
110213, 05:29 AM #21
 Posts
 3,711
Originally Posted by TruthSeeker
As to its cause, it exists for the same reasons the universe exists; when we eventually understand why the universe exists, we will most likely understand why the uncertainty principle exists.

110213, 07:42 AM #22
 Posts
 1,307
Look, you would be quite right to say the nature of the "probability waves" in QM remains a subject of scientific and even philosophical debate. But please, please, do not conflate that issue with Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle. This arises simply, as follows.
1) the probability of finding a waveparticle in a region of space is given by the "probability wave" (mathematically you multiply the wavefunction by its complex conjugate and integrate over the region of space of interest).
2) the momentum of the waveparticle is inversely proportional to its wavelength: p = h/lamda.
If you know the momentum exactly, you have a "monochromatic" waveparticle, with a single precisely defined wavelength. But that means this wave persists throughout space. Conversely if its location is defined, it means the wave is confined to a small region of space. To do that implies superposition of waves of different wavelength (a Fourier series), so that you get constructive interference only in a small region of space. Have a look at the diagram illustrating this on this Wiki link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncertainty_principle
But if you have that situation, it means there are many different wavelengths involved, which means many different momenta contribute to the state of the waveparticle.
That is how the UP comes about: it is just a natural consequence of the QM idea of matter waves. It is the matter waves themselves that are the subject of conjecture. Not the uncertainty principle.
But, for some reason, the Uncertainty Principle has seized the imagination of purveyors of crystalsandshit, woowoo pseudoscience. Along with "Energy" and "Vibrations" (Man).
So for God's sake think clearly and do not get seduced into mouthing vague notions that are unscientifically expressed. For example, there is no "curious exchange of energy" implied by the Uncertainty Principle. That is just balderdash, as should be obvious from the explanation above.

110213, 08:17 AM #23
 Posts
 3,149
Another way to explain the uncertainty principle is with the possibility there can be extra space and/or time within spacetime. Picture the fabric of spacetime, to use this analogy, composed of threads of space woven with treads of time. In this case, we weave in some extra time and or space to get a different weave in the fabric.
For example, mass which causes gravity, can curve spacetime. Mass via gravity causes an acceleration which is d/t/t or dimensionally contains two parts time and one part space compared to spacetime which is one part time and one part space. These extra time threads, due to mass, cause spacetime to pucker near the mass.
The uncertainty principle is not as much about uncertainty in time, as it is uncertainty in space; position or momentum (d and d/t). This would imply extra treads of space and/or fewer threads of time causing holes in the fabric.
One way to prove the general premise of extra time within spacetime is to look at a star. The core of the star should be deepest in the spacetime well where time slows the most, yet the frequencies (1/time) of mass/energy transitions are the highest (gamma) not the slowest. There are two separate clocks (spacetime) and frequency of mass/energy, with time both slowing and speeding up due to extra threads of time in spacetime.

110213, 10:14 AM #24
 Posts
 1,307
Now you seem to be confusing the Uncertainty Principle with Relativity, in some sort of garbled way.
Dimensionally, spacetime has 3 spatial coordinates and one time coordinate (L³T), so in your terminology 3 "parts" space and one of time, not one of each. Momentum has dimensions MLT⁻¹ and acceleration has dimensions LT⁻². But for you, apparently, it does not matter whether the dimension is T or its reciprocal. This is a very novel form of mathematics, to say the least.
All this about gamma rays emitted from stars and clocks running at different rates in a gravity field has nothing whatsoever to do with the Uncertainty Principle.
I have to conclude you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about.

110213, 10:29 AM #25
Yeah, it seems like Wellwisher likes to make stuff up on the fly and present it like it is scientifically sound. I am not sure why he is allowed to keep on doing this in the science section. I am sort of impressed that he didn't mention the role of water or entropy in the uncertainty principle.

110213, 10:37 AM #26
 Posts
 1,307

110213, 08:54 PM #27
wellwisher has been given a warning for presenting original ideas as accepted science.
I'm tempted to close the thread, but it's about the only thing active in the forum.

110313, 01:15 AM #28
That's a beautiful explanation of How, but what my interest is in the Why. It is the Why that gives insight and advances the evolution of science.
If you know the momentum exactly, you have a "monochromatic" waveparticle, with a single precisely defined wavelength. But that means this wave persists throughout space. Conversely if its location is defined, it means the wave is confined to a small region of space. To do that implies superposition of waves of different wavelength (a Fourier series), so that you get constructive interference only in a small region of space. Have a look at the diagram illustrating this on this Wiki link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncertainty_principle
But if you have that situation, it means there are many different wavelengths involved, which means many different momenta contribute to the state of the waveparticle.
That is how the UP comes about: it is just a natural consequence of the QM idea of matter waves. It is the matter waves themselves that are the subject of conjecture. Not the uncertainty principle.
But, for some reason, the Uncertainty Principle has seized the imagination of purveyors of crystalsandshit, woowoo pseudoscience. Along with "Energy" and "Vibrations" (Man).
Incidentally, your description matches my original descriptions.
Originally Posted by TruthSeekerOriginally Posted by exchemist

