Eise

This is totally beside the point. I explained in what way the uncertainty principle is related to the mathematics of waves, so it is valid for any wave phenomenon (sound, light, waves on water). it has nothing to do with a measurement process, and so is not related to the observer effect. You do realise that I gave some precise arguments, and you do not countered them at all? You just make some sweeping statement ('HUP is about phenomena with momentum/position') which is only partially true (it exists also with energy/time), and is definitely false when you consider none-wave phenomena. You backed up that there are many examples of the 'observer effect', and there I agree with you. However, depending on what is measured, there are different mechanisms that are causing it. Knowing these mechanisms, it gives clues about improvements of your measurement methods, to minimise or even get rid of the observer effect. But the HUP says something different: wave phenomena are basically unsharp, not because our measurement is not precise enough, or we have any effect on the phenomenon we are observing (of course we have too, but that it is not what the HUP is about), but that is inherent to waves. I had a look into Studiot's video. Again, the author is very clear (at 15:35):

Itoero, You fail to see 2 things: Uncertainty is a basic principle for every kind of wave, not just in QM. A long sinusoidal wave has a pretty precise frequency, but is of course smeared out over a longer distance. So its position is not precise. It doesn't mean that we cannot determine it precisely, it is not precise. Opposite with a small wave packet (e.g. a sound bang): it has a pretty precise position, but not a precise frequency. See e.g. this illustration: The wave packet is a combination of waves with different frequencies: this means the wave has no precise frequency. Just note that there is no reference to QM here at all. It is a fundamental property of waves. Two none-QM examples: An AM radio station that is not modulated, has a precise frequency, e.g.70 kHz. You do not measure a signal at e.g. 69 kHz. However, as soon as the signal is modulated, it looks like this:This causes a spread in frequency. On your radio, you can already receive the radio signal e.g. at 67 kHz, until 73 kHz. This is the reason that for AM the audio frequency is artificially reduced, to avoid that the spread becomes too big, and radio stations would disturb each other. Also on your AM radio: if a thunderstorm is approaching you can hear the lightning as a cracking sound. Interesting is that you hear them on any frequency, you do not have to tune in on exactly the frequency of the lightning. And why? Because such a short EM pulse really contains all frequencies. It is not that we cannot determine the frequency, the pulse has no precise frequency. So the unsharpness of waves is a real effect, not an effect of us measuring it. And its effect is explained by Fourier analysis, which is a mathematical procedure, not some pure physical effect. If a natural phenomenon behaves like a wave, it will behave like the mathematics of waves. The second thing you do not see is that the Schrödinger wave function is not a simple physical object: we cannot measure it. We can only measure particles arriving at some point. If we repeat our measurements, we can empirically determine what the square of the wave function is (it is the chance distribution of our measurements). But e.g. we cannot measure the phase of the wave function. And it also does not make sense: the Schrödinger wave function is a complex function, i.e. it has a imaginary component (square root of -1, such stuff...). So, to speak of a physical effect (as the observer effect is) on something that is not physical does not make sense. And further I am astonished that several experts here (Swansont, Mordred, Studiot) and I tell you that you are wrong, give clear arguments for that view, and back them up with articles, and you still stick to your wrong view point. PS Click on the links to see the graphs. I do not know why, but I saw them in my posting when I was writing the post, now they are just links.

Hi Michel, I do not see your problem. Everytime when one extends the set of numbers you get surprises: N: 1,2,3,4,... When multiplying 2 natural numbers the result is always >= both numbers. Z: ... -2,-1,0,1,2... Ups, the above rule is not valid anymore: -2 * 4 = -8: the result is smaller than both numbers! Same if you use Q+: 0.1 * 0.2 = 0.02: again, the result is smaller than both numbers. Now with imaginary numbers you get the next surprise: where in the above sets at least the square of a number is always positive, this is not so with imaginary numbers. (i)2 = -1, as is (-i)2. So rules that seem general (plus times plus makes plus, minus times minus makes also plus) for a subset of all numbers (Z, Q, R), is not valid for C anymore. And as Studiot also explained, the principle of ordering (greater, smaller) in C does not work. The question if i is greater than 1 does not make sense. Therefore C is depicted in a two dimensional plane.

Yes, that is obvious... Let's go to the basics. Imagine you have a picture: showing e.g. a mountain far away, and a flower on the foreground. Due to the big distance between the flower and the mountain they cannot be both sharp, and the photographer has chosen to have the flower sharp, and the mountains unsharp. E.g.: Now imagine you want to make a photograph of this photograph. If you choose your focus completely wrong everything will be unsharp. This you could call the observer effect (not quite of course because you do not influence the picture by photographing it). But you can make the picture sharper: but whatever you do, you won't get the mountains sharp, because on that picture the mountains themselves are not sharp. And that is not due to your way of photographing. It is due the picture itself. And so it is with the HUP: it expresses a feature of the object in question itself, namely of a quantum particle. It has nothing to do with the way of measuring.

