The Uncertainty Principle - is it real?

Hi, Heh, that is a great pun. Intended or not.Determinism states that if given enough information the outcome of a event can be accurately predicted. So macroscopically speaking Newtonian phyisics holds out.The founders of QM and UP, Dr. W. Heisenberg, and N. Bohr and even Dr. Einstien' who historically hated the concept, showed mathmatically and experimentally the way nature behaves on a quantum level is not 100% predictable. It is said that Dr. Einstien spent the rest of his life trying to reconcile this qurk in nature. There is a element of uncertainty because at a quantum level things do behave differently than on a macro level . Schrodingers equation allows for extremely accurate predictions of the problemistic wavefunction, although as far as I know reality still refuses to be boxed in a corner.

---

"One is punished most for ones virtues" Fredrick Neitzche

True Jar,
But mathmatically,(however slight) there is a probability that given enough time; the piston vanishes from your crankshaft and ends up in some China mans tea pot. **edit spell.This message has been edited by 1.61803, 01-11-2006 12:49 PM

Hello MartinDomes,First off I agree with Chioptera and Cavediver. The problem with the whole thing is that things cease being "things" @ a quantum level. Dr. Einstien opened up a can of worms when he discovered and showed that light exist as discreet little packets of energy. Reality is quantized. Hence the naming of quantum mechanics. His photoelectric effect showed that light is a particle as well as a wave as previously believed.
When Prof. W. Heisenberg conducted experiments he found out that any measurements of these "thingys" would affect the data. Why? Because. The same reason reality is made up of bits of information rather than a smooth continum. For the same reason a electron can vanish in a valance and reappear in another at a different energy state. Why? How? Nobody knows.Thats why when you ask is the Uncertainty Principal real, I chuckled, because at a quantum level nothing is real. Everything is zinging around in a state of possibilties. A quantum foam so to speak. Prof Einstien refused to accept this. He believed that there was a simple elegant answer to this seemingly bizzare reality at the quantum level. That given enough time and information the Uncertainty principal could be reconciled as a mathmatic formula.
Well we still do not know why light is quantized, we still do not know what exactly energy is, and we still have not found a way to make gravity and electromagnatism physics make sense together. Is the U. P. real yes. is it due to us not being able to resolve the uncertainty no. I believe it has more to do with the limitations of not being able to take ourselves out of the formula than the limitations of what we can measure.

It is interesting how the interpretation of a word or words can reflect so many different meanings. Semantics often plays a big role here at EVC.
By using the word real I meant in a tangible sense. The wavefunction is most certainly real in the sense that it can be extrapolated using fancy mathmatics. But are numbers "real". Are mathmatical concepts real? When speaking about atoms or electrons or quarks and such most people think of little BB's zinging around. It seems counter intuitive to think of the extreme amount of space that is separating a atoms nucleus from it's closest electron. And almost impossible to grasp the strange nature of the physical composition of something that exist in the form of a cloud of probabilities. The bottom line I think is that at the fundalmental level of reality it is unknowable and impossible to explain adequately in any other way other than through mathmatics. *edit to add....to answer your question..I dont know.
But does that make it real? It is a pickle to be sure.This message has been edited by 1.61803, 01-23-2006 12:09 PM

---

"One is punished most for ones virtues" Fredrick Neitzche

I don't see a problem with that Randman.
I could say that I have the plans for a building on my desk. Is the building real?

Hello,
semantics...that darn word.
Design, intial states of being, pre acutalization, probabilities, wavefunction, wavacule, unmanifested reality, and the list is endless. What one scientist may argue is nature another will concede is God, or spiritual. A self existing, unmanifested uncreated reality. Sounds pretty spirtual to me. Except atheist and or agnostics or dyed in the wool fundlementalist will state otherwise.If one were to listen to physics theorist talk candidly the words and concepts can and do sound spiritual in nature.
How can one speak of these concepts without sounding like some wacked out Hindu Brahma.Reminds me of a ancient Hindu story: A bird on the forest floor hears a beautiful bird song. He has tiny wings and cant fly. So he climbs up to a branch in the tree. Listens....hears the song again. He hops higher into the tree where he thinks he hears this bird. He thinks it must be the most beautiful of all creatures because of the song is so beautiful...he strains to listen, again he hears it...hops up to the very top and does not see the bird.. he loses his balance and falls....as he falls he realizes the beautiful bird is he.What this story means to me is that we spend all our time and energy looking for everything outside of ourselves. What ever it may be. God, Love, truth..., ...But is it possible that the things that we seek already reside within us. Whether you choose to call it spirituality or not, does it matter? Whether one calls it nature or God, does the word change what you personally feel or believe? Is calling existance spiritual or a natural state of being any different when you get right down to the nitty gritty?