It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Thank you.

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

# An uncertanty in "Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principal".

page: 2
0
share:

posted on Mar, 19 2006 @ 04:50 PM
The general uncertainty principle is extremely easy to derive if you know linear algebra. As long as you can convince yourself that x and p are Hermitian operators, then you just plug them into the general uncertainty. From there, you will arrive at Heisenburg's uncertainty principle. The math should convince anyone that it's correct.

posted on Mar, 19 2006 @ 09:13 PM

Originally posted by off2_infinity

Originally posted by Rasobasi420
I see, because the the quantum state of matter is so "uncertain", by that I mean particles bouncing in and out of existence, relying on probability to control their states, measuring anything at any particular time does little good because it won't be in that exact state again.

what exactly does it mean for something to rely on probability? i mean, prob isnt a law, its not even mathematically sound... prob is like escapism... there must be some hidden variable or an undiscovered law that can explain the apparent randomness observed in quantum systems... declaring that such things are 'governed by probability' is like trying to shirk from findin the right description...

If I'm wrong I'm sure someone will correct me quickly, but the stocastic nature of QM is what Einstein was objecting to when he famously said "God does not play dice".

This, along with a few other aspects of QM, completely blew my mind when I first heard them in college Phys Chem II. I knew then that I had to get to the bottom of this idea.

Another way to express the Uncertainty Principle is

(delta E)(delta t)

posted on Mar, 19 2006 @ 09:27 PM
I have been studying qmechanics for some time as a layman.

I find that it is actually building a bridge to the mystical experience.

To be truthfull, you have a better probability of an entire thanksgiving diner materializing on your dinning room table than you do understanding quantum reality.

I read a cool book called quantum evolution which says that the building blocks of life actually went into the quantum realm and found the combination to generate self reproductive patterns of energy.

I think the quantum world is the gateway to God.

I am also interested in WHEN the quantum(micro) becomes macro. Especially in our minds and the protiens that make our brains.

posted on Mar, 19 2006 @ 10:03 PM

Originally posted by Byrd
It simply shows that the writers of Star Trek iddn't hold PhDs in physics.

They made alot of the stuff up as they went along.

The orginal Star Trek never intended to even use Teleporters it was planned that they would use Shuttle craft but the prop department was way behind they need a cheap and instant way to get the crew on the planet. Thus the teleporter was born.

Only later when people use to write in about how stuff worked on the show with fan questions and such did they invent the "Heisenberg compensator " to help explain how the teleporter worked.

posted on Mar, 20 2006 @ 05:39 PM

Originally posted by Valhall

Originally posted by off2_infinity

there must be some hidden variable or an undiscovered law that can explain the apparent randomness observed in quantum systems...

Very good point! We are only constrained by the knowledge envelope we are working within right now!
No telling what tomorrow will bring!

Onward and upward!

Bell's inequalities prove there are no hidden variables.

My opinion is that we can not measure the velocity and position of a particle, because its velocity and position depends on the velocity and position of each surrounding particles. Thus every time we make a move to measure a particle, the particle changes position or velocity.

Trying to measure a particle's velocity and position is like to trying to grab chopsticks with chopsticks that are connected at the edges: it would be impossible, since every move of your chopsticks would move the other chopsticks as well.

The only way to measure exactly the position and velocity of a particle would be to measure it from another dimension that would not affect the particle. For example, if we had access to Star Trek's subspace, we could measure the particle from there.

Star Trek is the greatest show ever. It has so much depth, and there is so much hidden wisdom in it, that it really takes thousands of viewing time to really comprehend it. It is a great insight on humanity, and I certainly do not have a problem with its pseudo-science, because if the science was real, it would not be fiction, but a documentary (and I would be on USS Enterprise D right now).

posted on Mar, 21 2006 @ 04:36 AM

The only way to measure exactly the position and velocity of a particle would be to measure it from another dimension that would not affect the particle. For example, if we had access to Star Trek's subspace, we could measure the particle from there.

No. As I said before..... the properties of velocity/momentum and location at the quantum level are quantum properties. It is impossible for a particle to possess the two properties precisely simultaneously. Forget about the macroscopic labels of "momentum" and "location" and substitute lables "blahness" and "blingness" if you like - at the quantum scale the terms don't mean quite what they do on the macroscopic one. Even could you measure without disturbing the system at all, you would find that the properties did not exist precisely simultaneously.

posted on Mar, 21 2006 @ 07:31 AM
As far as my schooling has gone, the only place where Heisenburg's uncertainty principle can be violated is in Quantum Field Theory, because nothing is observable. Basically, if you can observe something, it must obey Heisenburg's Uncertainty. It's a rock solid derivation and there's really nothing about it that can be question.

Someone mentioned the energy-time uncertainty - that equation, which is (delta E)(delta t) >= h-bar, involves hand-waving. Although it works and is very important, it actually isn't as solid as Heisenburg's Uncertainty.

If anyone wants me to go through the math and derivation, I'd be glad to.

posted on Mar, 21 2006 @ 04:34 PM

Originally posted by d60944

The only way to measure exactly the position and velocity of a particle would be to measure it from another dimension that would not affect the particle. For example, if we had access to Star Trek's subspace, we could measure the particle from there.

No. As I said before..... the properties of velocity/momentum and location at the quantum level are quantum properties. It is impossible for a particle to possess the two properties precisely simultaneously. Forget about the macroscopic labels of "momentum" and "location" and substitute lables "blahness" and "blingness" if you like - at the quantum scale the terms don't mean quite what they do on the macroscopic one. Even could you measure without disturbing the system at all, you would find that the properties did not exist precisely simultaneously.

No, it is impossible for us to measure both at the same time. Quantum theory does not prove that "it is impossible for a particle to have both momentum and location at the same time". It simply states that we can not measure both properties at the same time..which does not exclude the fact that a particle can have both velocity and position. Since it would be highly illogical to assume that the quantum world acts in random (since all the universe obeys physical laws, even down to the most microscopic level), the only remaining hypothesis is that we simply can not measure both properties simultaneously.

posted on May, 22 2008 @ 10:04 AM

new topics

top topics

0