Search FQXi


If you are aware of an interesting new academic paper (that has been published in a peer-reviewed journal or has appeared on the arXiv), a conference talk (at an official professional scientific meeting), an external blog post (by a professional scientist) or a news item (in the mainstream news media), which you think might make an interesting topic for an FQXi blog post, then please contact us at forums@fqxi.org with a link to the original source and a sentence about why you think that the work is worthy of discussion. Please note that we receive many such suggestions and while we endeavour to respond to them, we may not be able to reply to all suggestions.

Please also note that we do not accept unsolicited posts and we cannot review, or open new threads for, unsolicited articles or papers. Requests to review or post such materials will not be answered. If you have your own novel physics theory or model, which you would like to post for further discussion among then FQXi community, then please add them directly to the "Alternative Models of Reality" thread, or to the "Alternative Models of Cosmology" thread. Thank you.

Forum Home
Introduction
Terms of Use

Order posts by:
 chronological order
 most recent first

Display:
 all posts
 member posts highlighted
 member posts only

By using the FQXi Forum, you acknowledge reading and agree to abide by the Terms of Use

 RSS feed | RSS help
RECENT POSTS IN THIS TOPIC

Robert McEachern: on 8/29/16 at 18:43pm UTC, wrote The Uncertainty Principle is fundamental, because it is the limiting case...

John Prytz: on 12/12/14 at 12:09pm UTC, wrote Peter, Actually I have long since concluded that the cosmos is a...

Peter Jackson: on 12/11/14 at 17:14pm UTC, wrote John, You proposed that removing 'observers' removed uncertainty, which...

John Prytz: on 12/11/14 at 1:47am UTC, wrote Peter, I have never claimed, ever, that God or any manner of supernatural...

Peter Jackson: on 12/10/14 at 23:55pm UTC, wrote John, If a God built the universe as a computer why would she do so?...

John Prytz: on 12/10/14 at 13:14pm UTC, wrote HEISENBERG UNCERTAINTY PRINCIPLE Where does the uncertainty reside in the...

John Prytz: on 12/6/14 at 13:47pm UTC, wrote THE MANY POTENTIAL LIVES OF RADIOACTIVITY When you study radioactivity in...

John Prytz: on 11/28/14 at 11:53am UTC, wrote CAUSALITY: FOUNDED ON BEDROCK, OR IN QUICKSAND? Every effect has a natural...



FQXi FORUM
September 26, 2021

CATEGORY: Ultimate Reality [back]
TOPIC: Uncertainty Relations - Fundamental or No? [refresh]
Bookmark and Share
Login or create account to post reply or comment.

Spiridon Dumitru wrote on Feb. 8, 2011 @ 16:31 GMT
Will the Uncertainty Relations Survive as

Fundamental Pieces in the Future of Physics?

by Spiridon DUMITRU

In this short text (by direct references to two my recent paper [1, 2] ) we try to evince the incorrectness of the largely agreed idea that Uncertainty Relations (UR) are fundamental pieces for the (present and) future of physics. The popularity of the respective...

view entire post


attachments: Do_the_Uncertainty_Relations_Really_have_Crucial_Significances_for_Physics..pdf, Reconsideration_of_the_Uncertainty_Relations_and_Quantum_Measurements.pdf

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate
Jose P koshy replied on Oct. 25, 2011 @ 05:04 GMT
In plain words, I think, what you have said is that QM is fundamentally wrong, but QMS are helpful as a mathematical toll. Or in other words, the uncertainty principle is mathematical and not physical. So do you think there is no duality?

In my opnion, even if there is duality, there should be mechanism and also a time factor for changing from particle form to the waveform. There cannot be any instant-duality.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Cristinel Stoica wrote on Feb. 11, 2011 @ 13:16 GMT
Heisenberg's Relations vs. Uncertainty

Quantum Mechanics, in particular the Uncertainty Relations, need indeed a good interpretation. Well, I think that it is more than a matter of interpretation. If its internal logic is self-consistent, then there would not be needed an interpretation. The long discussions about interpretations actually reveal the existence of internal inconsistencies in...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate
Cristinel Stoica replied on Feb. 11, 2011 @ 13:21 GMT
Sorry, the video is here.

attachments: 1_smooth_qm.pdf

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Jeremy Horne replied on Feb. 12, 2011 @ 23:42 GMT
Two thoughts occur to me as a philosopher - dialectics and Kant.

First, what emerged from the South Asian subcontinent 4500 years ago a la the Vedas was dialectics. That is, something is apprehended in terms of what it is not. It is a process epistemology, where we cannot identify anything except in terms of its "other". A modern rendition of this is Hegel's Phenomenology. It seems that paradoxes, such as the wave-particle duality, arise because people try seeing something in isolation - an either-or thinking. Yet, if one views a wave (a continuum) in terms of particle (discreteness), it starts to make sense. In logic, these are called "duals", and the more we open our eyes, the more we see of them and less of phenomena as paradoxes.

