Question: how the uncertainty principle works?

[Tim_Lou]

i read it in some books. it says that the produce of the accuracy of momentum and position of an object cannot be less than a certain constant (forgot the name).

 

so, when a momentun is well determined, position would be poorly determined....that leads to quantum numbers, which is a set of possiabilities...

i understands this, but how does it work? y is it like that??? is it b/c of the wave properties of particles???

[Tim_Lou]

nobody knows???

 

i understand the principle but doesnt know why its ture.

plz tell me if you know...

really appreciate...

[Tim_Lou]

Tormod, help!!! give me some idea at least, plz

 

im like an idiot who self-replying all the post...lol

[wazzuuup]

Stephen Hawking explains it in his book The Universe in a Nutshell

[wazzuuup]

Originally posted by: Tim_Lou

i read it in some books. it says that the produce of the accuracy of momentum and position of an object cannot be less than a certain constant (forgot the name).

 

Planck's constant?

[TINNY]

I know nothing more than you do, Tim. But this related article might be of some interest to read. I cut and paste from another website. I know Tormod, Freethinker and the gang will probably 'kill' me for this. Here goes:

 

One of the areas of science that shatters the materialist myth and gives positive evidence for theism is quantum physics.

 

Quantum physics deals with the tiniest particles of matter, what is called the sub-atomic realm. In school everyone learns that matter is composed of atoms. Atoms are made up of a nucleus and several electrons spinning around it. One strange fact is that all these particles take up only some 0.0001 percent of the atoms. In other words, an atom is something that is 99.9999 percent "empty."

 

An even more interesting fact is that when the nuclei and electrons are further examined, it has been realised that these are made up of much smaller particles called "quarks," and that these quarks are not particles in the physical sense, but simply energy. This discovery has broken the classical distinction between matter and energy. It now appears that in the material universe, only energy exists. What we call matter is just "frozen energy."

 

There is a still more intriguing fact: The quarks, those energy packets, act in such a way that they maybe described as "conscious." Physicist Freeman Dyson, on his acceptance of the Templeton Prize, stated that:

 

Atoms are weird stuff, behaving like active agents rather than inert substances. They make unpredictable choices between alternative possibilities according to the laws of quantum mechanics. It appears that mind, as manifested by the capacity to make choices, is to some extent inherent in every atom.14

 

What this means is that there is information behind matter. Information that precedes the material realm. Gerald Schroeder, an MIT-trained scientist who has worked in both physics and biology and author of the famous book The Science of God, makes a number of important comments on this subject. In his more recent book, The Hidden Face of God: Science Reveals the Ultimate Truth (2001), Schroeder explains that quantum physics—along with other branches of science—is the tool for discovering a universal wisdom that lies behind the material world. As he puts it:

 

It took humanity millennia before an Einstein discovered that, as bizarre as it may seem, the basis of matter is energy, that matter is actually condensed energy. It may take a while longer for us to discover that there is some non-thing even more fundamental than energy that forms the basis of energy, which in turn forms the basis of matter.15

 

John Archibald, professor of physics at Princeton University and recipient of the Einstein Award, explained the same fact when he said that the "bit" (the binary digit) of information gives rise to the "it," the substance of matter.16 According to Schroeder this has a "profound meaning":

 

The matter/energy relationships, the quantum wave functions, have profound meaning. Science may be approaching the realization that the entire universe is an expression of information, wisdom, an idea, just as atoms are tangible expressions of something as ethereal as energy.17

 

This wisdom is such an omniscient thing that covers the whole universe:

 

A single consciousness, a universal wisdom, pervades the universe. The discoveries of science, those that search the quantum nature of subatomic matter, have moved us to the brink of a startling realization: all existence is the expression of this wisdom. In the laboratories we experience it as information that first physically articulated as energy and then condensed into the form of matter. Every particle, every being, from atom to human, appears to represent a level of information, of wisdom.18

 

This means that the material universe is not a purposeless and chaotic heap of atoms, as the atheist/materialist dogma assumes, but is instead a manifestation of a wisdom which existed before the universe and which has absolute sover

[Freethinker]

First to Tim, if you are still around, haven't heard from you for a while...

 

I don;t remember see this thread before. We ahve covered this in other threads, but I will help here if I can.

Originally posted by: TINNY

I know nothing more than you do, Tim. But this related article might be of some interest to read. I cut and paste from another website. I know Tormod, Freethinker and the gang will probably 'kill' me for this. Here goes:

Your dead meat! :-)

One of the areas of science that shatters the materialist myth and gives positive evidence for theism is quantum physics.

Er, actually the exact oposite is true. But we'll get to that. Let's look at other obvious errors first.

Quantum physics deals with the tiniest particles of matter, what is called the sub-atomic realm. In school everyone learns that matter is composed of atoms. Atoms are made up of a nucleus and several electrons spinning around it.

