Heisenberg principle

[MigL]

The math is what allows us to 'visualise' a particle's extent and function. Do we really need to draw a picture?

[juanrga]

No. I believe this your interpretation is wrong.

 

No. This is standard material found in any textbook on QM.

 

To complement a bit the answer already given by MigL. Textbooks explain how to derive the uncertainty inequality for any pair of non-commuting observables A and B. If A and B do not commute then a quantum particle cannot be in state with values for both. Momentum and position are only a special case of this. A and B do not need to be two different quantities, they can represent components of the same vector, for instance, the components of the angular momentum. No quantum particle can be in a state [math]\Psi_\mathbf{L}[/math] with angular momentum [math]\mathbf{L}[/math], because the particle cannot have [math]L_x[/math], [math]L_y[/math] and [math]L_z[/math] all at once.

 

You cannot measure what does not exist.

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

The math is what allows us to 'visualise' a particle's extent and function. Do we really need to draw a picture?

 

 

 

No. This is standard material found in any textbook on QM.

 

To complement a bit the answer already given by MigL. Textbooks explain how to derive the uncertainty inequality for any pair of non-commuting observables A and B. If A and B do not commute then a quantum particle cannot be in state with values for both. Momentum and position are only a special case of this. A and B do not need to be two different quantities, they can represent components of the same vector, for instance, the components of the angular momentum. No quantum particle can be in a state [math]\Psi_\mathbf{L}[/math] with angular momentum [math]\mathbf{L}[/math], because the particle cannot have [math]L_x[/math], [math]L_y[/math] and [math]L_z[/math] all at once.

 

You cannot measure what does not exist.

 

Now I have two of you mathematicians together, perhaps you can explain the feelings you feel, or the images you see , or the models that build up when you say "do not commute" " non commuting observables" " components of the same vector " You can't surely make these words without some form of past experience with such a condition outside of the quantum realm. If so, what did those "things" do , when they were out there in the non quantum world. ( not the maths but the image or picture.)

 

If on the other hand you are saying math exists , like some platonic shape existing in its own pure realm, doing its own thing that nobody can see, but the math can effect the real world that we see and move about in.

Edited December 20, 2012 by Mike Smith Cosmos

[Delta1212]

 

 

 

Now I have two of you mathematicians together, perhaps you can explain the feelings you feel, or the images you see , or the models that build up when you say "do not commute" " non commuting observables" " components of the same vector " You can't surely make these words without some form of past experience with such a condition outside of the quantum realm. If so, what did those "things" do , when they were out there in the non quantum world. ( not the maths but the image or picture.)

 

If on the other hand you are saying math exists , like some platonic shape existing in its own pure realm, doing its own thing that nobody can see, but the math can effect the real world that we see and move about in.

Imagining it as math is not as far off the mark as you might think.

 

I am trying to come up with a way to concisely communicate how I conceptualize this stuff, since I know the feeling of wanting something concrete to imagine even if you acknowledge that it's an imperfect representation. The problem I'm having is that the way I conceptualize things has evolved over a considerable period of time and a lot of exposure to the subject, and has involved several rethinkings of how the world fundamentally works.

 

I'm not sure how well I can express that perception of things in a single post so that it will actually be comprehensible.

[O'Nero Samuel]

Thanks MigL, I meant HUP.

Then I guess I was mistaken. The fact that quantum particles exist in the first place, I believe should give them momentum and an, so to speak, arbitrary position, but this we cannot measure when such particle is under observation. I get a picture of the mass now, though.

Delta1212 a wise guy (Albert Einstein) once said, "If you cannot explain it to a six years old, You don't really understand it"!

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

Imagining it as math is not as far off the mark as you might think.

 

I am trying to come up with a way to concisely communicate how I conceptualize this stuff, since I know the feeling of wanting something concrete to imagine even if you acknowledge that it's an imperfect representation. The problem I'm having is that the way I conceptualize things has evolved over a considerable period of time and a lot of exposure to the subject, and has involved several rethinkings of how the world fundamentally works.

 

I'm not sure how well I can express that perception of things in a single post so that it will actually be comprehensible.

 

Please have a go at explaining it, as this is the nubb of everybodies problem as they approach Quantum mechanics. If we leave it as just math, then we exclude everybody who is not a mathematician. ( like a sacred priesthood ). The rest of humanity deserves to 'know' at least in an illustrative way " What is at the root of our world ?"

 

Tell us even in an imperfect way ! You will go down in history as a great scientific GURU ! This is your 'Moment ' do not let it pass unused by you. Use words that all scientists at least can understand, if not everyone. If necessary ordinary scientists can re-explain it to every one else. Go !

 

I wait with baited breath. !

Edited December 21, 2012 by Mike Smith Cosmos

[juanrga]

When you say the word Quantum Particle What image comes into your mind then ? If not a round ball with the standard model Rows and columns of such particles.

 

An image is "a reproduction of the form of a person or object". A quantum particle such as the electron is smaller than light and has no form. You cannot imagine the image of something that has no image.

 

As said above a quantum particle such as the electron is not, neither looks as, a round ball. In fact, an electron is pointlike, it has no volume.

