Page 2 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 21 to 40 of 91

Thread: Is the Uncertainty Principle Caused by a Distortion in a Field of Probability?

  1. #21
    Quote Originally Posted by TruthSeeker
    The "Principle" which we speak of is defined by a certain curious exchange of energy which we are currently uncertain about its source, mechanism and causes. That's, ultimately, why we call it the "Uncertainty Principle".
    No that's not true at all. "We" are not uncertain about the mechanism of the uncertainty principle, we understand it quite well; there is no "curious exchange" of energy.

    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.

  2. #22
    Valued Senior Member
    Posts
    1,352
    Quote Originally Posted by TruthSeeker View Post
    Yes but there must be a process between the space-time and something else in order for it to exist and we actually perceive it. As such, there must be a process that creates the events that we see which we call an "uncertainty principle".


    The whole universe is intrinsic to space and time. We are tightly interconnected by all the energy exchanged within the universe. That is how we are able to perceive it. Our consciousness is this energy which we perceive as atoms, stars and so on. The "Principle" which we speak of is defined by a certain curious exchange of energy which we are currently uncertain about its source, mechanism and causes. That's, ultimately, why we call it the "Uncertainty Principle". It is not just magic or fairy tale, like some people's belief in God. Not that it means God does not necessarily exist (we just spoke of "Him" She", "It" moments ago), but they are not yet aware of God, they don't yet have a precise definition of what God is and how exactly it functions from experimentary evidence. Now, if those conditions were to be met, then by all means, we could claim the God exists and, as uncertainty is a lack of understanding, there would be no "Uncertainty Principle".

    You have faith in the "Uncertainty Principle". You forgot that may not be the truth.
    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 wave-particle 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 wave-particle is inversely proportional to its wavelength: p = h/lamda.

    If you know the momentum exactly, you have a "monochromatic" wave-particle, 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 wave-particle.

    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 crystals-and-shit, woo-woo 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.

  3. #23
    Valued Senior Member
    Posts
    3,246
    Another way to explain the uncertainty principle is with the possibility there can be extra space and/or time within space-time. Picture the fabric of space-time, 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 space-time. Mass via gravity causes an acceleration which is d/t/t or dimensionally contains two parts time and one part space compared to space-time which is one part time and one part space. These extra time threads, due to mass, cause space-time 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 space-time is to look at a star. The core of the star should be deepest in the space-time 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 (space-time) and frequency of mass/energy, with time both slowing and speeding up due to extra threads of time in space-time.

  4. #24
    Valued Senior Member
    Posts
    1,352
    Quote Originally Posted by wellwisher View Post
    Another way to explain the uncertainty principle is with the possibility there can be extra space and/or time within space-time. Picture the fabric of space-time, 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 space-time. Mass via gravity causes an acceleration which is d/t/t or dimensionally contains two parts time and one part space compared to space-time which is one part time and one part space. These extra time threads, due to mass, cause space-time 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 space-time is to look at a star. The core of the star should be deepest in the space-time 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 (space-time) and frequency of mass/energy, with time both slowing and speeding up due to extra threads of time in space-time.
    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.

  5. #25
    Quote Originally Posted by exchemist View Post
    I have to conclude you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about.
    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.

  6. #26
    Valued Senior Member
    Posts
    1,352
    Quote Originally Posted by origin View Post
    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.
    You're a mind reader. I only just resisted the temptation to sign off by thanking Wellwisher for at least keeping water and hydrogen bonding out of it, for once.

  7. #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.

  8. #28
    The Truth is Out There TruthSeeker's Avatar
    Posts
    15,144
    Quote Originally Posted by exchemist View Post
    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 wave-particle 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 wave-particle is inversely proportional to its wavelength: p = h/lamda.
    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" wave-particle, 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 wave-particle.

    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 crystals-and-shit, woo-woo pseudoscience. Along with "Energy" and "Vibrations" (Man).
    If you are so certain about the cause and the process, then there is no point in calling it "Uncertainty Principle."

    Incidentally, your description matches my original descriptions.

    Quote Originally Posted by TruthSeeker
    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"...
    Quote Originally Posted by exchemist
    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.
    It is not balderdash, it is a more sociological focused analysis, not a physical one.

