Jump to content

Does the Uncertainty principle " Focus on Location of Particles?"


Iwonderaboutthings

Recommended Posts

Taken from Wikipedia.

 

In quantum mechanics, the uncertainty principle is any of a variety of mathematical inequalities asserting a fundamental limit to the precision with which certain pairs of physical properties of a particle known as complementary variables, such as position x and momentum p, can be known simultaneously.

 

Here is the link:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncertainty_principle

 

 

 

--->Although I am quite familiar with the generalization, I am wondering if.

 

 

That the uncertainty principle sounds like a mathematical attempt " with no physics involved" that tries to locate 2 positions simultaneously and or harmoniously, while using momentum and mass simultaneously <--- if that makes any sense.

 

 

I think precession may be the issue. By this I mean such as planet earth having 2 seasons at the same time.

 

However, could this uncertainty principle unknowingly have its " Translation Method" off by some factor of degree, due to fundamental limits of precision?

Edited by Iwonderaboutthings
Link to comment
Share on other sites

A general form of the uncertianty principal holds for any pair of observables such that their corresponding hermitian operators do not commute. It is a rather general statment woven into the formulation of quantum mechanics.

Edited by ajb
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Because of the wave nature of QM, the complementary variables are Fourier transforms of each other. The uncertainty relation is present in that math.

Fourier transforms of each other??????????????

 

When you say "each other" does this mean one variable is used twice? In Fourier transforms?

Such that , x is used twice like " example" x = G x1 and x2, but x always has the same value G??

 

x= G and then again x = G of "each other" ????

 

 

On another note.

In the Uncertainty Principles coupled with Lorentz Transforms Special Relativity etc, does 1 mean the physical number 1 " one" or does it mean.

 

1 = c

1= pi

1= x^2

 

????

 

Here is this 1 as I am seeing it. But then we see 2 a very often number used in derivatives.

 

shapeimage_2.png

 

What really discourages me about science is not understanding how science equations just throws a 1 in there.

Truly 1 must be some type of squared unit per say.

 

Doesn't c = 1 second as well?????????, is this what this 1 means??????????

 

Utterly Confused on this 1 deal.unsure.png

Edited by Iwonderaboutthings
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Position and momentum are Fourier duals of each other, they can be associated with each other in a one-to-one fasion. Rather generically the derivatives of an action are conjugate variables to the variable that one is differentiating with respect to. So we have uncertianty relations for all such dual pairs.

 

I am at a loss about your question about "1". Are you getting confused about units in which we numerically set the speed of light to be 1?

 

Edited by ajb
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Position and momentum are Fourier duals of each other, they can be associated with each other in a one-to-one fasion. Rather generically the derivatives of an action are conjugate variables to the variable that one is differentiating with respect to. So we have uncertianty relations for all such dual pairs.

 

I am at a loss about your question about "1". Are you getting confused about units in which we numerically set the speed of light to be 1?

 

numerically set the speed of light to be 1 ""yes""smile.png smile.png smile.png the units and their settings....

 

I kind of thought this to be the case but wanted to be very very sure as to the " SETTINGS OF 1"

 

So you don't minus 1 you minus the speed of light???????????

 

So as dx->0 makes more sense to me cause it would be undefined then, 1 needs to be initialized and set???????

 

So then REPLACE THE 1 IN THE UNCERTAINTY PRINCIPLE WITH C????

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So then REPLACE THE 1 IN THE UNCERTAINTY PRINCIPLE WITH C????

No, don't do that. You can check to see if the units make sense, if not then you may have set c=1 somewhere and not realised it.

 

So we have

 

[length] [mass][length] [time]^{-1} = [length]^{2}[mass] [time]^{-1} for position times momentum.

 

Then Plancks contant is [energy] [time] = [mass] [length]^{2} [time]^{-2} [time] = [length]^{2}[mass] [time]^{-1}.

 

So the units on both sides agree. Thus there is no room for a c to be inserted which has units [length][time]^{-1} .

 

I hope that makes some sense to you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, don't do that. You can check to see if the units make sense, if not then you may have set c=1 somewhere and not realised it.

 

So we have

 

[length] [mass][length] [time]^{-1} = [length]^{2}[mass] [time]^{-1} for position times momentum.

 

Then Plancks contant is [energy] [time] = [mass] [length]^{2} [time]^{-2} [time] = [length]^{2}[mass] [time]^{-1}.

 

So the units on both sides agree. Thus there is no room for a c to be inserted which has units [length][time]^{-1} .

 

I hope that makes some sense to you.

THIS MADE CRYSTAL CLEAR SENSE THANKS! !wink.pngsmile.pngwink.pngsmile.pngwink.pngsmile.png

 

Now many other things make more and more sense, I get inspired now.... TRULY APPRECIATED

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You certianly have the uncertianty relation between angular position and angular momentum, these two are conjugate variables.

 

The relations you are thinking of realy boil down to relations relations between position and momentum due to the definition of angular momentum.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please take note that the uncertainty principle does not only apply to quantum mechanics.

There is an uncertainty principle inherent in the mathematics of classical wave theory.

 

This is the simplest reference I can find.

 

http://www.sciteclibrary.ru/eng/catalog/pages/11221.html

great article! read about 1/2 will finish the rest tomorrow thanks!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

...relation between angular position and angular momentum...

These two are linked by a Fourier transform, yes. But I believe others are not.

 

For instance the angular momentum components along x, y and z. If one is known, the others are not. I see no Fourier transform between them.

 

More must exist, in the first line those that result from angular momentum, like the magnetic momentum in x, y and z.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.