WRONG! The model of the atom, with electrons as balls in a circular orbit, is counter to the Quantum concept. e.g. in the "spinning ball" model, an electron spins around the nucleus at a given distance. under certain conditions an electron would be forced out of that orbit and jumps to the next atom, thus electonic current flow. In QM the location of an electron in an atom can not be known, only it's energy level. This is highly simplfied, but shows some of the difference.

An even more interesting fact is that when the nuclei and electrons are further examined, it has been realised that these are made up of much smaller particles called "quarks,"

Oh man, where did you get this stuff? Protons and neutrons are made up of quarks. Electrons are NOT made of quarks! Both electrons and quarks are fundamental particles.

This discovery has broken the classical distinction between matter and energy. It now appears that in the material universe, only energy exists. What we call matter is just "frozen energy."

Ah E=MC^2! Matter IS energy. This has been known since Einstein. And to some extent since the 1st Law of Thermodynamics, conservation of energy, in the mid 1800's.

There is a still more intriguing fact: The quarks, those energy packets, act in such a way that they maybe described as "conscious." Physicist Freeman Dyson, on his acceptance of the Templeton Prize, stated that:

Utter nonsense. But let's look at WHY this would be said in this venue. The "Templeton Prize" is from the Templeton Foundation which was started specifically to promote religious intrusion into fields of science. The "Prize" is awarded to people that write papers intertwining the two intentionally. With $1,000,000.00 on the table yearly, some people will write almost anything they need to.

Quantum is really the point where science and theology meet.

OK, but at theat meeting, science exposed theology as the fraud it is. The very concept of QM/ Uncertainty, requires a LACK of "knowledge, of intellectual control. I will cover this more in my reply to the original question. This will be a repeat of info I have posted on other threads. Truth does not change from thread to thread.

Your god is God alone, there is no god but Him. He encompasses all things in His knowledge. (Qur'an, 20:98)

Except where a particle is at any one time! ALL particles at ANY time!

[Tormod]

Originally posted by: TINNY

I know nothing more than you do, Tim. But this related article might be of some interest to read. I cut and paste from another website. I know Tormod, Freethinker and the gang will probably 'kill' me for this.

 

The only thing that will save you from a gang kill is providing us with a source. You forgot to say a) where this is from, and B) whether you have permission to copy it.

[Freethinker]

Originally posted by: Tim_Lou

so, when a momentun is well determined, position would be poorly determined....that leads to quantum numbers, which is a set of possiabilities...

 

i understands this, but how does it work? y is it like that??? is it b/c of the wave properties of particles???

As I started to learn about QM, I flashed back to a philosophical bit I had picked up long before. It was one of Zeno's Paradoxes. Around 2500 years ago (YA, that far back!) Zeno an Eleatic philosopher, a native of Elea (Velia) in Italy, son of Teleutagoras, and the favorite disciple of Parmenides, realized that if you think about an arrow flying thu the air, at no time was it NOT an arrow. At no time was it "an arrow moving". IOW if you took a high speed photo (no they didn't ahve them back then) each "stop action" photo would show a full solid arrow. That arrow would perfectly resemble the same arrow as if it was laying still on a table. At no point would it (or a pict of it) show anything of it as moving (ignoring blur caused by exposure time of the camera shutter).

 

Now taking the same pict concept. If you took a pict of the arrow as it is flying horizontally as shot from a bow, or falling vertically after being dropped, or standing still, the arrow would be the same. There would be nothing to distiquish the momentum of the arrow. However if you took a slow exposure pict, you would see the arrow as a blur. The blur would allow you to identify the motion, direction ,speed... of the arrow, but the arrow itself would be blurred. The blur, the more the blur, the less identifyable the individual arrow would be. You would not be able to tell one arrow from another with enough blur.

 

Thus the more you know about the momentum, the less you know about the object.

[TeleMad]

Tinny [quoting material]Quantum physics deals with the tiniest particles of matter, what is called the sub-atomic realm. In school everyone learns that matter is composed of atoms. Atoms are made up of a nucleus and several electrons spinning around it.

 

FreeThinker: WRONG! The model of the atom, with electrons as balls in a circular orbit, is counter to the Quantum concept...

 

But FreeThinker, look at what you are responding to...

 

Tinny [quoting material]: Quantum physics deals with the tiniest particles of matter, what is called the sub-atomic realm. In school everyone learns that matter is composed of atoms. Atoms are made up of a nucleus and several electrons spinning around it.

 

I don't know about you, but yeah, I was taught in school that matter is composed of atoms and that atoms are made of a nucleus with electrons whizzing around it. I even have several science videos from the Schlessinger Science Library series that I use to teach my kids physical science and that's what those videos say too.

[Freethinker]

Originally posted by: TeleMad

I don't know about you, but yeah, I was taught in school that matter is composed of atoms and that atoms are made of a nucleus with electrons whizzing around it.

I have seldom been as pissed off as I was when the realization hit me, thru my OWN investigation, that it was just a "usable explanation for a simpler level", or some such bull crap.