Second, I am reminded of Kant's appearance and reality, where reality is the "full life" of something, and the appearance is an instance of it immediately in our time in front of us. A wave is a particle's "full life", in the same sense that a video is the "full life" of a particular scene. Perhaps this is an approach to explaining the "why" of the Born Rule.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


James Putnam wrote on Feb. 19, 2011 @ 00:47 GMT
Excellent subject. I hope to be able to contribute to this topic.

James

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


George Rajna wrote on Feb. 25, 2011 @ 17:37 GMT
The most important basis of the String Theory is the Uncertainty Relations of Heisenberg, since only this way can be sure that the particles are oscillating in some way by the electromagnetic field with constant energies in the atom indefinitely. Also not by chance that the uncertainty measure is equal to the fermions spin, which is one of the most important feature of the particles. The attached document also uses the Uncertainty Relations as one of the most important basis to explain the most basic interactions, using also the Spontaneously Broken Symmetries and the Planck Distribution Law and gives a physical explanations for a 3 geometric dimensional String Theory.

attachments: 1_PhysicsUnified.tif

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Tony Way wrote on Jun. 21, 2011 @ 02:14 GMT
A simple idea that can't be right: Is Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle just a consequence of the limitations of what an elemental entity can know?

As I understand it, all knowledge of "other" is acquired by one photon interacting with "me" (an elemental entity) and thus transmitting information about one "other" (another elemental entity) with which it has interacted at one time in the past. If I assume that photon's information is "fundamental" (i.e. contains only information about the instantaneous state of "other") then I would expect that I could not derive information about the state of "other" at an earlier or later time (i.e. its trajectory). Were I to have exact information about "other's" location and momentum, then I would be able to know at least its immediate past and future state (i.e. its trajectory). However, since photon has no information about "other" before or after its interaction, it cannot provide exact information about both location and momentum. In simple terms, I can not know what photon has not observed.

This naïve hypothesis is surely wrong since I am not a physicist, philosopher, or mathematician. I appeal to those who know to explain my error.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Ilja Schmelzer wrote on Sep. 29, 2011 @ 20:39 GMT
There is de Broglie-Bohm theory, which is deterministic, but in agreement with quantum theory if we presuppose quantum equilibrium.

This seems already sufficient to prove that the uncertainty relations do not have to be fundamental. They may be simply restrictions caused by our insufficient possibilities.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Jose P koshy wrote on Oct. 24, 2011 @ 05:14 GMT
I think the fundamental problem in physics is the non-separation of physical and mathematical concepts. The physical world should be physically defined. The mathematical part is only for verification and for extracting predictable results. The uncertainty principle is purely mathematical. But the instant-duality (the alive-dead Schrodinger's cat) that follows from it is a physical concept based entirely on a mathematical concept, and so it is misleading.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Spiridon DUMITRU wrote on Feb. 21, 2012 @ 09:09 GMT
Spiridon DUMITRU :

"ROUTES OF QUANTUM MECHANICS THEORIES"

' - a collage – '

The conclusive view of quantum mechanics theory depends on its routes in respect with CIUR (Conventional Interpretation of Uncertainty Relations).

As the CIUR is obligatorily assumed or interdicted the mentioned view leads

to ambiguous, deficient and unnatural visions respectively to a potentially simple, mended and natural conception. The

alluded dependence is illustrated in the attached poster.

attachments: 2_Routes_of_Quantum_Mechanics_Theories...pdf

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Wilhelmus de Wilde de Wilde wrote on Feb. 22, 2012 @ 15:24 GMT
Uncertainty is a result of the fact that measurement is always taking place in the past of the "wave/particle". A measurement of the probability of a location of a particle is resulting in the collapse of the wave function. This collapse is the moment (lapse of time of this moment : Planck time) and the place (length : Planck length) after this observation the wave function of the "particle" is reinstalled, and again the probabilities of a possible location are diverse. That is how the two (and more) split experiment can be explained in a logic way. beyond these untill now minimum lapse of time and minimum length our universe becomes non-causal because there is no place for the cause and event together, so neither of them is reality.(see also Realities out of Total Simultaneity)

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Sridattadev wrote on Feb. 23, 2012 @ 15:58 GMT
Dear All,

Singularity (soul or conscience or universal i) is the only absolute "string" (source of all the waves) in the universe, this truth can only be known by the self and not observed with our senses. What we observe with our senses is the limited view of this universal string, which results in discrete particle duality or relativity.

