent and perfectly well behaved" according to the standard set of equations scientists use to explain the universe, he added.

 

 

 

As I told you before, your crackpot "theory" solves nothing. You are not a physicist, not a cosmologist and not even a good mathematician, copying and pasting standard equations and then tacking your crap on to them.

 

 

[Super Polymath]

You are not a physicist

 

 

 

wtf does that have to do with anything. You're not either.

 

The internet has more than a phd's worth of information on it; & about as many half-truths & lies as an education would throw @ the sheeple. 

 

Do your homework, & then try & prove the self-taught wrong. Shut up about who's got a superficial authentication. 

[exchemist]

wtf does that have to do with anything. You're not either.

 

The internet has more than a phd's worth of information on it; & about as many half-truths & lies as an education would throw @ the sheeple. 

 

Do your homework, & then try & prove the self-taught wrong. Shut up about who's got a superficial authentication. 

40 crank points for use of the term "sheeple". :)

[exchemist]

Anyway, back to the thread topic, no evidence has so far been produced in this discussion that Heisenberg's Principle of Indeterminacy is wrong in any way. 

 

We have some untested hypotheses about possible ways to avoid quantum indeterminacy. And we have some experiments that can be misinterpreted as challenging indeterminacy but actually don't.   

[exchemist]

(Rubbish about your others claims in physics with no experience.)

 

Yes there is a real phenomenon in galactic chirality, so much so, several groups are working in this area. Yes it was once believed dark flow was wrong, but since then it has proven to exist.

 

 

It is real.

I'd be happy to see references to the evidence that chirality and dark flow are real, but not in this thread which is supposed to be about the Uncertainty Principle.

 

If you can post something about chirality on your thread rather than this one, I'll read them. Preferably links to whole articles we can all read, if at all possible.