Uncertainty Principle Wrong?

[pantheory]

Looks like they may have found a way to show that Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle may be wrong. The Uncertainty Principle of Quantum Mechanics is intuitive to a certain extent and is only one of a few primary foundation principles of Quantum Theory. Maybe its wording and formulations may need to be changed in the future.

 

Other principles of QM are the Either Or, but not both at once, wave particle duality Principle of EM radiation, the Indeterminacy of particle state before observation, relating to Shroedingers Cat and quantum Entanglement. The Lack of Causality Principle: that events can happen by pure chance, their probability determined by statistics.

 

Will this finding hold up under scrutiny? If so one might expect there will eventually be other tests invented, like the one below, trying to find fault with other principles of quantum mechanics.

 

http://www.scienceda...21004121638.htm

Edited October 4, 2012 by pantheory

[studiot]

Been there, done that, got the T-shirt

 

 

http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/68862-did-the-canadians-nuke-the-uncertainty-principle/page__p__701279__fromsearch__1#entry701279

[pantheory]

Been there, done that, got the T-shirt

 

http://www.sciencefo...__1#entry701279

 

Thanks for that. I guess I missed the first news releases last month. Was the T-shirt free?

 

My comment and implied question still is relevant however.

 

Will they now start on trying to disprove the other principles of QM below?

 

Other principles of QM are the Either Or, but not both at once, wave particle duality Principle of EM radiation, the Indeterminacy of particle state before observation, relating to Schroedinger's Cat and quantum Entanglement. The Lack of Causality Principle: that events can happen by pure chance, their probability determined by statistics.

[swansont]

Will they now start on trying to disprove the other principles of QM below?

Start? That implies that these other principles have not been continually tested over the years, and that's simply not the case. They are accepted because they have been tested many times, and every time the concept holds up. Many further experiments rely on the more basic principles being true.

[pantheory]

Start? That implies that these other principles have not been continually tested over the years, and that's simply not the case. They are accepted because they have been tested many times, and every time the concept holds up. Many further experiments rely on the more basic principles being true.

(bold added)

 

I agree. I think I recognized the possible misinterpretation of my intent but forgot to reword/edit it.

 

Will they now start on trying to disprove the other principles of QM below?

(my quote: previous wording)

 

Maybe better wording: Do they now have improved methods, equipment, ideas, to better test the other principles of QM listed below?

(now listed above )

Edited October 5, 2012 by pantheory

[Ronald Hyde]

Thanks for that. I guess I missed the first news releases last month. Was the T-shirt free?

 

My comment and implied question still is relevant however.

 

Will they now start on trying to disprove the other principles of QM below?

 

Other principles of QM are the Either Or, but not both at once, wave particle duality Principle of EM radiation, the Indeterminacy of particle state before observation, relating to Schroedinger's Cat and quantum Entanglement. The Lack of Causality Principle: that events can happen by pure chance, their probability determined by statistics.

 

What is needed is a very clear statement of the working principles of QM, so that no one who ever uses them might misunderstand them.

I find lots of 'problems' around that just completely disappear when the described 'experiment' is formulated correctly. One such is the

dispersion of the wavepacket for a localized particle. When you formulate the experiment from beginning to end, the wavepacket sort of

disappears into the larger problem.

 

It's been eighty years since Dirac stated them and some updating, at least of the language, might be in order. Might be a good project

for some people here.

[pantheory]

What is needed is a very clear statement of the working principles of QM, so that no one who ever uses them might misunderstand them.

I find lots of 'problems' around that just completely disappear when the described 'experiment' is formulated correctly. One such is the

dispersion of the wavepacket for a localized particle. When you formulate the experiment from beginning to end, the wavepacket sort of

disappears into the larger problem.

 

It's been eighty years since Dirac stated them and some updating, at least of the language, might be in order. Might be a good project

for some people here.

Yeah, sounds like my kinda project. I have proposed lots of experiments to test QM principles, but obviously none will be simple to do. First they need to be written up in detail and then criticized. First I need to complete an experiment that I designed long ago proposed to compare the one-way speed of light, up vs. down. That experiment may be completed within a couple of years, god willing and the creek don't run dry

//

Edited October 5, 2012 by pantheory

[Bignose]

What is needed is a very clear statement of the working principles of QM, so that no one who ever uses them might misunderstand them.

I find lots of 'problems' around that just completely disappear when the described 'experiment' is formulated correctly. One such is the

dispersion of the wavepacket for a localized particle. When you formulate the experiment from beginning to end, the wavepacket sort of

disappears into the larger problem.

 

It's been eighty years since Dirac stated them and some updating, at least of the language, might be in order. Might be a good project

for some people here.

 

Not sure this is really needed. There seem to be many textbooks under the general category of "introduction to quantum mechanics". David Griffiths 2004 book under that exact title seems like a good place to start. If that one is found lacking, seems to be many more listed on Amazon.com. Someone who is more familiar with the texts may also come along and suggest their favorite texts.

 

What I am saying is that what is going to be posted here that isn't in those texts?

[Ronald Hyde]

Not sure this is really needed. There seem to be many textbooks under the general category of "introduction to quantum mechanics". David Griffiths 2004 book under that exact title seems like a good place to start. If that one is found lacking, seems to be many more listed on Amazon.com. Someone who is more familiar with the texts may also come along and suggest their favorite texts.

 

What I am saying is that what is going to be posted here that isn't in those texts?

