Observer effect and Uncertainty principle are the same?

[studiot]

Any inequality effectively defines an uncertainty

Here is a purely theoretical one

For any closed three dimensional object

The square of its volume times 36pi is less than or equal to the cube of its surface area.

[math]36\pi {V^2} \le {A^3}[/math]

 

 

[swansont]

4 hours ago, Itoero said:

 

How do you explain that there can be several kinds of uncertainty relations?https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncertainty_principle#Additional_uncertainty_relations

They all apply, and are present even if there is no measurement.

4 hours ago, Itoero said:

How can you derive a relation if you don't know which one until you observed the system?

Physicists derive equations all the time. Bose and Einstein derived the physics of the condensate that bears their name 80 years before the experiment was done. 

[Itoero]

On ‎3‎/‎23‎/‎2019 at 12:22 AM, swansont said:

They all apply, and are present even if there is no measurement.

How are they present? hey don't have a physical presence.

 

On ‎3‎/‎23‎/‎2019 at 12:22 AM, swansont said:

Physicists derive equations all the time. Bose and Einstein derived the physics of the condensate that bears their name 80 years before the experiment was done. 

Yes but equations need to be experimentally 'proven' .

[swansont]

9 hours ago, Itoero said:

How are they present? hey don't have a physical presence.

Really? The uncertainty principle is a result of the wave nature of QM. If a particle did not have a probability distribution, it could not e.g. be in to places at once and go through both slits of a Young's diffraction experiment.

A hydrogen atom needs an electron cloud rather than a precise trajectory to behave as it does (not having an electric oscillating dipole, for instance). You need a wave function to describe it, and therefore you have an uncertainty relation. The HUP is also part of the argument of why the electron doesn't collapse and stick to the proton. 

9 hours ago, Itoero said:

Yes but equations need to be experimentally 'proven' .

Yes, that's how science works, but that's irrelevant to the discussion, and does not diminish my rebuttal. You can derive expressions without doing an experiment to get the theoretical result.

[druS]

On 3/25/2019 at 8:51 PM, swansont said:

 

A hydrogen atom needs an electron cloud rather than a precise trajectory to behave as it does (not having an electric oscillating dipole, for instance). You need a wave function to describe it, and therefore you have an uncertainty relation. The HUP is also part of the argument of why the electron doesn't collapse and stick to the proton. 

 

 

I love this place. Completely unexpected but occasionally something goes "Hell, what happened there? It's something right on the tip of my ability to understand." An issue then to drive study.

swansont, thanks.

But to be fair, rock on Itoero. If you weren't making noise mate, I'd be missing these opportunities.

Love this community, thanks all.

[Conjurer]

On 10/28/2018 at 9:17 AM, Strange said:

No. The observer effect is about how our measurements affect what we are trying to measure. It can apply to almost anything (for example, putting a voltmeter across a circuit changes the behaviour of the circuit). It can also apply to a single measurement, while the uncertainty principle relates two measurements.

In quantum physics the act of observation goes beyond just a measurement problem.  The spin of a particle is in limbo until an observation is made, and the speed and position of a particle is in limbo until an observation is made.  A particle will begin to act more like a particle and less like a wave when observations are made.  No coloration has ever been found with this behavior being due to the influence of any type of measuring tools themselves.  If you have a reference for this, it should be deleted or thrown in the garbage for spreading lies.

[PervPhysProf]

 two things

First is that the two are both descriptive of particle pair production and particle wave duality however their processes are not mutually implicit. Put simply, one says says about the other but their axioms are not proven to be interrelated, although it would seem that such is the case.

Secondly, it could also be true that there are two particles that do indeed coexist in a localized space, but that would imply that there's information transfer which there's something called the bell inequality showing that if this were case yet in fact n fact there's actually evidence that no two particle pairs are behaving quite the same the

There is a Planck sensitive mechanical dynamic (QCD) in which matter waves and those that come out of your schools are only apt at representing behavior in gravito/EM about the width of quarks..

You dont build from tier 5 or 60, you build from tier one. To particles to atoms to molecules, etc

Edited June 13, 2019 by PervPhysProf