Can Heisenberg's Uncertainy Principle be mistaken?

Post Reply New Topic

Is the Uncertainy Principle based on what could be an erroneous assumption? If one discovered another method for observing subatomic particles; wouldn't it be possible that one could in theory observe both position and momentum with equal precision?
Meaning is the Principle only true because of the limits of our current level of technology?

Last edited by Namazu on 03 Aug 2011, 1:39 am, edited 2 times in total.

I suppose it's possible, but experiment leads scientists to believe with high confidence that there is something about the nature of the particles themselves that makes them behave in accordance to Heisenburg's uncertainty principle. Unfortunately I lost a copy of Richard Feynman's QED before I was able to read it all. The description makes Heisenburg's Principle "irrelevant" (in the sense that it's superflourus) Heinsenburg's principle is inherent consequence of Quantum Electro-Dynamics, which is the best known understanding ever developed of sub-atomic particles. It has a high predictive power, the accuracy of it's predictions are higher than any other product of science has ever produced. So it seems that is the way things are.

Then again, I am merely forwarding to you knowlege I have got from various sources intending to explain the phenomenon to the layman. I have not conducted the experiments, nor do I think I am capable of understanding the mathematics - so I don't have the capacity to independently verify these claims.

The issues is, to determine information about a particle or object, one must ultimately interact with it, changing it's state.

For example, if you wanted to know if an otherwise isolated object was hot or cold, you would have to touch it with something, but in doing so, a heat exchange would have to take place between the two objects.

If you were measuring the temperature to a high degree of precision, the temperature of the object would likely have been different before you measured it because of heat transfer between the two objects, and so your reading is not actually.

Without directly interfering with the object, we can only guess it's state, or know it with some percentage of certainty.

It is logically possible. Do you have any empirical evidence that falsifies the uncertainty principle?

None of the current theories in physics are self-evident or true a priori. It is possible for any of them or all of them to be falsified by empirical means. That is what makes them scientific theories instead of philosophical or theological systems.

ruveyn

It's because sub-atomic "particles" don't have particle-like properties (more accurately: they have some properties of particles, but not others, and some wave-like properties, but not others), and when you use any method to measure particle-like properties, you get results that are strange (counter-intuitive, because thinking of them as particles in the first place is actually a mistake).

I.e. imagine a pond and dropping a rock into it. So, a series of waves is propagating across the surface. Now, ask, "where is the particle?" The question doesn't make sense, because it's a wave, not a particle. If you ask, "how fast is the particle moving?," it's the same thing, because the front of the wave is moving faster than the back (the wave is spreading out).

In QM, the wave is equivalent to the probability distribution of finding the particle at a certain point. The primary particle-like property of quantum particles is that when you look for it, you'll either find it or you won't. You never find half of the particle here and half over there, even if the probability distribution at those 2 points is 50% each. And the wave-like property is that the probability functions act like waves, in terms of how they combine and interact with things.

So, it's not a matter of technological limitations. It's that given the way that things are defined, the concept of a particle is not the one we're normally accustomed to thinking about. I've seen the term "wavicles" in old texts, but for whatever reason that term fell out of favor and everyone started using "particles," even though it's not really the right term to use.

^ This is is the most concisely well-written explanation that I've read since my uni days.

As for the OP, the question is asked without giving proposals as to why our current understanding of physical principles should be re-evaluated. Are there examples describing the simultaneous measurement of a particle's velocity and it's position?

No it was just the arguements presented in the Bohr–Einstein debates that led me to believe that if you could change the nature of how you observe the particle; i.e. find a method that didn't have any physical impact on the particle being observed. Then would it not also be possible to determine (in the abscence of indirect changes to how the particle behaves) the behaviour of the particles in their natural state and thereby enable simultaneous measurement of both current position and future momentum with equal acurracy?

I offer no theories on how one would go about accomplishing this sort of observation. I am just asking if there were such a method; wouldn't that in essence make it possible to disprove that unpredictability is an absolute? On the other hand wouldn't such an experiment also have the potential to prove an inherent unpredictability; if even with the absence of unintended changes to its behaviour; the particles continued to behave in the manner we formerly observed with conventional methods?

It is all hypothetical. Admittedly my understanding of QM is pretty rudimentary. I apologise if what I propose displays a profound ignorance of any underlying factors that my idea outright contradicts. It's just a random thought I had. No frustration or insult intended; so feel free to correct me if you get the urge. I am always willing to learn.

Last edited by Namazu on 03 Aug 2011, 1:12 am, edited 1 time in total.

Oh and thank you Apple. That little bit of info on the behaviour of sub atomic "Wavicles" ( I wonder why the term didn't stick?) would make my proposal significantly harder to undertake. Like I said my understanding of quantum mechanics is sorely limited. I was simply voicing a curiousity that I had and I wanted input from those with a better understanding of the subject. I didn't intend for my question to seem like I was challenging any established theory; at least not directly. It was simply a hypothetical.

Last edited by Namazu on 03 Aug 2011, 1:24 am, edited 1 time in total.

Oh, I think it's fine to ponder such stuff -- there are different interpretations of QM, after all. All I meant to do was an "information dump" of what I know about the subject (and there's plenty that I don't know).

Oh ... the OP was just speculation. May as well speculate on "What if the Speed of Light could be doubled?" or "What if we could find the 'OFF' switch for gravity?" or "Would dehydrated water be a commercially viable resource?".

I read somewhere that if I read the states of all the sub atomic particles in my body, I would cease to exist. Is this true or is this a kind of theoretical scenario to prove a point? How could viewing a particles state fundamentaly change the same particles state. Spooky!

You may find these videos of liquid helium experiments fascinating, given your interest in the uncertainty principle.

http://www.youtube.com/view_play_list?feature=iv&p=442F47F12D99C4D2&annotation_id=annotation_121562

I like the idea of turning space into mass, and all mass into space. The argument could be made that space is also changing in an uncertain way.

Humm.. thoughts and more thoughts.