 

Do you see a number of laws and Math equations Say Schroenigers equation, Etc Etc.

If so what do you see them housed in ? what does it look like ? a nano something or other ? Some superstring topography, ? Where and how are the laws and maths formulae stored ? What do you see in your Head ?

 

The concept of quantum particle is an abstract concept, it cannot be visualized in terms of ordinary daily experience, a quantum particle does not look as anything that you have seen in your life.

 

Formally, the concept of a quantum particle such as the electron is rather close to the concept of material point (another abstract concept) used in classical mechanics, except that the properties and the behaviour are very different.

 

The correct understanding of a quantum particle, a physical object, is obtained from the representation of that system using the formalism of quantum mechanics (a theory of physics). For instance, the Schrödinger equation says, in an exact and unambiguous way, how a quantum particle moves in space. No image or picture can substitute the Schrödinger equation.

Edited December 21, 2012 by juanrga

[Delta1212]

Thanks MigL, I meant HUP.

Then I guess I was mistaken. The fact that quantum particles exist in the first place, I believe should give them momentum and an, so to speak, arbitrary position, but this we cannot measure when such particle is under observation. I get a picture of the mass now, though.

Delta1212 a wise guy (Albert Einstein) once said, "If you cannot explain it to a six years old, You don't really understand it"!

He also didn't like quantum physics because he didn't think it made any sense.

[juanrga]

He also didn't like quantum physics because he didn't think it made any sense.

 

Before 1930 Einstein raised his doubts on the consistency of quantum mechanics. But after 1930 he maintained the view that quantum mechanics is logically consistent but incomplete. See Einstein and the quantum theory for a review.

 

Einstein was also a critic of the old Bohr-Heisenberg interpretation and was one of the pioneers of a modern and rigorous interpretation of quantum mechanics which is named the statistical interpretation

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

.

Methinks Someone is about to say something rather PROFOUND any moment.

.

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

Einstein was also a critic of the old Bohr-Heisenberg interpretation and was one of the pioneers of a modern and rigorous interpretation of quantum mechanics which is named the statistical interpretation

 

Your Quote

 

 

L. E. BALLENTINE

Department of Physics, Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, B.C., Canada

The Statistical Interpretation of quantum theory is formulated for the purpose of providing a sound interpretation using a minimum of assumptions. Several arguments are advanced in favor of considering the quantum state description to apply only to an ensemble of similarily prepared systems, rather than supposing, as is often done, that it exhaustively represents an individual physical system.

Can you explain this just a little . How you feel this should be applied to the Heisenberg uncertainty Principle

Edited February 10, 2013 by Mike Smith Cosmos

[juanrga]

 

Your Quote

 

Can you explain this just a little . How you feel this should be applied to the Heisenberg uncertainty Principle

 

The statistical interpretation interprets the 'principle' (really a theorem) in terms of the standard deviations associated to a large series of measurements on system(s) prepared in the same way.

 

This minimalist interpretation is closer to what one really makes in the laboratory and avoids all the Copenhagen's philosophy about what they imagine that happens prior to measurement or between measurements.

 

A rather good discussion is given in http://statintquant.net/siq/siqse2.html

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

The statistical interpretation interprets the 'principle' (really a theorem) in terms of the standard deviations associated to a large series of measurements on system(s) prepared in the same way.

 

This minimalist interpretation is closer to what one really makes in the laboratory and avoids all the Copenhagen's philosophy about what they imagine that happens prior to measurement or between measurements.

 

A rather good discussion is given in http://statintquant.net/siq/siqse2.html

 

 

Good discussion. It should Go On !

 

Is it not possible to combine all these ' Heisenberg ' Threads together as they all make good reading. ( For the future )

Edited March 13, 2013 by Mike Smith Cosmos

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

Good discussion. It should Go On !

 

Is it not possible to combine all these ' Heisenberg ' Threads together as they all make good reading. ( For the future )

 

"Now, what that means is that there is fundamental indeterminacy from quantum mechanics, but besides that there are other sources of effective indeterminacy"

Murray Gell-Mann (1929-), received the 1969 Nobel Prize in physics.

 

 

 

"The true logic of this world is the calculus of probabilities"

James Clerk Maxwell (1831 - 1879), Scottish physicist

Edited April 8, 2013 by Mike Smith Cosmos

[Ron Bert]

Reality does not change because we are unable to absolutely possess it. All real points maintaining position and motion came
long before any of us. The Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle is just the tip of a proverbial ice-berg crossing the vast reaches of all matter/photon interactions in space. Predicting weather is so simply complex! No one can tell a cloud to stop. Would we claim to have power over push and pull and yet even time itself? Personally, when one looks at one's own hand it is an image from the past exciting the retinas firing neurons. We can not even locate ourselves exactly and that is the beauty of our open flowing universe, freedom. It is the old adage that we are superior to the universe and not that the universe is superior to us. I'll bet anyone will still take the money even if they don't know exactly where it is. All roads are in motion. If we would ever be able to describe unambiguously the location of anything, it would have to involve the theoretical spaces of above or below our reality; hard spots to grapple with.

Edited May 27, 2013 by Ron Bert

[ACG52]

I'm not sure that meant anything.