pittsburghjoe Posted May 23, 2019 Report Posted May 23, 2019 I am claiming something revolutionary here, but likely, do not have the correct terminology ..I'm no expert, please don't kill me. Tell me if you think I'm on to something.What is the Uncertainty Principle telling us?Is it saying the power of observation/measurement of a quantum object is not enough to make it a genuine 3D + 1 space-time object? If something on our scale was partially fuzzy depending on how many measurements you made (at the same time) ..would you say it was a full fledged three dimensional object? No, you'd say isn't fully here, its Space-Time element is being partially held back. Wave collapse doesn't appear to be completely collapsing. If a particle is fuzzy while moving, it suggest that particle is on a different timeline than you. If it doesn't have momentum and becomes clear, it's because time isn't required to take a still shot.If we accept this negative space-time, it answers several other quantum questions. Quote
Vmedvil2 Posted May 23, 2019 Report Posted May 23, 2019 (edited) I am claiming something revolutionary here, but likely, do not have the correct terminology ..I'm no expert, please don't kill me. Tell me if you think I'm on to something.What is the Uncertainty Principle telling us?Is it saying the power of observation/measurement of a quantum object is not enough to make it a genuine 3D + 1 space-time object? If something on our scale was partially fuzzy depending on how many measurements you made (at the same time) ..would you say it was a full fledged three dimensional object? No, you'd say isn't fully here, its Space-Time element is being partially held back. Wave collapse doesn't appear to be completely collapsing. If a particle is fuzzy while moving, it suggest that particle is on a different timeline than you. If it doesn't have momentum and becomes clear, it's because time isn't required to take a still shot.If we accept this negative space-time, it answers several other quantum questions. Um, I dunno exactly what to make of this, Well basically the Uncertainty Principle is just saying you can't measure the Position and Momentum of the particle at the same time, the better you measure the position the worse your measurement for momentum gets and vice versa. This has to do with Wave-Particle duality in that there is no definite measurements of Wave-particles of those properties, there is nothing beyond that to it. Edited May 23, 2019 by VictorMedvil Quote
pittsburghjoe Posted May 23, 2019 Author Report Posted May 23, 2019 (edited) Maybe you would like it better if I said, objects that can display quantum weirdness are not large enough to be part of space-time. Edited May 23, 2019 by pittsburghjoe Quote
Vmedvil2 Posted May 23, 2019 Report Posted May 23, 2019 (edited) Maybe you would like it better if I said, objects that can display quantum weirdness are not large enough to be part of space-time. They are definitely apart of space-time as they exist in this universe and experience time, Quantum Particles still have time and space just as any other object not being different from the larger scale objects, the only difference is there is a probability of movement into a location as Quantum Particles are not exactly solid being in a Wave-Particle duality state. Edited May 23, 2019 by VictorMedvil Quote
pittsburghjoe Posted May 23, 2019 Author Report Posted May 23, 2019 When a particle is in a state that can only be described as math ..it is not part of space-time. Quote
Vmedvil2 Posted May 23, 2019 Report Posted May 23, 2019 (edited) When a particle is in a state that can only be described as math ..it is not part of space-time. No, it can be physically measured just not with a exact position and momentum at the same-time, to explain look at this picture, that is wave-particle duality. Edited May 23, 2019 by VictorMedvil Quote
exchemist Posted May 23, 2019 Report Posted May 23, 2019 Maybe you would like it better if I said, objects that can display quantum weirdness are not large enough to be part of space-time.That can't be right because the states of such QM entities are described in terms of position and time coordinates. So they certainly inhabit spacetime. The uncertainty relation results from de Broglie's insight that particles have a wavelike quality and the frequency of the wave is related to their momentum. If you have a single wave, of known frequency, you know the momentum exactly, but then such a wave extends throughout space so you have no idea where the entity will be detected. If you know exactly where it is, that implies its wavefunction must be a superposition of an infinite number of waves, all of different frequency so that you only get constructive interference at one point. So then you have no idea what its momentum is. Anything in between is a balance between these competing factors. Quote
pittsburghjoe Posted May 23, 2019 Author Report Posted May 23, 2019 They partially inhabit spacetime on observation. Quote
pittsburghjoe Posted May 23, 2019 Author Report Posted May 23, 2019 If something was tiny and didn't inhabit spacetime ..I'd say it would probably do quantum weird things. Quote
exchemist Posted May 23, 2019 Report Posted May 23, 2019 If something was tiny and didn't inhabit spacetime ..I'd say it would probably do quantum weird things.Well there's no arguing with that. Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.