Please see the absolute mathematical truth of singularity at

zero = i = infinity

Love,

Sridattadev.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Nimit Th. wrote on May. 7, 2012 @ 06:40 GMT
By the way, it is interesting to note that according to conventional quantum mechanics, nowadays physicists still do not know why and how (particle such as) electron can act both wave and particle property! May be knowing the mechanism of wave-particle duality (in paper below) will guide us understanding the mechanism of uncertainty relation!

[link]http://www.vacuum-mechanics.com/index.php?opt
ion=com_wrapper&view=wrapper&Itemid=17&lang=en

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Nimit Th. wrote on May. 7, 2012 @ 06:54 GMT
By the way, it is interesting to note that according to conventional quantum mechanics, nowadays physicists still do not know why and how (particle such as) electron can act both wave and particle property! May be knowing the mechanism of wave-particle duality (in paper below) will guide us understanding the mechanism of uncertainty relation!

http://www.vacuum-mechanics.com/index.php?option=co
m_wrapper&view=wrapper&Itemid=17&lang=en


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


basudeba wrote on May. 23, 2012 @ 14:27 GMT
Dear Sir,

In a paper “Is Reality Digital or Analogue” published by the FQXi Community on Dec. 29, 2010, we have shown that: uncertainty is not a law of Nature. It is the result of natural laws relating to measurement that reveal a kind of granularity at certain levels of existence that is related to causality. The left hand side of all valid equations or inequalities represents...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


John Prytz wrote on Nov. 9, 2014 @ 11:27 GMT
QUANTUM TUNNELLING, CAUSALITY AND RADIOACTIVE DECAY

We’re all frightened by radioactivity. We associate it with high level nuclear waste; atomic weapons and the mass destruction of nuclear war; Hiroshima and Nagasaki; Three Mile Island and Chernobyl; radioactive fallout that causes cancer and biological mutations. What I’m most frightened about radioactivity is that there is no rational...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


John Prytz wrote on Nov. 20, 2014 @ 12:26 GMT
QUANTUM UNCERTAINTY: WHERE’S JANE?

Quantum physics is weird for a whole lot of reasons. One of the central reasons is that all things in the quantum realm are stated in terms of probabilities, or uncertainties, or indeterminacy. That’s unlike the realm of classical physics, the realm our normal day-to-day lives are lived in. However, I use an analogy from the classical world to...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


John Prytz wrote on Nov. 22, 2014 @ 12:37 GMT
REFLECTIONS ON A PANE OF GLASS: IT’S A QUANTUM PAIN IN THE QUANTUM PANE

In quantum physics, you often deduce that those residents of the micro realm, those elementary particles, have some very strange properties bordering on a quasi-free will. They sort of possess a ‘mind’ of their own. They seemingly have the ability to ‘know’ things about their external world and their...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate
Akinbo Ojo replied on Nov. 22, 2014 @ 13:51 GMT
What if light is wave and not particle (photon), would that alleviate your quantum pain?

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Anonymous replied on Nov. 23, 2014 @ 12:25 GMT
Akinbo,

No, that wouldn't cut the mustard since in each and every physics book I've looked at, the photon has been defined as a particle. The photon is part and parcel of the standard model of particle physics. The photon might wave, but my hand can wave too and it's not a wave-wave. Regarding the particle nature of photons, there's the photoelectric effect. Photons have been used in entanglement experiments. Photons have been fired one at a time in double-slit experiments. An electron migrates to a higher energy level or orbit because it absorbs a photon. I somehow think that eliminating the particle nature of a photon from physics as we know it would cause so much despair among the physics profession that - well perhaps we'd better not cause any undue angst. We wouldn't want to be responsible for any unfortunate incidents.

John Prytz

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


John Prytz wrote on Nov. 27, 2014 @ 11:41 GMT
QUANTUM PHYSICS: PROBABILITY vs. CERTAINTY

It is absolutely impossible to read any popular account on quantum physics without running into the words “probability” or “uncertainty” if not in each and every paragraph, then at least on each and every page. Quantum physics and probability fit together like a left hand and a left handed glove! But it’s all bovine fertilizer since the...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


John Prytz wrote on Nov. 28, 2014 @ 11:53 GMT
CAUSALITY: FOUNDED ON BEDROCK, OR IN QUICKSAND?

Every effect has a natural cause which preceded it in time. You live your entire life confident in the reality of that principle. If you do (or don’t do) such-and-such, a further down-the-track such-and-such will (or won’t) happen. If any violation of that principle happened to you, you’d come to doubt your reality, thinking instead...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


John Prytz wrote on Dec. 6, 2014 @ 13:47 GMT
THE MANY POTENTIAL LIVES OF RADIOACTIVITY

When you study radioactivity in high school or anything that relates to radioactive dating, you’re drilled in the fact that any and every radioactive (unstable) nuclei decay at a fixed mathematical rate called the half-life. Each ‘brand’ of nuclei has its own half-life that’s applicable or unique to those particular nuclei. What’s probably...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


John Prytz wrote on Dec. 10, 2014 @ 13:14 GMT
HEISENBERG UNCERTAINTY PRINCIPLE

Where does the uncertainty reside in the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle? In every definition or description of the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle I've come across, it is stated explicitly or implied that there is an observer or stand-in proxies measuring device that's part and parcel of the overall Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle picture.