 

I don't think the average perosn would ahve any more or less trouble understanding an electron shifting energy levels and one that flies around in a circle and jumps from ring to ring! either they get it or they don;t.

I even have several science videos from the Schlessinger Science Library series that I use to teach my kids physical science and that's what those videos say too.

I ran across an intersting Periodic Table chart for schools at a Street Festival of all places. It has the regular layout, with the electron balls flying around in a ring. The guy asked what I thought of it. I mentioned that actually we would not know where the electrons are. He started alughing and said I ahd not looked at the bottom of the chart. And there it was, light cones showing time probabilites for each element! A Quantum Periodic table as well!

 

Now If I could just find his card again!

[Freethinker]

Found it

 

http://www.iqee.com/science.html

[TeleMad]

FreeThinker: I have seldom been as pissed off as I was when the realization hit me, thru my OWN investigation, that it was just a "usable explanation for a simpler level", or some such bull crap.

 

You must have been really pissed off when you learned that you CAN subtract 2 from 1!

[TeleMad]

Oh, and I just started my general chemistry class and on the first day the professor - who's been teaching chemistry at our college for years - told the class that a neutron has no electric charge because it is made of a proton and an electron!

[Freethinker]

Originally posted by: TeleMad

FreeThinker: I have seldom been as pissed off as I was when the realization hit me, thru my OWN investigation, that it was just a "usable explanation for a simpler level", or some such bull crap.

 

You must have been really pissed off when you learned that you CAN subtract 2 from 1!

No I was in Catholic School at the time and THINKING was not allowed. We just went with the flow and memorized whatever was being spewed at the moment. We were well prepped in ignoring contradictions and arbitrary changes. :-)

[Freethinker]

Originally posted by: TeleMad

Oh, and I just started my general chemistry class and on the first day the professor - who's been teaching chemistry at our college for years - told the class that a neutron has no electric charge because it is made of a proton and an electron!

Incredible. Did you challenge it? Sure fire F- ! Your would have made him have to change what is probably the basis for his entire class outline. Every day would be a new challenge for him.

 

But think of the harm he is doing to the class!

 

Ask him what he thinks of the BB and Evolution. Be interesting to see if he's a Creationist!

[TeleMad]

TeleMad: Oh, and I just started my general chemistry class and on the first day the professor - who's been teaching chemistry at our college for years - told the class that a neutron has no electric charge because it is made of a proton and an electron!

 

FreeThinker: Incredible. Did you challenge it? Sure fire F- ! Your would have made him have to change what is probably the basis for his entire class outline.

 

No, it was just an off-the-cuff comment...not in the syllabus or any handouts and nothing he focussed on. He was just trying to give the students what they needed to understand things at their beginning level. When a neutron decays it does produce a proton and an electron (and an electron antineutrino, but that's usually ignored). So once could very loosely say that a neutron is made of a proton and an electron. But of course, in reality, a neutron is not actually made of a proton and an electron. But I imagine that the class would have been completely lost if on the first day of class of the very first chemistry class the professor had instead said, "A neutron is made of 1 up quark - with a +2/3 charge - and 2 down quarks - each with a -1/3 charge - while a proton is made of 2 up quarks and 1 down quark, and the weak force causes one of a neutron's down quarks to be converted into an up quark, thereby converting the neutron into a proton and also emitting a higher energy electron as a beta particle and an electron antineutrino, which can't be directly detected in the vast majority of cases, but must be there in order not to violate certain conservation laws."

 

Only someone who already knew that a neutron is not actually made of a proton and an electron would be thrown off at all by the statement.

 

FreeThinker: But think of the harm he is doing to the class!

 

I don't think he is doing any harm to the class....I think he is helping the class. A kindergarten teacher doesn't teach his/her kids that you can subtract 2 from 1...that would only confuse them. You tell the student what they need to know at the particular level they are at. This was the very first day of class of the very first chemistry class. Later on, if the need arises, when the students are more familiar with atoms, they can be told about quarks. But when the students have reached a higher level, why tell them? Chemistry really doesn't care much about the constituents of neutrons and protons -chemistry happens at the electron level. Quarks are more a physics area.

 

It's like biology students being able to get by thinking of atoms as miniature solar systems. Biologists don't really care much about quantum mechanics: little solar system atoms are good enough for biology (not biochemistry, but that gets down to chemistry), which deals with systems at a much higher and more complex level.

 

So some things that are appropriate for a biology class are not appropriate for a chemistry class, and some things that are appropriate for a chemistry class are not appropriate for a physcis class.

 

FreeThinker: Ask him what he thinks of the BB and Evolution. Be interesting to see if he's a Creationist!

 

I've seen no indication that the professor is a Creationist.

 

My point in even bringing it up was related to the "you CAN subtract 2 from 1" comment. In school, we are all taught things that are wrong. We are taught what is appropriate for the subject being studied and for the level we are at. We later may be studying a different subject and/or be at a more advanced level, and then learn that what we were originally taught was not totally correct. That doesn't make the original teachers liars, bastards, or stupid.