Question: how the uncertainty principle works?

[Freethinker]

Originally posted by: TeleMad

No, it was just an off-the-cuff comment...not in the syllabus or any handouts and nothing he focussed on.

Oh, the way it read I thought it was part of his details on chemical bonding and such and would be used like that regularly. Remember, I had 4 years of electronics. 2 in HS and 2 in College and it was always the flying ball. No attempt to even open the other discussion.

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.

Teaching in general is done very poorly from what exposure I have ever had. Both as student and parent. There have been a few gloawing exceptions along the way. But they are really exceptions. The entire approach needs correcting and yor comment is a perfect example of why.

 

Why can't the younger child be taught that it isn't we CAN'T 1-2= it's that we are going to talk about that later. Or why not reward a GOOD QUESSTION with a positive response instead of telling the inquisitive child they are wrong and then making them unlearn it later?

 

Sorry, off topic.

[TINNY]

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.

Freethinker, can you explain this one again. believers say QM is proof of conciousness/intelligence of the universe. atheists say the exact opposite.

[Freethinker]

Originally posted by: TINNY

Freethinker, can you explain this one again. believers say QM is proof of conciousness/intelligence of the universe. atheists say the exact opposite.

 

Well we have seen consistantly that Believers will lie about everything. And have no concept of Science. Instead twisting it into unrecognizable nonsense.

 

So let's look at yet another example.

 

We could start at the most basic level of Uncertainty.

 

Uncertainty - (from Uncertain WWWebster) 1 : INDEFINITE, INDETERMINATE <the time of departure is uncertain>

2 : not certain to occur : PROBLEMATICAL

3 : not reliable : UNTRUSTWORTHY

4 a : not known beyond doubt : DUBIOUS b : not having certain knowledge : DOUBTFUL c : not clearly identified or defined

5 : not constant : VARIABLE, FITFUL

 

Now compare that to one of the basic definitions of GOD - Omniscient - 1 : having infinite awareness, understanding, and insight

2 : possessed of universal or complete knowledge

 

Thus the two at their very basic structure are completely mutually exclusive.

 

Let's add to this the def of the "Uncertainty Principle" - a principle in quantum mechanics: it is impossible to discern simultaneously and with high accuracy both the position and the momentum of a particle.

 

Thus if there was a god, it would KNOW BOTH with absolute certainty. And therefore it WOULD be possible to know BOTH. THis completely violates the Uncertainty principle.

 

There can not be both a god and QM.

 

We have lots of factual support for QM. The computers we are using PROVE QM.

 

We have absolutely NO proof of ANY god. and QM proves there is none.

 

Now can you explain to us all how a Believer would twist QM to pretend it supports the existence of a god?

[TINNY]

is it not only uncertain from our perspective?

[Freethinker]

Originally posted by: TINNY

is it not only uncertain from our perspective?

"our perspective" has nothing to do with it.

 

Radio Active decay is the same whether we're paying attention or not.

 

Quantum pairs occure whether we know about every one of them or not.

[TINNY]

I mean, we see it AS IF there is no certainty, from our science, our maths and calculations which are not perfect.

 

just like the Laws of Motion by Newton when using rather unsophisticated equipment. but, in actual fact, it is not the true nature of reality - proven by Einstein's theories of relativity.

[Bo]

Well the difference between Newtonian mechanics and relativistic mechanics is something completely different. The last is just a more accurate discription of the former.

Uncertainty in QM is a fundamental propery of the theory. Einstein (and many others) thought that QM was correct, but that something was missing the so called "local hidden variable" However Bell proved in the 60's that any local hidden variable theory is by inconsistend with QM. So there is no way whatsoever to eleminate uncertainty from QM.

 

Bo

[TINNY]

we can just say that god purposely created matter with uncertainty.

[Bo]

we can just say that god purposely created matter with uncertainty.

Of course god is no-where mentioned in the above discussion, so as a conclusion your remark makes no sense, but if you believe that there is a god who created all; then: yes.

 

Bo

[Tim_Lou]

well, the uncertain principle discloses the limitation of science....

[Tormod]

Originally posted by: Tim_Lou

well, the uncertain principle discloses the limitation of science....

