![]() |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Curves in spacetime violate Heisenberg's uncertainty principle
*If* an object traveling through spacetime can loop back in time in a certain way, then its trajectory can allow a pair of its components to be measured with perfect accuracy, violating Heisenberg's uncertainty principle. This new finding involves a particular trajectory called an open timelike curve (OTC), which is a special case of a closed timelike curve (CTC), a theoretical concept that has previously provoked controversy because it raises the possibility of traveling backwards in time. According to Heisenberg's uncertainty principle, measurements of any pair of variables must have at least a minimum amount of error. The most well-known example of the pair of variables is position and momentum, but the principle applies to any two variables that have a mathematical relationship which makes them conjugate variables. The uncertainty principle is thought to be an inherent property of quantum systems due to their wave-particle duality, rather than any observational limitations. Although previous studies have found that CTC models can theoretically violate the uncertainty principle, nobody knew that this could happen for the special case of an OTC. Now, physicists Jacques Pienaar, Tim Ralph, and Casey Myers at The University of Queensland in Australia have theoretically shown that OTCs can allow scientists to measure a pair of conjugate variables of a quantum state to an arbitrary degree of accuracy forbidden by the uncertainty principle. The finding could have implications for quantum gravity and change the way that scientists view quantum uncertainty. Read more at: http://phys.org/news/2013-02-spaceti...ciple.html#jCp |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Feb 19, 5:19*pm, Sam Wormley wrote:
Curves in spacetime violate Heisenberg's uncertainty principle *If* an object traveling through spacetime can loop back in time in a certain way, then its trajectory can allow a pair of its components to be measured with perfect accuracy, violating Heisenberg's uncertainty principle. This new finding involves a particular trajectory called an open timelike curve (OTC), which is a special case of a closed timelike curve (CTC), a theoretical concept that has previously provoked controversy because it raises the possibility of traveling backwards in time. According to Heisenberg's uncertainty principle, measurements of any pair of variables must have at least a minimum amount of error. The most well-known example of the pair of variables is position and momentum, but the principle applies to any two variables that have a mathematical relationship which makes them conjugate variables. The uncertainty principle is thought to be an inherent property of quantum systems due to their wave-particle duality, rather than any observational limitations. Although previous studies have found that CTC models can theoretically violate the uncertainty principle, nobody knew that this could happen for the special case of an OTC. Now, physicists Jacques Pienaar, Tim Ralph, and Casey Myers at The University of Queensland in Australia have theoretically shown that OTCs can allow scientists to measure a pair of conjugate variables of a quantum state to an arbitrary degree of accuracy forbidden by the uncertainty principle. The finding could have implications for quantum gravity and change the way that scientists view quantum uncertainty. Read more at: http://phys.org/news/2013-02-spaceti...rg-uncertainty... It is a pity and a loss that I cannot find men who can actually talk,not chant the empirical voodoo as you write here,but actually discuss what is so different between the empirical agenda and astronomy proper even though the vicious strain of empiricism attaches itself to astronomy like a parasite and destroys it,at least temporarily. I left the sci.relativity forum once I read the originator's 1920 reason for 'warping' space given that space itself is merely the background canvas against which all motions and structures are assessed and subsequently have no 'flexible' quality.First he rejects stellar islands we now know as galaxies and the appeal to light leaving stars leading to an impoverished Universe is so facile that were it not so dominant it would be hilarious - "This view is not in harmony with the theory of Newton. The latter theory rather requires that the universe should have a kind of centre in which the density of the stars is a maximum, and that as we proceed outwards from this centre the group-density of the stars should diminish, until finally, at great distances, it is succeeded by an infinite region of emptiness. The stellar universe ought to be a finite island in the infinite ocean of space. This conception is in itself not very satisfactory. It is still less satisfactory because it leads to the result that the light emitted by the stars and also individual stars of the stellar system are perpetually passing out into infinite space, never to return, and without ever again coming into interaction with other objects of nature. Such a finite material universe would be destined to become gradually but systematically impoverished." 1920 http://www.bartleby.com/173/30.html An astronomer has so much more of a wider view than a mathematician,even a mathematicians calling himself an astronomer.yet I have to encounter a single one of them who even understood their own system such as it is.There have been precious few individuals in the last few centuries who have called into question the basis for Newton's agenda and for a number of reasons,some historical,some technical and some of it relating to talent,none of who have been able to sort and sift through the details to point out what works and what does not.Somehow most mathematicians are happy to keep it that way as your article describes. Maybe the time for that stuff has come and gone and people are prepared to make the adjustment to contemporary imaging and its interpretative power and do a retrospective correction to empiricism as time goes on but sadly I haven't seen a move in that direction. |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Feb 19, 9:19*am, Sam Wormley wrote:
Curves in spacetime violate Heisenberg's uncertainty principle ....this reminds me of the books by Roger Penrose, in which he defends the conjecture that because spacetime's curvature can't be ambiguous, it's the fact that we're heavy enough to give off gravity that prevents us from meeting the fate of Schrodinger's cat, thus allowing us to be conscious. But isn't string theory taking care of cleaning up the rough edges between quantum mechanics and general relativity? John Savard |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Detection of the uncertainty principle in a drum the width of a sand grain vindicates quantum theory but could complicate the hunt for gravitational waves! | Painius[_1_] | Misc | 8 | February 20th 13 11:50 PM |
The uncertainty principle | Painius[_1_] | Misc | 13 | November 13th 11 01:13 AM |
Emily Dickinson Discovered the Uncertainty Principle in the 1800's. | Jonathan | Policy | 0 | January 10th 10 03:13 AM |
Uncertainty About Uncertainty (was - 3-D space accrues . . .) | oldcoot[_2_] | Misc | 0 | June 29th 08 03:55 AM |
Fermat's principle and curved spacetime | Pentcho Valev | Astronomy Misc | 41 | January 27th 08 05:30 AM |