Do you always react only on half-sentences? Read the complete question, and answer it as a whole: So I am not asking if animals have goals (yes, they have), but I am asking if they breed selectively based on what they want to reach with it (faster horses, fatter pigs, white mice...). Did you ever see lions breed slower gazelles, because they are easier to catch? In reality, their evolutionary pressure 'breeds' faster gazelles.

You do not seem to know what a pendulum in a pendulum clock is for. The property of a pendulum, that its period for relatively small amplitudes is constant. Its period is given by the formula: T = 2π x sqrt(L/g) So only the length of the pendulum, and the strength of gravity is relevant. The above formula is valid for earth, where g = 9.81 m/s2. But if g is lower, as on the moon, then the period becomes longer (a factor of sqrt(6), assuming that the gravity on the moon's service is 1/6 of that of the earth). So a pendulum on the moon is slower. And this has nothing to do with the strength of the spring. The spring is only needed to replace the energy that is lost due to friction. As a thought experiment, imagine a pendulum without friction. It will have a longer period on the moon than on earth. But we know from general relativity that time goes slightly faster on the moon than on earth, seen from a remote point far from the moon and the earth. And 'slightly', much less than a factor of sqrt(6). What you do not realise is that gravity is in fact a change of geometry: there is no physical effect that lets time slow down in gravity. Or maybe clearer: there is no physical mechanism for time slowing down in a gravity field. It is the perspective that is different, due to spacetime-curvature.

Hrvoje1, you happily ignored what I wrote. I made it bold for you:

I won't discuss that, but what the essential difference between the general observer effect is, and the HUP. The general observer effect is between physical objects: the object that is measured, and the object that measures. This is not so with the HUP. The wave function is not a physical object as other physical objects. And the HUP follows from the fact already mentioned by Swansont, that e.g. position and momentum are Fourier transformations of each other. It is not so that we have some physical effect on a physical system: their combination is not precise, independent from the fact if we measure it or not. And in not-measuring is definitely not an observer effect. You really think that Strange does not know that a photon has an energy according to E = hf? The question here is if you can call it kinetic energy. I am not sure, so I let it to him argue about this with you. But at least one difference is that you can make the kinetic energy of moving bodies 0 by slowing it down. You cannot do that with a photon. It always travels at c. But knowing that like to subsume as many concepts as possible under the same word, I understand your point... .

Imagine a stationary pendulum clock on a big distance of the earth. As it is farther from earth, gravitation is less than on the surface. Questions for you: - does it run faster or slower than the same clock on earth? - what does general relativity predict? Faster or slower? - Does that fit with the fact that GPS works? Now it is even worse: GPS satellites are not stationary, they orbit the earth freely, i.e. they are in free fall around the earth. This means everything on board is weightless, as if there is no gravity at all Questions for you: - does the pendulum clock work? Or does it stand still - if nothing on board points to the fact that there is gravity, why do we still need to compensate for gravitational time dilation?

Trying the simplest explanation that hopefully is physically correct. At the basis of special relativity stand the 2 postulates. For this purpose I switch the order, and reword them a little: the speed of light is the same for every observer when frames of reference move uniformly relative to each other, the laws of nature are exactly the same. You already used the first postulate to understand that a light clock moving relatively to you is 'ticking' slower. So far so good. But now, we add a mechanical clock to the light clock. when both stand still from my point of view they tick in exactly the same pace. But what do I see when I look at both together, passing me with high speed? If it is true what you said, that the light clock is just wrong, then the mechanical clock and the light clock do not run in pace anymore. So I can conclude that both are moving, and I am not. When I travel with both together, and they would run out of pace, I could conclude that I am moving. But this is in contradiction with the second postulate. The light clock would run slower than the mechanical clock, so the laws of electromagnetism would be different for me. So you need both postulates to understand why time, i.e. all processes, appear to slow down for an observer moving relatively to me.

OK, you are right I could have been more precise: evolution has no goal. Is it now correct? Or do monkeys and dogs do selective breeding, based on the output they want to reach? For the rest, I think you are spoiling your time. What is next: are you going to criticise physics because the 'up'-quark does not point up? You must distinguish between concepts and words. When you would critisise concepts, then your criticism would at least be pointed at something substantial. But you are criticising wordings. What means 'artificial'? Please explain in your own words (no dictionary!). Please give some examples.

