tobindax

Offensive behavior is unwarranted. Einstein struggled until his death to disprove the Copenhagen Interpretation. You have no right to mock people struggling to grasp the concepts.

Don't troll please. I'm not a physicist. I'm trying to understand. I think I'm going to understand it better by reading about entanglement's connection with the principle since it sounds more intuitive than going through math. -- The quantum eraser experiment appears to also be promising.

I'm not convinced any of this isn't a result of interfering equipment or incompletely isolated experimental setups. Whenever I click a link about those proofs I read about controversies, objections, and scientists suggesting other reasons explaining them. Most importantly many of the physicists I see on videos lecturing on it, when asked why it happened they offer as a personal opinion the "light through a dark corridor" example[/analogy], or a variation. This is: you may only see if light goes through the corridor, by putting your hand between the light and its target, abstracting its path (the observer is in a room perpendicular to the corridor with no way to see the light other than obstructing it; no air dust is present). If they see clearly a relation of the uncertainty principle with apparatuses obstructing the initial behavior of particles then I keep asking: why not treat it as a "weak" principle since in the future science+technology may appear that can see particles without obstructing their initial behavior?

Wouldn't that suffer from the same problem I postulate in the OP? Current technologies' insensitivity/obstruction

If Uncertainty Principle is a result of 'fiddling' of an apparatus with what is being observed (for example light particle/wave of a detector fiddling with particles/waves being observed), then wouldn't uncertainty principle cease to apply if in the future a 'smaller' or 'less interfering' element of nature is discovered for use for observation? Say, a via the use of a "string powered detector" or whatnot. Also, I notice a lot of disagreement between websites on it. The most 'zany' appear to imply the principle is about an abstract concept of "the observer can not know" while others take it down to earth and talk about interference of the apparatus observing and the particles. I tend to think the 2nd camp is the most rational, hence my question: why do they take it so strongly and not consider it a "weak" principle, since, they don't seem to have proven they will "never" be able to measure them without interfering with them [since it appears in the future such a method/technology/science may be discovered], unless I miss something? Thank you in advance for any help you may offer. I'm an outsider of physics, I'm an engineer but with no official knowledge into the depths of these things.