Heisenberg Uncertainty Principal does not show indeterminism

Post Reply New Topic

1. Some physicists argue that the Heisneberg Uncertainty Principal proves at least some free will ...

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lFLR5vNKiSw[/youtube]


2. Illustration of the "HSU" Heisenberg Uncertainty Principal ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncertainty_principle )



Items in Figure
Delta X = the range of X axis to look for an electron under the microscope
Blue Dot = electron we want to locate
Green Arrow = is the "observer" of a gamma ray light photon of a microscope used to observe or "see" the electron
Red Arrow = is the scattering of light after hitting the electron and then entering the microscope
Angle theta = the unknown angle of scattering of the gamma ray photon into the microscope after hitting the electron

The HSU states that there a fundamental limit to the precision with which certain pairs of physical properties of a particle known as complementary variables,
such as position x and momentum p, can be known simultaneously ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncertainty_principle )

4. The mathematical proof of the HSU

http://www.tjhsst.edu/~2011akessler/notes/hup.pdf

This professor explains the HSU proof. I indexed the time. ( http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=pl ... e_Q#t=3597 )

5. What is happening ...

Heisneberg imagines an experimenter trying to measure the position and momentum of an electron by shooting a photon at it.

Problem 1 (Uncertain momentum) – If the photon has a short wavelength, and therefore, a large momentum, the position can be measured accurately. But the photon scatters in a random direction, transferring a large and uncertain amount of momentum to the electron. If the photon has a long wavelength and low momentum, the collision does not disturb the electron's momentum very much, but the scattering will reveal its position only vaguely.

Problem 2 (Uncertain Position) – If a large aperture is used for the microscope, the electron's location can be well resolved (see Rayleigh criterion); but by the principle of conservation of momentum, the transverse momentum of the incoming photon and hence, the new momentum of the electron resolves poorly. If a small aperture is used, the accuracy of both resolutions is the other way around.

Thus, there is something in the universe that cannot be known with certainty.

6. This professor explains it well , sorry the linking does not work ... I timed indexed it to the part that discusses the above figure

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=pl ... e_Q#t=2933

7. The HSU indeterminism argument

1. What is happening is that the wavelength of the light (gamma ray in this case) that is being used to measure the particle (electron in this case) is affecting the particle.

2. Thus, HSU shows indeterminism because humans need light to measure the particle, and this light interferes with the observation of the particle, therefore, humans with their mathematics and light measuring device cannot determine the position and momentum of the particle simultaneously. Therefore, because something in the universe cannot be predicted precisely, inherent randomness is shown, and indeterminism is proven to some degree.

8. My response

I might be a fool, or I am completely missing something however here are my arguments ...

1. My first thought is that it sounds like human arrogance that one sees in religion where the dogma is that the universe exists for humans. Humans can't figure something out. Therefore, there is indeterminism!

2. Get a better observation device ? Gamma rays are interfering .. so try something else .. ? Ok , so you have no other device presently, so how about admitting your observation device is interfering with the experiment ? How is the conclusion that the universe is indeterminate ?

3. What if I show up to fix your dishwasher with a hammer and a saw ? Then I can argue that there is an "uncertainty" of whether I can determine what is wrong. My hammer and saw are making the determination uncertain. Of course, if you have the wrong tools, then uncertainty is an absolute. Ok. I am just having fun here. Wrong tools = uncertainty.

4. The HSU actually creates the mathematical uncertainty by bouncing the gamma waves off the electron. Thus, there is no "inherent randomness".

5. The mathematical proof assumes uncertainty by using the probability distribution as the means to prove uncertainty. So, of course, surprise, surprise, the HSU proof "proves" uncertainty, because earlier in the proof, it was assumed to be uncertain.

6. The HSU "uncertainty" is proven in mathematics. Mathematics is abstract, and only exists in the human mind. So, at best the HSU merely shows that if you have the wrong tools, then there is uncertainty in the human mind as to the position/momentum of the particle. Uncertainty in the human mind does not extend to the universe.

How does information travel from one place to another? Is it possible to construct a method other than using photons to gather information regarding both the position and momentum of a particle. I think it's Heisenberg's hypothesis (it may be proven I don't know) that even if you developed some other system, one that was minimally obstructive it would still be unable to determine both position and momentum precisely.

Perhaps it doesn't tell us anything at all about whether things are deterministic or indeterminate, perhaps it tells us something about what it means to observe something.

Well as I understand it the Heisneberg Uncertainty Principal simply shows that we may never have a unified theory as so far it seems impossible to know the exact location of something. As you write "this light interferes with the observation of the particle, therefore, humans with their mathematics and light measuring device cannot determine the position and momentum of the particle simultaneously. Therefore, because something in the universe cannot be predicted precisely, inherent randomness is shown, and indeterminism is proven to some degree."

This then has major implications on the micro level but maybe not on the macro. So the HUP should not really affect determinism in the philosophical sense.

That is what I originally thought and I can fully see how it works in physics but when discussing determinism from a philosophical perspective and the notion of free will I fail to see how this applies. Taking the notion of free will down to the particle level seems unnecessary as the ability for this to affect the day to day life of a person is very negligible. We often use equations that are approximations, the most notable is Newton's law of universal gravitation. It is not perfect but works well for day to day needs. Why then should it be that because we cannot simultaneously know the position and momentum of a subatomic particle, free will wins the day.

I was always under the impression the Heinsenberg's uncertainty principle does not randomness and complete chaos but rather shows an order that cannot be known since our senses are limited to knowing one quality of a particle, while sacrificing our knowledge of another? Thus, by knowing the position of a particle, we therefore cannot know its momentum since by observing the particle in the hope of knowing the position of it, we have affected the momentum of it. This surely does not mean however that the momentum does not exist nor does it imply that it is a form of disorder or chaos but rather it does exist and is a pattern that we just cannot perceive. I have often thought that people were wrong to say that Quantum Physics was a form of chaos since it might be a form of order that we just cannot comprehend.

The confusing this I find in relation to Free Will is however you tend to look at it, there doesn't seem to be any whatsoever. If we look at the world from an Newtonian world-view in which everything is clockwork and thus can be per-determined, then any decision we make is the product of various already per-decided variables in the brain- chemical changes, neurons firing at one another. However, if say that Quantum Physics contradicts Newtonian Physics and thus we may still have free-will, we do not have it either since we then just become slaves to randomness, uncertainty and particles popping into existence. Thus, no matter where you turn there always seem to be some fallacy in the notion of free-will. Unless one's consciousness creates the quantum activity that then defines the brain in circular, self-perpetuating fashion.

Ahem...

1. The Uncertainty Principle is an observed characteristic of physical prediction. It is (by definition) epistemological in character. A related ontological subject is the Observer Effect.
2. Quantum Indeterminacy is an observed characteristic of physical prediction. Whether it is physical reality or not is discussed here: Comparions of Interpretations
3. Free Will is a unobserved claim about physical reality postulating the existence of effects ("will") with no causes ("free"). If part of physical reality, Free Will would violate the First Law of Thermodynamics. If not part of physical reality, then Free Will has as much place in science as my imaginary imaginary friend back in Kindergarden (I didn't have one, but I just imagined that I did, hence the double adjective).
4. Free Willy is a 1993 movie.

Anyway, the relationship between these core concepts of physics and the theory of Free Will is adequately described in the following section from a ground-breaking scientific article:

I have a single atom of hydrogen and I know it's position that its within say a nanometer radius of an atom, and that its net momentum over a period like a second must be pretty close to zero. TAKE THAT HEISENBERG!