I think you are slipping from conceptual definitions into operative definitions. My claim is that scientific theories always have circularity in their conceptual definitions, and that this is no problem. So critique on a scientific theory cannot be supported by 'its definitions are circular'. But argo did seem to use such an argument, and it is also an argument I have heard against Darwinian evolution. But I am happy to wait with my 'final judgment' until you completed your argument.

Yes and no. Of course one can take the standpoint that humans are natural too, but there is a at least one clear difference between natural selection and artificial selection, namely that with breeding people have a goal. Nature has no goals. And further I see no problem with this kind of syntagms (new word of the day...). It should be clear and possibly unambiguous what is meant, and I think the way that the concept of 'natural selection' is embedded in the theory of evolution, is clear and unambiguous enough.

I do not see any contradiction, as you seem see to imply by your using of 'yet'. Bell like experiments show that at least one presumption has to go: determinism or locality. And even if you would choose locality, it doesn't give a you a practical method to make exact predictions of e.g. where a photon exactly will arrive. Note my use of 'exact': it doesn't mean 'all of nature is indeterministic'. It means that at very small scales, where one observes single quantum particles, it is not determined exactly where or when an event will take place. But QM makes very good statistical predictions: the interference pattern in the double split experiment can be calculated with very high precision. I (male) can only remember that I referred to consensus under antiquity historians. But refresh my mind, if you want. And I am pretty sure I never said that 'all scientists believe in indeterminism'. The only backup I saw from you were articles about interesting hypotheses, not established science. For the rest, I do not understand why you react this way on Phi-for-All's post. His post was about you redefining words, not about arguments pro or contra determinism. And I do not understand at all why you come with this on a question of text interpretation. Because that is all the thread is about.

Hi Studiot, I admit I have some problems following your line of thought. I hoped to get the gist of your argument when it is complete, i.e. I also see the results. But obviously you want to build up some tension... So I just give some random thoughts. Let's start with Newton's first law: There is nothing about inertial frames in Newton's original formulation: I think this must be interpreted against Newton's idea of absolute space and time. This is the inertial frame for Newton. Newton claims universal validity of his laws of movement, and so for him this single one, universal inertial frame must exist. Now when I look at modern version of the first law: Does it define an inertial frame of reference, or does it define how objects in an inertial frame of reference move when they do not interact with anything at all? My claim would be the latter. And I really wonder if there is not already a circularity in this definition. What is an inertial frame of reference? It is a frame of reference in which objects move uniformly or are at rest, when no force acts upon them. What is uniform movement? It is the way objects move in an inertial frame when no force acts upon them. Can this circularity of definition be avoided? (Without introducing another one...) And if I remember some of the definitions of inertial frames, like 'an inertial frame of reference is a frame of reference in which Newton's laws of motion are valid', the circularity is even more obvious. Hmmm... Sound like a nice principle. But isn't the concept of 'force' hidden in the concept of 'interacting'? It is not about logical argumentation here: it is about the circularity of definitions. That seems correct to me. In f = ma the 'a' is the less problematic concept, exactly for the reason you give here. I hope you will complete your train of thought soon.

Yes but it's the observer effect like I said. It seems you want to use vaguer concepts again. The 'observer effect' means very generally that measuring something in many cases means changing what you want to measure. A measurement is always a physical interaction with the system you are measuring, and unless you use an indirect way of measuring, using some phenomenon that happens anyway, if you are measuring or not, it implies a change of the system. A few examples: - measuring the voltage between two points in an electrical circuit: the voltage will decrease slightly, because the voltmeter takes up a small part of the current - measuring the pressure of a tyre: a bit of air must enter the pressure gauge, so you do not measure the pressure as it was before the measuring. But essential to these is that one can try to make the effect as small as possible: by using a voltmeter with a high internal resistance (which presupposes that you can make the meter sensitive enough); by using a pressure gauge with as small as possible internal volume. Also, when one knows the physical parameters of the measurement device precisely, one can calculate the effect and so compensate for it. But you do not have these options in QM: the uncertainty principle is intrinsic to what quantum particles are. It does not describe some principal problem with our measurement methods. It is true that even Heisenberg tried to explain his own uncertainty principle with a variant of the observer effect, but that is history. The basic error arises from the fact that the wave function is not a physical object in itself: Wikipedia: And last but not least:

You say this half an hour after Swansont said that both often are confused?

