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

Discussion in 'Physics & Math' started by TruthSeeker, Oct 31, 2013.

1. ### TruthSeekerFancy Virtual Reality MonkeyValued Senior Member

Messages:
15,154
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"...

That was my impression from reading these news...
http://phys.org/news/2013-10-quantum-reality-complex-previously-thought.html#ajTabs

2. ### Google AdSenseGuest Advertisement

to hide all adverts.
3. ### exchemistValued Senior Member

Messages:
2,772
I read the article but could not see where the Uncertainty Principle comes into it.

It seemed to me to be about the "collapse" of the wavefunction when a measurement is made, i.e. when information about the state is extracted (Schroedinger's Cat and all that). This is another, more fundamental, issue about the QM model of reality. The Uncertainty Principle is simply a consequence of superposition of waves and is easily understood by any radio engineer. It's the nature of the waves themselves that is mysterious - and that is what these experiments were probing. Or that's the way I read it, anyway.

4. ### Google AdSenseGuest Advertisement

to hide all adverts.
5. ### wellwisher

Messages:
4,196
The uncertainty principle can be understood by using an analogy to the phenomena in photography called motion blur. Motion blur appears when the shutter speed is slower than the speed of the subject. The result is uncertainty in distance. This works because of the integration of space and time. The still photo stops time, yet there is a difference in time between the shutter and the motion. The result is the time captured, but with time stopped, this appears as uncertainty in distance. Notice one can still sense motion in the photo (velocity without time). In areas where we can see clearly, or know position, we can't determine velocity or momentum due to the blur.

Years back I explained the long life of protons and electrons, compared to its internal substructures (quarks have short life outside the macro-particles) as connected to the protons and electrons having inherent internal relativity. They are in a state of internal time dilation very close to the speed of light. This close to C speed explains the easy conversion between matter and energy. Our experiments capture the bulk or macro-motion but they do not capture the internal state which gives them their long life in our reference. The difference is motion blur =uncertainty.

6. ### Google AdSenseGuest Advertisement

to hide all adverts.
7. ### originIt keeps getting funnier....Valued Senior Member

Messages:
7,713
The explanation was gibberish then and remains hand waving pseudo scientifc unevidenced poorly thought out gibberish. At least you are consistent.

8. ### exchemistValued Senior Member

Messages:
2,772
Note to other readers: This is the most useless analogy for explaining the Uncertainty Principle that I have ever come across. Ignore it.

9. ### TruthSeekerFancy Virtual Reality MonkeyValued Senior Member

Messages:
15,154
My hypothesis is that waves and particles emerge from the continuum itself based on some kind of "probability field" (a measure of space-time stability and of existence ("matter")). The closer they are to their source, the more the continuum is distorted by space-time probability. The farther away you go from the source, the more likely an object is to exist, therefore our perception of the object becomes increasingly less distorted. As such, waves arise from the continuum itself and as they slow down and the probability moves closer to 100% ("matter") the more it behaves like a particle.

In other words..
(actual amounts of probability may be different then those below, these are just examples)

0% probability of existence ("space-time continuum" by itself)
|
|
10% probability of existence (for eg) (Heinsenberg Principle applies, faster than waves)
|
|
80% probability of existence (waves, some particles)
|
|
100% probability of existence (some particles, matter)

PS: a "probability field" is just a spatial-temporal measurement of the probability of something existing based on the stability of the space-time continuum itself

10. ### riverValued Senior Member

Messages:
5,566
The uncertainty principle is caused by the speed of the particle and direction

Slow it All down then its not so much a problem , at all

11. ### TruthSeekerFancy Virtual Reality MonkeyValued Senior Member

Messages:
15,154
Yes. I'm discussing the process which gives rise to the principle.

12. ### arfa branecall me arfValued Senior Member

Messages:
4,346
Utter rubbish. The UP is fundamental: position and momentum do not commute, regardless of the value of either.
Please stop posting crap in this forum.