A common example of the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle is that a photon bounces off an electron. The photon enables the observer to 'see' the electron, but that bouncing off bit alters the trajectory of the electron so the electron isn't where the photon that the observer sees says it is - thus the uncertainty.

Thus, the uncertainty rests with the observer or associated proxies. It's the observer who is uncertain or in a position of uncertainty.

Now remove the observer from the scenario leaving just the photon and the electron doing their thing. Is there any quantitative or qualitative amount of uncertainty left? If you eliminate or remove the observer then where does that leave the uncertainty? That's not just an academic question since once upon a time the Universe contained no observers and even today 99.99999% of the cosmos is free of observer peeping toms.

IMHO, once the observer is eliminated from the picture there is no longer any uncertainty inherent in the picture.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Peter Jackson wrote on Dec. 10, 2014 @ 23:55 GMT
John,

If a God built the universe as a computer why would she do so? Because she already knew how it would all turn out? (deterministic), or to find out? (uncertain).

Causality does not imply absolute determinism so also not absolute certainty.

An observer is then simply a non-special part of the system producing the same outcomes in the same way. We may chase uncertainty down to higher orders, but to resolve it we need a computer the size of the universe, and the outcome state will not be known, until the other possible states finally 'collapse'!

Why would a God build a computer if the only answer it could produce was already known? Even a deterministic computer game outcome is uncertain, observer or not.

Best wishes

Peter

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate
John Prytz replied on Dec. 11, 2014 @ 01:47 GMT
Peter,

I have never claimed, ever, that God or any manner of supernatural deity built the Universe as a computer. If you are referring to my ideas about our being in a simulated landscape, part of an overall Simulated (Virtual Reality) Universe, then you will have noted that I have consistently speculated that the Supreme Programmer was/is a mortal, fallible, flesh-and-blood entity - perhaps human; perhaps alien. Just as we have created tens of thousands of simulations, virtual reality landscapes, then so too one level on up the line, we might be in that same boat.

As to motivations, I've already posted an essay on that subject on the 18th of November 2014 in the Alternative Models of Reality section.

John Prytz

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Peter Jackson replied on Dec. 11, 2014 @ 17:14 GMT
John,

You proposed that removing 'observers' removed uncertainty, which makes the universe fully 'deterministic', so all is 'pre-determined'. That is the very well argued and established logical progression.

Perhaps you didn't realise that, but I argued that firstly that is not the case, and then in any case there would be no point even if there were some intelligence to pre-determine it.

Unless you found some OTHER credible motivation?

Best wishes

Peter

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

John Prytz replied on Dec. 12, 2014 @ 12:09 GMT
Peter,

Actually I have long since concluded that the cosmos is a deterministic one, and thus we don't have any free will as one of the consequences (see some of my "free will" posts under the topic of Complexity hence the subtopic of Biological Creativity).

Anyway, my rational is the following, and alas, there's nothing original in this on my part. I'll start with the really real Universe. At the time of the origin or creation of the Universe, that Big Bang event, all of the laws, relationships and principles of physics were set in cement and thus all subsequent events that flowed or evolved out from those flowed out in a deterministic order.

If we exist in a Simulated (Virtual Reality) Universe, a virtually real cosmos, then one of two scenarios are possible. Firstly we are characters in a video game and someone (the programmer and/or the gamer) is pulling the strings - we are all puppets on a string. He / she / it / they determine who, what, where, when, why and how. We get no say in the matter.

The other possibility is akin to many of our simulation scenarios. We program in some set of laws, principles and relationships, hit "enter" or "run program" and sit back and see what eventuates. What happens is 100% fixed by those very laws, principles and relationships that were initially programmed in. This is what I call "cast your fate to the wind mode".

End of story. There are no uncertainties or probabilities apart from those that exist in the minds of the observers, albeit through no fault of their own. In the case of the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle, eliminate the observers and you eliminate the associated uncertainty because that damn electron is somewhere with fixed coordinates and not in a zillion different places at the same time. If nothing else, the electron knows where it is!

John Prytz

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Robert H McEachern wrote on Aug. 29, 2016 @ 18:43 GMT
The Uncertainty Principle is fundamental, because it is the limiting case of Shannon's Capacity

Rob McEachern

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Login or create account to post reply or comment.

Please enter your e-mail address:
Note: Joining the FQXi mailing list does not give you a login account or constitute membership in the organization.