AFAIK this was Newton's definition. I think it shows he was aware that there was something circular in his F = ma. He put the problem under the carpet... I have no idea why Newton's 3rd law would define mass. But then you turn back to f = ma. Did you really avoid circularity? You are right. It was just an example of a very valid theory, which in its core has circular definitions of its basic concepts. It serves as an example that circularity of definitions is not a valid critique on scientific theories. It would be, if the concepts are underdetermined, i.e. we have not enough operational definitions to 'span the theory space'. A complete scientific theory should be able to predict every event in its domain, given the starting conditions, and the minimum of operational definitions 'to fill the theory with real values'. So argo's critique on the circularity is just beating hot air.

For the record: Newton defined mass as "the amount of matter which is determined by its volume and density". Isn't that great? Try to define 'density' without referring to mass...

In formal and (in their domain) complete theories, one always will have circular definitions. Examples: F = ma. Try to define mass without referring to a force, or the other way round. (OK, you could do it by referring to Lagrangian, energy, etc but if you look carefully you will see that you always took something on board implicitly you did not define yet, and then, if you do, you will have to refer to a concept you already were using). Evolution: the survival of the fittest. Who is the fittest? The one that survives... It is simply the case that definitions of concepts are always circular. It cannot be different. One could even go one step further: every definition is a tautology. And with time it is not different. But what makes a theory scientific (math excluded...) is that one can make operational definitions. That means, one can define concepts as actions to take and observations to make. In this way one establishes that a theory is about something. In short: conceptual definitions are always circular; operational definitions are not. The idea of time-flow is more or less just a metaphor. Things flow in time*, or better, processes occur in time. Time itself does not flow. Normally what one means is that the time we call 'present' is ever going onwards. But this is just an example of an indexical. Indexicals are words which meaning is completely context dependent. Examples are 'I' (meaning the speaker), 'here' (the place where the speaker is), and, yes, 'now' (the moment that a speaker utters a sentence). For these do not exist any hard physical references. So the 'flow of time' is not a physical concept. But you treat it as such. Many laws of physics have a dependency on time: this means that we can describe how things change in time. But for laws of physics to become really empirical we need an operational definition of time. Practically, we do this be using 'standard changers', aka clocks: some regular process, where we can count the number of regular changes (tick-tack-tick...). And as a final remark: you know that physics just works. One can predict solar eclipses many years in advance on the second, special relativity is tested to the bone and is more or less the touchstone for every fundamental law of physics (they must be Lorentz-invariant), general relativity has until now withstood every empirical test: so there cannot be much wrong with the physical understanding of time. * On second thought, no, things do not flow in time. They flow in space... 'Flowing in time' is still metaphoric speech.

This was for me the killer... If you make propositions that are inconsistent with established physics, then your model is worthless.

Right. I always suspected that God uses Linux and has programmed the universe in C++ (the universe is also object-oriented). As all black holes are connected in hyperspace (as a 5-dimensional array, for us it appears as wormholes), the black holes we observe are in fact all hard links to the single and one /dev/null. However, it might be that some black holes are soft links to /dev/null in other universes. That would explain the multiverse. I think you are on the right track. Do not learn math. Learn C++. PS Linux does endless loops in six seconds Linus Torvalds

I am Dutch, live in the German-speaking part of Switzerland, and do not know Italian. So I do not read Il Corriere della Sera... Why do you think so?

Exactly. There are many forms of Hinduism, even materialism. That seems to be from Advaita Vedanta. In materialism this is simple: there is no thing as a soul or independent self. Consciousness of course exists, but is explained as a process, mainly of the brain. That answers the questions you raised. Of course not. The 'self' is more or less the complete organism: the organism is trying to protect and preserve itself, not "its self". I hope you see the difference... All these questions evaporate from the materialistic (or naturalistic) world view. There does not exist such a thing. You probably mean Jung's 'collective unconsious': but this is not an entity with which we all connect. It is the set of archetypes we have from birth, uninfluenced from culture. From the link, in Jung's own words: So the archetypes are not in some metaphysical 'collective unconscious', but are in every human individual, inherited biologically from our parents. All humans, according to Jung, share the same archetypes, because we all belong to the same species. Really? Or anekdotes, ideology, false interpretations, unproven religious world views? It is too easy. Feel like a soul? Then there is one. Feel connected? Then we are, (in the metaphysical sense of course; in psychological, sociological, environmental and biological sense we of course are connected; but we do not have to invoke magic for that...). Just to be aware that nothing exists independently.

Hmmm... no. The math is above my head. But as addition (I presume...), I know that the uncertainty principle also exists in classical wave mechanics: see here. E.g. it is responsible for AM broadcasts that the radio station's frequency has a certain bandwidth: would the station send nothing, the frequency would be very precise, but as soon as the signal is modulated, it spreads.