13. ### arfa branecall me arfValued Senior Member

Messages:
4,346
Then you've fallen at the first hurdle: there is no "process which gives rise to the principle", it's an intrinsic property.

14. ### wellwisher

Messages:
4,196
Early photography and motion blur was around in the 19th century, many decades before the uncertainty principle phrase was coined. This pesky artifact of early photography has all the same attributes as the uncertainty principle. One is not able to define both position and momentum, at the same time. In the picture above, we can sense momentum, but can't determine position due to the motion blur. Where the shutter speed and motion speed are the same, we can define position, since it is still, but we can't define the momentum from that POV. The blur in the background makes inconclusive.

High speed photography does not appear until decades after he coins the phrase. Science was moving away from the age of reason into chaos and probability, which was retro. Motion blur was what the doctor needed. Motion blur was an experimental artifact of stopping motion, where source light is impinging upon silver emulsions, thereby altering the energy states of electrons. The resultant impact is frozen in time to show the uncertainty principle in action. Because this can be done with time difference, one should infer the uncertainty has a connection to time.

This then is extrapolated into two reference and lack of simultaneity for Einstein. I think many would prefer this remain a mystery cult.

15. ### Captain KremmenAll aboard, me Hearties!Valued Senior Member

Messages:
12,739
@Truthseeker
I think you could have some very good ideas if you knew what you were talking about.
Any chance of you going to college to study Physics?

16. ### exchemistValued Senior Member

Messages:
2,772
Note to readers: Quod Erat Demonstrandum. [translation: see what I mean?]

17. ### exchemistValued Senior Member

Messages:
2,772
Do you understand the difference between the Uncertainty Principle and the wave aspect of matter? The article you referred us to in your OP was about the latter - which is indeed the more fundamental concept. The Uncertainty Principle follows naturally, from two of the most basic ideas of QM, viz. (a) that the mod square of the state function gives the probability distribution of the wave-particle; and (b), de Broglie's relation whereby its momentum is proportional to the frequency of the wave. One you have these 2, the UP follows, as night follows day.

So I have great difficulty seeing the sense in trying to probe what underlies the UP, unless you tackle these 2 ideas.

18. ### TruthSeekerFancy Virtual Reality MonkeyValued Senior Member

Messages:
15,154
Even an intrinsic property must have some kind of process which gives rise to the property... Unless you are a theist...

19. ### arfa branecall me arfValued Senior Member

Messages:
4,346
No, an intrinsic property is part of the structure of something, in the case of the uncertainty principle the something is space and time.
For your statement to be true, there must have been some kind of process that "gave rise to" three spatial and one time dimension. But that doesn't make sense, because a process implies the existence of space and time.

20. ### TruthSeekerFancy Virtual Reality MonkeyValued Senior Member

Messages:
15,154
Ok... so you don't think space-time exists, then....

21. ### TruthSeekerFancy Virtual Reality MonkeyValued Senior Member

Messages:
15,154
If you think I could have some very good ideas, chances are you already think I have very good ideas. I do agree I need more information, however, specially when it comes to the Math involved in this level of Physics.

I would love to, but I am just as attracted to Philosophy, Politics, Economics, Engineering... This is why I decided to seek the underlying patterns of the universe on my own. Given that all these subjects exist within the same universe, there must be some underlying Truth that allows all of them to exist simultaneously and on a consistent basis. I've been researching these patterns for about 18 years now, and my hypothesis in this thread is derived from it. Of course, I also had to learn some Physics, which was part of my research, but in order to prove my hypothesis scientifically, I will have to study Physics more intensely or collaborate with someone who is well-versed in the physical patterns...

22. ### arfa branecall me arfValued Senior Member

Messages:
4,346
What I said was there was no process that created space and time, because space and time must exist so a process can "happen".

The uncertainty principle is intrinsic to space and time, so by the same argument there was no process that created the uncertainty principle.

23. ### TruthSeekerFancy Virtual Reality MonkeyValued Senior Member

Messages:
15,154
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.