Heisenberg's uncertainty principle, as it came to be known later, started as an assertion that when trying to measure one aspect of a particle precisely, say its position, experimenters would necessarily "blur out" the precision in its speed.
Photons can be prepared in pairs which are inextricably tied to one another, in a delicate quantum state called entanglement, and the weak measurement idea is to infer information about them as they pass, before and after carrying out a formal measurement.
As most people interested in the subject know, what is 'blurred out' isn't always 'speed' (actually momentum); it depends on what's being measured.
But here on ATS, it will be amusing to see how our New Age 'quantum consciousness' fans respond to the news...
What are other examples of variables of the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle?
Seems those people got under your skin. (blah blah) What is the nail in the coffin of "quantum consciousness" here?
If you try to measure momentum, it's position that gets 'blurred out'.
Seems you're trying to pick a fight. Get lost.
Originally posted by BuckWilder
reply to post by Astyanax
If you try to measure momentum, it's position that gets 'blurred out'.
So what does this mean with regards to debunking quantum consciousness?
The thread title is incorrect/incomplete I think. The uncertainty principle is not violated.
At the instant of time when the position is determined, that is, at the instant when the photon is scattered by the electron, the electron undergoes a discontinuous change in momentum. This change is the greater the smaller the wavelength of the light employed, i.e., the more exact the determination of the position.
*
Using weak measurements to experimentally characterize a system before and after it interacts with a measurement apparatus, we have directly measured its precision and the disturbance. This has allowed us to measure a violation of Heisenberg's hypothesized MDR. Our work conclusively shows that, although correct for uncertainties in states, the form of Heisenberg's precision limit is incorrect if naively applied to measurement. Our work highlights an important fundamental difference between uncertainties in states and the limitations of measurement in quantum mechanics.
As already stated, I'm not keen on discussing mind-over-matter speculations arising from half-grasped ideas about quantum uncertainty (and I'm pretty sure you aren't, either, moebius). I like it when threads in the ATS science forum are about science, not metaphysics or mysticism. However, it may be worth pointing out that what has been accomplished by these experimentalists is as follows: they observed the system as well as the change they caused by observing it. The subjectivity of observation, which is the plank on which most of these speculations is based, was thus eliminated; an objectively trustworthy picture of the system can after all be derived, independent of our observation of it.
While there is a rigorously proven relationship about uncertainties intrinsic to any quantum system, often referred to as Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle," Heisenberg originally formulated his ideas in terms of a relationship between the precision of a measurement and the disturbance it must create. Although this latter relationship is not rigorously proven, it is commonly believed (and taught) as an aspect of the broader uncertainty principle.
The Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle is one of the cor-
nerstones of quantum mechanics. In his original paper
on the subject, Heisenberg wrote At the instant of time
when the position is determined, that is, at the instant
when the photon is scattered by the electron, the elec-
tron undergoes a discontinuous change in momentum.
This change is the greater the smaller the wavelength of
the light employed, i.e., the more exact the determina-
tion of the position
The modern version of the un- certainty principle proved in our textbooks today, how- ever, deals not with the precision of a measurement and the disturbance it introduces, but with the intrinsic uncertainty any quantum state must possess, regardless of what measurement (if any) is performed [2{4].
In conclusion, using weak measurements to experimentally characterize a system before and after it interacts with a measurement apparatus, we have directly measured its precision and the disturbance. This has allowed us to measure a violation of Heisenberg's hypothesized MDR. Our work conclusively shows that, although correct for uncertainties in states, the form of Heisenberg's precision limit is incorrect if naively applied to measurement.
Objective reality, uncertain as it may be, is nonetheless conserved.
Our work highlights an important fundamental difference between uncertainties in states and the limita- tions of measurement in quantum mechanics.
As already stated, I'm not keen on discussing mind-over-matter speculations arising from half-grasped ideas about quantum uncertainty (and I'm pretty sure you aren't, either, moebius). I like it when threads in the ATS science forum are about science, not metaphysics or mysticism.
Incidentally, the BBC article contains an error:
As most people interested in the subject know, what is 'blurred out' isn't always 'speed' (actually momentum); it depends on what's being measured.
Heisenberg's uncertainty principle, as it came to be known later, started as an assertion that when trying to measure ONE ASPECT of a particle precisely, SAY its position, experimenters would necessarily "blur out" the precision in its speed.