If it's not posted here it sure needs to be. And in a wallet sized card everyone can carry.

And be a sticky on the forum. I see people who I'm sure are trained in this making

statements that don't quite make sense because they're not put in the context of the rules.

[Bignose]

If it's not posted here it sure needs to be. And in a wallet sized card everyone can carry.

 

I really only know the tip of the iceberg about quantum mechanics. I know, for example, that there is a ton of stuff I don't know. I think to make the requisite knowledge "wallet sized" one would end up needing a microscope in order to read the font.

 

Point is -- there is no such thing as a wallet sized cheat sheet for quantum mechanics. It is a complicated subject. That is why there are many science popularizations done; in order to try to create analogies or pictures for people to understand. But, it must be remembered that those are merely analogies or cartoons, not the actual events happening. And not what the actual theories say.

 

The closest thing to 'wallet sized'? Roger Penrose's 2004 book The Road to Reality: A Complete Guide to the Laws of the Universe. It is 1100+ pages, but it does its best to start from basic arithmetic and develop all the necessary tools. And that takes 1100+ pages. And there is no doubt that a book of that nature can really only survey the info, not go into much depth at all.

 

This is why college degrees take years and years. There is no such thing as wallet-sized when it comes to this subject.

 

Maybe what I am really saying is that it would be nice if the people who show up here trying to destroy QM would have all worked their way through a book or two in order to actually understand what the theory does and doesn't say before they try to tear it down. The really embarrassing part of that is that there are tons of open questions about QM. I can say with certainty (even with how little I know) that it is a certainly incomplete theory, and may even be flat out wrong. But, so many people try to tear down already known and repeatedly confirmed results -- you can't just wave those away. And you can't wave away the successes QM has had. Any new theory will have to incorporate these known results as special cases or similar... the known accuracy between prediction and experiment will always be true.

Edited October 9, 2012 by Bignose

[pantheory]

I'm of the opinion that Quantum Theory (QT), which basically is the explanations and Principles of QM, are almost entirely wrong. The reason why I think this problem exists is because the "hidden variables" of quantum mechanics have not been discovered. Whether they exist or not, I expect many of the other Principles might be shown to be wrong.

 

(from the OP)

Other principles of QM are the Either Or, but not both at once, wave particle duality Principle of EM radiation, the Indeterminacy of particle state before observation, relating to Schroedinger's Cat and quantum Entanglement. The Lack of Causality Principle: that events can happen by pure chance, their probability determined by statistics.

I'm expecting that within less than a dozen years some of these other principles will be challenged and shown to be wrong. Even if QT were completely changed, I would still expect the QM system of analysis to change little.

//

Edited October 9, 2012 by pantheory

[Ronald Hyde]

I really only know the tip of the iceberg about quantum mechanics. I know, for example, that there is a ton of stuff I don't know. I think to make the requisite knowledge "wallet sized" one would end up needing a microscope in order to read the font.

 

Point is -- there is no such thing as a wallet sized cheat sheet for quantum mechanics. It is a complicated subject. That is why there are many science popularizations done; in order to try to create analogies or pictures for people to understand. But, it must be remembered that those are merely analogies or cartoons, not the actual events happening. And not what the actual theories say.

 

The closest thing to 'wallet sized'? Roger Penrose's 2004 book The Road to Reality: A Complete Guide to the Laws of the Universe. It is 1100+ pages, but it does its best to start from basic arithmetic and develop all the necessary tools. And that takes 1100+ pages. And there is no doubt that a book of that nature can really only survey the info, not go into much depth at all.

 

This is why college degrees take years and years. There is no such thing as wallet-sized when it comes to this subject.

 

Maybe what I am really saying is that it would be nice if the people who show up here trying to destroy QM would have all worked their way through a book or two in order to actually understand what the theory does and doesn't say before they try to tear it down. The really embarrassing part of that is that there are tons of open questions about QM. I can say with certainty (even with how little I know) that it is a certainly incomplete theory, and may even be flat out wrong. But, so many people try to tear down already known and repeatedly confirmed results -- you can't just wave those away. And you can't wave away the successes QM has had. Any new theory will have to incorporate these known results as special cases or similar... the known accuracy between prediction and experiment will always be true.

 

I'm thinking about a dozen or so rules that you must use to formulate every problem in QM. Now problems vary in their complexity, not doubt about that,

but the same dozen or so rules apply no matter how complex the problem. And I can see that people, well educated ones at that, simply fail to apply

those rules. For instance in one post someone said 'you must use an unbiased instrument to make a measurement'. I had to tell them that there is no such

thing as an unbiased instrument, different instruments would make different measurements. That you must formulate the problem from beginning to end

including any measuring instruments. That's one of the dozen or so rules.

[ACG52]

I'm of the opinion that Quantum Theory (QT), which basically is the explanations and Principles of QM, are almost entirely wrong.

 

Then why does it work so well in reality, as opposed to your opinion?

[pantheory]

Then why does it work so well in reality, as opposed to your opinion?

Comments on the news re Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle: Like Einstein believed, I also think that QM is a statistical system based upon probabilities, as well as equations developed from data based upon a long history of observations. This is Quantum Mechanics. Quantum Theory can be looked at as the theory behind why the system and equations work. The explanations and theory of it I think are wrong. Even if the theory of it were entirely wrong and someday replaced it might not change Quantum Mechanics much at all since it is a mathematical system of analyzing the quantum world.

//

Edited October 10, 2012 by pantheory