 

Well, in a sense, yes. It shows the uncertainty of things at a quantum level. However, the uncertainty principle does not apply to macroscopic objects. We can philosophize that our sun would suddenly tunnel through the galaxy and end up at the other end. But it will not happen.

 

The uncertainty principle was *uncovered* by scientists (like Werner Heisenberg) who realized that it was necessary to take the uncertainty of spatial locality and relativistic speeds into account when they were studying quantum effects. So I'd say that it has no effect on "science" as such. Rather, it is a tool for scientists. Remember, it's called "the uncertainty principle", not "the darn natural law which messes up our results."

[Uncle Martin]

The given names of some things seem to be quite misleading to some. A black hole is NOT a hole, The big bang was not necessarily an explosion, the uncertainty principle, as described above is not really uncertain, just tells us that the more accurately we measure one aspect, the more WE interfere with the other, therefore changing the measured outcome from what would have transpired naturally. I think the "anthropomorphic interference principle" would be a better name.

[TeleMad]

No, as Bo said earlier, the uncertainty principle is a fundamental property of the way nature works: it is not caused by humans.

 

The way the uncertainty principle is often times explained involves the "light microscope" setup where a photon is bounced off of an electron to try to determine both the electron's position and its velocity. A short-wavelength photon is highly localized and therefore gives us a good measurement of where the electron is, but it packs a lot of energy and so disturbs the electron's velocity: thus, by intefering with the electron we've lost, or destroyed, information about velocity. A short-wavelength photon will not disturb the electron's velocity, and we can make a photon as short as we want, basically, thus reducing out inteference to practically 0. But such a photon has very low locality: the wave is spread out and where the photon will be found is very uncertain. Thus, if we "bounce" this photon off of the electron we won't be able to gain much information about the position of the electron. So, we can meausure either position or velocity with great precision, but increasing the precision of one measurement leads to a reduction in the other.

 

That's all fine and good. But that's not the extent of the uncertainty principle. It goes on to say that it is FUNDAMENTALLY IMPOSSIBLE to know both the velocity and position of an electron precisely. The problem involves the way nature works, not in the way we make our measurements.

[Tormod]

Originally posted by: TeleMad

No, as Bo said earlier, the uncertainty principle is a fundamental property of the way nature works: it is not caused by humans.

 

You're right. I have read numerous articles about the "baffling" effect the observer has on what is observed, when it turns out that the very act of observing decides the outcome of an event. Yet this is not because of us being human but because the tools we use to make these observations in themselves cause interference with what is observed.

 

I may have been a bit unclear in my response to Tim when I said that the principle was uncovered by scientists. What I meant was that it was discovered through scientific studies and it was realized that this strange phenomenon was a fundamental law of nature (as far as we know). But my point was only that it does not make science more "uncertain".

[Uncle Martin]

Originally posted by: Uncle Martin

I think the "anthropomorphic interference principle" would be a better name.

I stand corrected. Thanks for clearing that up.

[Bo]

Maybe it's clarifying to describe the mechanism that causes the uncertainty! (and maybe it's not; then forget what i say here )

we have a certain particle and we measure it's position (x)and momentum (p); QM tells us then that the outcome of this experiment is different if we first measure x and then p, or vice versa. More concrete: The measurement of x influences the particle in such a way that the measurement of p is altered (and vice versa). so this means that the quantities p and x can never be known both at the same time. The change in measurement is the basis of the uncertainty.

 

{in a mathematical language this is said: 'p does not commute with x' So my bet for the better name is 'the influence of noncommuting physical properties'}

 

Also from this you can see that the act of measurement is crucial in QM. But remember that a measurement is just for example some photons bouncing of the particle into our eyes. So (imho) not the human intervention, but the interaction with other particles (that on their turn interact with our equipment, which in some way interacts with our neurons, etc) is crucial for this 'act of measurement'

 

Bo

[TeleMad]

The uncertainty principle applies even if we don't make a measurement. For example, it's not limited to position vs. velocity: the uncertainty principle also applies to time vs. energy. That is how virtual particles can be created and why their existence is limited by the amount of energy "borrowed". Virtual particles are being created out in space where there is no one observing them, and they were being created billions of years before humans existed. Uncertainty is a fundamental part of the way nature works: it doesn't rely upon the existence of humans nor on our making measurements.