Did the Canadians Nuke the Uncertainty Principle?

[studiot]

I would ask that you please stop derailing this thread

 

I consider this remark highly biased.

 

We have a conceptual difference about whether counting constitutes a valid form of measurement.

 

Since the answers offered to my original question was that the Canadians have simply shown there is more than just the measurement, the question of what is measurement is surely valid for discussion.

Edited October 6, 2012 by studiot

[EquisDeXD]

I don't exactly understand this "weak" measurement thing. What's the big deal? You still can't trace the exact path an electron took, your merely just restricting a few parameters of the places it could have taken in response to it passing through whatever device made the supposed "weak" measurement. If you didn't have the weak measurement device it would have a somewhat different probability wave, and your not 100% determined the momentum and position at any given moment anyway, I don't even understand how could know the momentum and position if when you observe its position its no longer in superpoisiton and therefore could be the result of any energy level and if you know only its momentum it could be in any position, that's not even quantum physics, that's just logic.

Edited October 7, 2012 by EquisDeXD

[Ronald Hyde]

I doubt that Heisenberg thought that his statement of uncertainty was the last word on the subject, in fact it was the first word. People were still of

the belief that you could measure canonical variables to an arbitrary degree of accuracy, held over from classical mechanics. I think he gave this very

simple example to show that this was no longer the case. I don't even know if he was aware of or wanted to use operator formalism to express this, in

any case the real test is whether you could conduct an experiment which could get around this limitation.

[EquisDeXD]

I doubt that Heisenberg thought that his statement of uncertainty was the last word on the subject, in fact it was the first word. People were still of

the belief that you could measure canonical variables to an arbitrary degree of accuracy, held over from classical mechanics. I think he gave this very

simple example to show that this was no longer the case. I don't even know if he was aware of or wanted to use operator formalism to express this, in

any case the real test is whether you could conduct an experiment which could get around this limitation.

 

Well, in the only report where I've seen of weak measurement, it involved passing light through some kind of calcium crystals and the guy said that just because he knew how the probability wave was altered meant all these other barriers in quantum mechanics were broken, which makes no sense, in fact quantum mechanics itself makes more sense.

Edited October 7, 2012 by EquisDeXD

[studiot]

Ronald Hyde

 

People were still of

the belief that you could measure canonical variables to an arbitrary degree of accuracy, held over from classical mechanics.

 

Your statement #28 forms a pretty fair observation, except for the above.

 

Classical mechanics includes an uncertainty principle, of the same form as that of Heisenberg, but for classical waves.

 

More generally, classical theory acknowledges that for various reasons exactitude is not always possible, even in theory.

 

The Heisenberg principle goes further.

 

It is a condition of measuring something there has to be a value to measure.

 

Heisenberg's principle asserts that at some fineless of granularity there is no single definable value to measure.

 

I thought that the Canadians were addressing that, so I thank those who pointed out that they (the Canadians) are simple addressing the measurement aspect.

 

Those who have brought statistics to this discussion are missing the point. This issue is not a matter of statistics and its use is wholly inappropriate in this case.

Edited October 7, 2012 by studiot

[Ronald Hyde]

Your statement #28 forms a pretty fair observation, except for the above.

 

Classical mechanics includes an uncertainty principle, of the same form as that of Heisenberg, but for classical waves.

 

More generally, classical theory acknowledges that for various reasons exactitude is not always possible, even in theory.

 

The Heisenberg principle goes further.

 

It is a condition of measuring something there has to be a value to measure.

 

Heisenberg's principle asserts that at some fineless of granularity there is no single definable value to measure.

 

I thought that the Canadians were addressing that, so I thank those who pointed out that they (the Canadians) are simple addressing the measurement aspect.

 

Those who have brought statistics to this discussion are missing the point. This issue is not a matter of statistics and its use is wholly inappropriate in this case.

 

You make a very good point there, but I was including the idea that there might be other means of measuring such a position than waves in the classical

notion. But I didn't state that, so my bad.

[mooeypoo]

!

Moderator Note

studiot, if you wish to discuss a topic you can start a new thread. There's a big blue button on the top right-hand side of thread lists in the sub forums.

Do not continue derailing the thread into a different topic. This will be the last warning you get on the matter, so please don't make things worse by answering this moderation note. We're not really asking you, we're telling you, and we're trying to do that politely.

Please read the rules you agreed to when you joined, and don't force our hands into moderation actions we are really trying to avoid.