110313, 01:35 AM #29
Here you go. Statisticians have already worked out the mechanics behind Probability Density Fields.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Probabi...nsity_function

110413, 04:29 AM #30
 Posts
 1,307
Rubbish. This is about the wellknown mathematical concept of a probability density function, repeat function. Not field.
I say again, not field.
There is zero "mechanics" here, in fact no reference to matter whatsoever, that I could see. It is purely about of the maths of probability. Not physics, maths.
This is exactly what I mean about the importance of you thinking clearly, and not muddling things up in a vague mishmash of concepts, as you have done here.

110413, 04:48 AM #31
 Posts
 1,307
I'll assume your remark about being certain about how the Uncertainty principle arises is a joke.
My description most certainly does not match yours. The only thing in common  apparently is the idea of superposition. But your notion of this being some effect due to high speed has no basis in quantum theory. And from then on it's downhill all the way.
As I tried to explain, superposition arises if the LOCATION of a waveparticle is welldefined. You can have a particle travelling at any high speed you like, that is, with high momentum, and it can perfectly well be monochromatic, i.e. with ZERO degree of superposition and hence with a momentum that is exactly defined. But then, you will not be able to know where it is, as a monochromatic wave function does not go to zero anywhere and is thus distributed throughout space.
In QM, high speed, i.e. high momentum, gives matter a short wavelength, that's all. It does not affect the degree of determinacy of properties. The Uncertainty Principle applies equally to fast and slow waveparticles.
As for your last sentence, about a "sociological" "analysis", I think I'd better assume that too is a joke.
In fact, I'm wondering whether you are at all serious or whether this whole thread is just a windup, for your amusement.

110413, 05:06 AM #32
 Posts
 1,307

111013, 09:23 AM #33

111013, 10:21 AM #34
 Posts
 228
I'm confused. What were these "original ideas" of wellwisher? Not that garbage offered as an explanation/amnalogy of the Uncertainty Relation, is it?
You mentioned that kind of stuff which is vauge by it's very nature but then you go on to say I was told that no one ever described physics in that way which indicates something very specific was being talked about. Hence my confusion.
This is an odd thread. On the one hand its about the uncertainty principle and its interpretation and yet nowhere in this thread has anyone even mentioned the actual nature and meaning of that principle. The HUP is statistical in nature. All too often layman misunderstand it to mean that it applies to an individual measuement.= ==

111113, 08:37 AM #35
 Posts
 1,307

111113, 08:52 AM #36
When Pete said 'original' what he meant (if I may be so bold as to assume what he meant) is the ideas were devoid of any physics, logic or evidence. Layman you are arguing over ownership of a turd.
When I came on here saying that kind of stuff, I was told that no one ever described physics in that way!

111113, 11:03 AM #37
 Posts
 228
Thanks. It's nice to know that I'm being helpful.
The Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle relates two statistical quintiles, the standard deviations in fact, not the results of individual measurements. I'm going to spend the the day working on my physics website in order to create a web page which correctly illustrates the HUP. Until then please see what I have temporally created to illustrate the concept of uncertainty.
http://home.comcast.net/~peter.m.bro...robability.htm

111113, 11:57 AM #38
 Posts
 1,307

111113, 12:29 PM #39
From the website
For some quantum states the physical quantities are real numbers that take on any value in a given range and are therefore not denumerable (i.e. cannot be put into a onetoone correspondence with the integers). The probability then becomes a probability density. One example, a Gaussian distribution, is shown below
Perhaps "time" is not as static as we perceive, and at very high speeds, the position of a particle ceases to be defined by particles or even waves, and enter a different part of the dimension of time where different probabilities are simultaneously "true" and superimposed... One could say particles have "fields of probability", which can be distorted if the particle travels too "fast"...
Incidentally, probability is a factor of time. If you don't take time into account, then there is no use in speaking in terms of probabilities. Hence my explanation on how time and speed affects our observations.

111113, 01:37 PM #40
 Posts
 228
Similar Threads

By John Connellan in forum Physics & MathLast Post: 083110, 07:40 PMReplies: 8

By baftan in forum General PhilosophyLast Post: 062010, 12:18 AMReplies: 4

By neelakash in forum Physics & MathLast Post: 102907, 09:21 PMReplies: 7

By kingwinner in forum Physics & MathLast Post: 041207, 10:16 PMReplies: 12

By Absane in forum Physics & MathLast Post: 060406, 07:01 PMReplies: 8
Bookmarks