The Uncertainty Principle - is it real?

The best way of explaining the uncertainty principle, at least in my opinion, is as follows.Every Quantum Mechanical system is described by a function called the wavefunction, usually represented by the Greek letter "". is a complex valued function, meaning it attaches a complex number to each point in space.
What is it a function of though?
Usually we make it either a function of position "x" or momentum "p".
So lets say we have a system which consists of only a single electron moving in a straight line.
We can write down its wavefunction a function of momentum "(p)" or as a function of position "(x)".When we measure something's position to good accuracy, the wavefunction becomes very neat in terms of x. Which means "(x)" becomes very neat, peaking at the value for position you measured, with very little "trail off" into other values.
However "(p)" becomes very messy, trailing over many values of p.When we measure momentum the opposite happens. "(p)" becomes neat and "(x)" becomes messy.
So the neater the wavefunction looks in one representation the messier it looks in another.
The uncertainty principle basically shows how the untidiness is spread between the two representations.

It might look spiritual to you at the moment, but there isn't anything that spiritual about Hilbert Spaces, self-adjoint Hermitian operators and the various other things which go with Quantum Mechanics.
(Platonism aside, just in case somebody brings that up)Quantum Mechanics doesn't say anything about matter not existing or being illusory. It simply gives a matter a different set of rules to the old classical ones, albeit rules that allow for a lot of weirdness.

What do you mean by inherent design?
Do you mean the mathematical rules of QM?Classical Mechanics had a similar set of principles which lived "underneath" matter.

When we say that it isn't defined we mean it is in what is called an eigenstate.
It's very different from the casual use of the word undefined.
You can't pull a word from a comment about quantum mechanics if you don't know the mathematics behind the theory. State exactly what you mean by design, so that I can accurately respond to this.This message has been edited by Son Goku, 01-24-2006 02:17 PM

There is a possibility state for observable quantities. The set of possibilities for the observable quantities is the physical form at the quantum level.There is the wavefunction, this is the state of the particle, its form if you will. The wavefunction can be used to figure out the probabilities of measuring some value for some quantity or more accurately the chance of the electron jumping to another wavefunction associated with that quantity.The "physical form" at the quantum level is the wavefunction. There just so happens to be wavefunctions which are "in one place" or have a definite energy, like the classical things we are used to, but they're no more physical or possessed of form than other wavefunctions.

Yes, measurement causes the wavefunction to take a discrete form in layman's terms. However a wavefunction with a discrete form isn't anything special or amazing, it just resembles the classical world a bit more than a generic one. There are also no completely discrete wavefunctions. The electron will always be spread over a couple of positions. Measurement just tightens the spread.There is just one note:
Measurement doesn't require a conscious being. There are systems were no human is involved and measurement occurs.

You're referencing Parametric down-converter experiments or the Vaidmann bomb, or at least they demonstrate what you're talking about.
This would take a quite a while to explain and to be fair I don't think I would do it any justice. I might attempt it eventually if I manage to come up with a decent way to explain it.Essentially what you are saying is factually correct. However what "mere potential for observation" means in this circumstance is far from obvious. It took me a while to take it in when I first read about it and nearly drove me mad for a week.
It is undoubtedly the weirdest thing in quantum mechanics. Even now I can look at it and think "Okay, what the hell is going on there?".I'll try my best to think of a half decent demonstration, although it might be a lengthy post, I wouldn't like to leave you hanging on this because you're obviously interested, I just don't know if my explanatory powers are up to it.*Hopefully I'll be back with a response soon.(*Its very hard to word it in a way which doesn't presume a serious understanding of the wavefunction)

The Uncertainty principle was predicted by Heisenberg before it was detected, but a lot of people honestly didn't expect to see it in experiment. It was predicted, then observed. So there isn't really any fudging.
A lot of experiments are performed in a particles rest frame, but that doesn't effect the uncertainty principle.The Uncertainty Principle comes from the fact that for some measurable quantities a particle cannot be in a classically well defined state for both quantities at the same time.Edited by Son Goku, : No reason given.Edited by Son Goku, : No reason given.

What do you think the Hiesenberg Uncertainty Principle says? Heisenberg didn't make any assumptions about our limits of observation. The uncertainty principle is simply a statement about non-commuting observables.
A well defined state of one is not a well defined state of another.If |x> is a state of definite position then:
|x> = c1|p1> + c2|p2> + c3|p3> +..........Where the p states are states of definite momentum and the c's are constants.Using this you can show that measurements of momentum and position have a certain standard deviation. The standard deviation predicted is the standard deviation observed. The fact that they work.
Where is there any proof that these are due to fallacies of the underling foundation and build upon each other like Band-Aids? Upon what assumptions? Who does this?
You should also understand that a particles size has very little to do with how detectable it is. What is more crucial to this, is its lifetime and the energy scale required to create it. Quantum Electrodynamics, Quantum Chromodynamics, ElectroWeak Theory and the Standard Model, as well as a much greater ability to manipulate the quantum field theory formalism. It does? Where exactly is this acceptance of what can't be measured present and how does it effect the theory's results.Edited by Son Goku, : Placing emphasis.Edited by Son Goku, : No reason given.Edited by Son Goku, : My crap spelling.

Where and when has this happened? In the formulation of what theory? I can think of a few examples over the past 50 years, but none of them are from particle physics.
The Standard Model has been working for thirty years with no data against it thus far. What constructs were created in response to what holes?
Can you please provide examples? I don't mean to sound abrasive, but this is entirely incorrect. The uncertainty principle states that noncommuting observables don't have simultaneous eigenstates, which leads to a minimum in the product of their standard deviations.
It has nothing to with us disturbing something or leaving it unaffected during our measurement.In the example of position and momentum, if you have a single position you are in superposition of multiple momentum and vice versa.
To use lax language, think of a particle having a position wave function and a momentum wavefunction, the more collapsed one is the more uncollapsed the other is.

How does this idea explain the fact that the gyromagnetic ratio for spin is roughly twice as big as for orbital angular momentum?
How does it explain the production of hadrons by e-e+ annihilation?Name some predictions of your theory and how they differ from the Standard Model or General Relativity.Edited by Son Goku, : Inserting a few words here and there.