  9. #29
    The Truth is Out There TruthSeeker's Avatar
    Posts
    15,144
    Here you go. Statisticians have already worked out the mechanics behind Probability Density Fields.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Probabi...nsity_function

  10. #30
    Valued Senior Member
    Posts
    1,352
    Quote Originally Posted by TruthSeeker View Post
    Here you go. Statisticians have already worked out the mechanics behind Probability Density Fields.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Probabi...nsity_function
    Rubbish. This is about the well-known 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 mish-mash of concepts, as you have done here.

  11. #31
    Valued Senior Member
    Posts
    1,352
    Quote Originally Posted by TruthSeeker View Post
    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 are so certain about the cause and the process, then there is no point in calling it "Uncertainty Principle."


    Incidentally, your description matches my original descriptions.




    It is not balderdash, it is a more sociological focused analysis, not a physical one.
    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 wave-particle is well-defined. 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 wave-particles.

    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 wind-up, for your amusement.

  12. #32
    Valued Senior Member
    Posts
    1,352
    Quote Originally Posted by Pete View Post
    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.
    OK thanks. I have not quite given up on Truthseeker, though I've a horrible feeling he or she may be turning out to be constitutionally unable to think clearly enough to understand any physics.

  13. #33
    Registered Senior Member Layman's Avatar
    Posts
    554
    Quote Originally Posted by Pete View Post
    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.
    Nonsense, those where my ideas! When I came on here saying that kind of stuff, I was told that no one ever described physics in that way!

  14. #34
    Quote Originally Posted by Layman View Post
    Nonsense, those where my ideas! When I came on here saying , I was told that no one ever described physics in that way!
    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.= ==

  15. #35
    Valued Senior Member
    Posts
    1,352
    Quote Originally Posted by pmb View Post
    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.= ==
    Interesting remark. I've always understood that, while it makes no sense to talk of an individual measurement, the principle does apply to any attempt to measure p and x simultaneously for an individual wave-particle.

  16. #36
    Quote Originally Posted by Layman View Post
    Nonsense, those where my ideas!
    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!
    That is true, but I think you are operating under a bit of a delusion. The comment on your idea was more along the lines of, "I have never heard physics described using such absurd illogical garbage".

  17. #37
    Quote Originally Posted by exchemist View Post
    Interesting remark.
    Thanks. It's nice to know that I'm being helpful.

    Quote Originally Posted by exchemist View Post
    I've always understood that, while it makes no sense to talk of an individual measurement, the principle does apply to any attempt to measure p and x simultaneously for an individual wave-particle.
    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

  18. #38
    Valued Senior Member
    Posts
    1,352
    Quote Originally Posted by pmb View Post
    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
    OK thanks. I've had a quick look at what is there so far but it does not (yet) convince, as it does not deal with the apparent wave nature of single "particles", e.g. as shown in the double slit experiment. I'll wait for the whole thing.

  19. #39
    The Truth is Out There TruthSeeker's Avatar
    Posts
    15,144
    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 one-to-one correspondence with the integers). The probability then becomes a probability density. One example, a Gaussian distribution, is shown below
    My original post...

    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"...
    When we observe a particle, the "probability density" is 100% (or very close to that) in that particle and, thus, it becomes defined as that particle. When the probability density is spread out throughout the "field of probability", we then observe it as a wave. Would that explain the uncertainty principle and particle-wave duality?

    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.

  20. #40
    Quote Originally Posted by exchemist View Post
    OK thanks. I've had a quick look at what is there so far but it does not (yet) convince, as it does not deal with the apparent wave nature of single "particles", e.g. as shown in the double slit experiment. I'll wait for the whole thing.
    Since this thread is about the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle (HUP) that's what I'm working on. The wave-particle duality is connected with the HUP but its more widely applicable than just that. I'll include that as an application of it.

Page 2 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. By John Connellan in forum Physics & Math
    Last Post: 08-31-10, 07:40 PM
    Replies: 8
  2. By baftan in forum General Philosophy
    Last Post: 06-20-10, 12:18 AM
    Replies: 4
  3. By neelakash in forum Physics & Math
    Last Post: 10-29-07, 09:21 PM
    Replies: 7
  4. By kingwinner in forum Physics & Math
    Last Post: 04-12-07, 10:16 PM
    Replies: 12
  5. By Absane in forum Physics & Math
    Last Post: 06-04-06, 07:01 PM
    Replies: 8

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •