|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
The uncertainty principle
I've never understood this principle, the "uncertainty principle".
What was Heisenberg, et al., thinking? It seems they took a technical problem and built an entire principle of Nature out of it. The problem was the inability to measure both the position and the momentum of a particle. And it appears that the Copenhagen interpretation embraced Heisenberg's uncertainty principle as an integral part of quantum mechanics. What is the reasoning behind this? What is the logic? Who knows how much our technical abilities might rise? There may very well come a time when we'll be able "to know the value of all the properties of the system at the same time". And then what will happen? Heisenberg's uncertainty principle will be so deeply embedded in quantum physics that there will be no getting rid of it! How can anyone logically and reasonably draw out an entire principle of Nature based upon a technical problem in one small area of physics? ------------------------------------------- WIKIPEDIA: Suppose that we want to measure the position and speed of an object — for example a car going through a radar speed trap. Naively, we assume that the car has a definite position and speed at a particular moment in time, and how accurately we can measure these values depends on the quality of our measuring equipment — if we improve the precision of our measuring equipment, we will get a result that is closer to the true value. In particular, we would assume that how precisely we measure the speed of the car does not affect its position, and vice versa. In 1927, Heisenberg proved that these assumptions are not correct. Quantum mechanics shows that certain pairs of physical properties, like position and speed, cannot both be known to arbitrary precision: the more precisely one property is known, the less precisely the other can be known. This statement is known as the "uncertainty principle". The uncertainty principle isn't a statement about the accuracy of our measuring equipment, but about the nature of the system itself — our naive assumption that the car had a definite position and speed was incorrect. On a scale of cars and people, these uncertainties are too small to notice, but when dealing with atoms and electrons they become critical. The uncertainty principle shows mathematically that the product of the uncertainty in the position and momentum of a particle (momentum is velocity multiplied by mass) could never be less than a certain value, and that this value is related to Planck's constant. ------------------------------------------- So Heisenberg used mathematics to "prove" the uncertainty principle. That might make sense to a mathematician, but how does a logically-minded, reasonable physicist accept that such "uncertainty" MUST result in an *entire* principle of Nature? |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
The uncertainty principle
"Painius" wrote in message ... | I've never understood this principle, the "uncertainty principle". | | What was Heisenberg, et al., thinking? | | It seems they took a technical problem and built an entire principle | of Nature out of it. The problem was the inability to measure both | the position and the momentum of a particle. And it appears that the | Copenhagen interpretation embraced Heisenberg's uncertainty principle | as an integral part of quantum mechanics. | | What is the reasoning behind this? What is the logic? Measurement. It's quite simple. To measure when and where a horse passes the winning post, sunlight bounces off the post, the grass, the jockey and the horse and it is all reflected into the steward's camera for a photo-finish. If you magnify the photograph you'll find that the horse's nose is an inch in front or behind the line when the photo was taken. This doesn't matter if the other horse's nose is two inches behind the line, but if it is 1.001" behind then you need to magnify the photograph even further to decide the winner. Watch carefully and notice the movement of the horse's head. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bi_2JkAFRGk The centre of gravity of the horse and rider can be further ahead while the other horse still wins by stretching its neck out. In other words the head is constantly accelerating and decelerating even if the rider has a constant velocity (which he does not, it changes every time the horse's hooves hit the ground). Now you might think all we need is a faster shutter on the camera, take more frames, use higher magnification, but if you do that you'll be measuring the hair on the horse's nose instead of the nose. That's ok, you say, but now magnify even further until you are measuring an atom in the hair on the nose of the horse. Even more and you are measuring the position of an electron in the atom in the hair on the nose of the horse, and something strange happens. One photon from the sunlight, the same photon that reflects and enters the camera, knocks the electron right out of the atom. It affected the result. Ok, you say, don't use sunlight... but then you can't see anything. The uncertainty principle says if you make a measurement, the act of measuring affects the result. The other horse won by an electron because the first horse was measured. AND... there is a limit to magnification which depends on the wavelength of light used, hence the use of electron microscopes, electrons have a shorter wavelength. You need not worry about the uncertainty principle in everyday life, but when you want to see the microscopic it becomes important. You "illuminate" the atoms with a beam of electrons and that disturbs the atom. Heisenberg didn't invent the principle, he quantified it. |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
The uncertainty principle
On Nov 6, 5:17*am, Painius wrote:
I've never understood this principle, the "uncertainty principle". What was Heisenberg, et al., thinking? It seems they took a technical problem and built an entire principle of Nature out of it. *The problem was the inability to measure both the position and the momentum of a particle. *And it appears that the Copenhagen interpretation embraced Heisenberg's uncertainty principle as an integral part of quantum mechanics. What is the reasoning behind this? *What is the logic? Who knows how much our technical abilities might rise? *There may very well come a time when we'll be able "to know the value of all the properties of the system at the same time". *And then what will happen? *Heisenberg's uncertainty principle will be so deeply embedded in quantum physics that there will be no getting rid of it! How can anyone logically and reasonably draw out an entire principle of Nature based upon a technical problem in one small area of physics? * * * * * * * * * * * ------------------------------------------- * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * WIKIPEDIA: Suppose that we want to measure the position and speed of an object — for example a car going through a radar speed trap. Naively, we assume that the car has a definite position and speed at a particular moment in time, and how accurately we can measure these values depends on the quality of our measuring equipment — if we improve the precision of our measuring equipment, we will get a result that is closer to the true value. *In particular, we would assume that how precisely we measure the speed of the car does not affect its position, and vice versa. In 1927, Heisenberg proved that these assumptions are not correct. Quantum mechanics shows that certain pairs of physical properties, like position and speed, cannot both be known to arbitrary precision: the more precisely one property is known, the less precisely the other can be known. This statement is known as the "uncertainty principle". The uncertainty principle isn't a statement about the accuracy of our measuring equipment, but about the nature of the system itself — our naive assumption that the car had a definite position and speed was incorrect. On a scale of cars and people, these uncertainties are too small to notice, but when dealing with atoms and electrons they become critical. The uncertainty principle shows mathematically that the product of the uncertainty in the position and momentum of a particle (momentum is velocity multiplied by mass) could never be less than a certain value, and that this value is related to Planck's constant. * * * * * * * * * * * ------------------------------------------- So Heisenberg used mathematics to "prove" the uncertainty principle. That might make sense to a mathematician, but how does a logically-minded, reasonable physicist accept that such "uncertainty" MUST result in an *entire* principle of Nature? Painius I see this uncertainty in the micro world getting more severe as the distance and time scales get shorter and shorter..Like waves that will not fit in a Planck size. How much do we know about "quantum fluctuations?? How much do we know about "virtual stuff" that must go with uncertainty. How about those "probability waves"?? These probability waves |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
The uncertainty principle
On Nov 6, 7:15*am, "Androcles" .
2011 wrote: "Painius" wrote in message ... | I've never understood this principle, the "uncertainty principle". | | What was Heisenberg, et al., thinking? | | It seems they took a technical problem and built an entire principle | of Nature out of it. *The problem was the inability to measure both | the position and the momentum of a particle. *And it appears that the | Copenhagen interpretation embraced Heisenberg's uncertainty principle | as an integral part of quantum mechanics. | | What is the reasoning behind this? *What is the logic? Measurement. It's quite simple. To measure when and where a horse passes the winning post, sunlight bounces off the post, the grass, the jockey and the horse and it is all reflected into the steward's camera for a photo-finish. If you magnify the photograph you'll find that the horse's nose is an inch in front or behind the line when the photo was taken. This doesn't matter if the other horse's nose is two inches behind the line, but if it is 1.001" behind then you need to magnify the photograph even further to decide the winner. Watch carefully and notice the movement of the horse's head. *http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bi_2JkAFRGk The centre of gravity of the horse and rider can be further ahead while the other horse still wins by stretching its neck out. In other words the head is constantly accelerating and decelerating even if the rider has a constant velocity (which he does not, it changes every time the horse's hooves hit the ground). Now you might think all we need is a faster shutter on the camera, take more frames, use higher magnification, but if you do that you'll be measuring the hair on the horse's nose instead of the nose. That's ok, you say, but now magnify even further until you are measuring an atom in the hair on the nose of the horse. Even more and you are measuring the position of an electron in the atom in the hair on the nose of the horse, and something strange happens. One photon from the sunlight, the same photon that reflects and enters the camera, knocks the electron right out of the atom. It affected the result. Ok, you say, don't use sunlight... but then you can't see anything. The uncertainty principle says if you make a measurement, the act of measuring affects the result. The other horse won by an electron because the first horse was measured. AND... there is a limit to magnification which depends on the wavelength of light used, hence the use of electron microscopes, electrons have a shorter wavelength. You need not worry about the uncertainty principle in everyday life, but when you want to see the microscopic it becomes important. You "illuminate" the atoms with a beam of electrons and that disturbs the atom. Heisenberg didn't invent the principle, he quantified it. Intresting thing is GR breaks down on sub-scale sizes. No smooth like space curve inside Planck time,an distance.To me that implies gravity space geometrical structure undergoes probability quantum fluctuations Hmmmm TreBert |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
The uncertainty principle
On Nov 6, 9:11*am, "G=EMC^2" wrote:
On Nov 6, 7:15*am, "Androcles" . 2011 wrote: "Painius" wrote in message .. . | I've never understood this principle, the "uncertainty principle". | | What was Heisenberg, et al., thinking? | | It seems they took a technical problem and built an entire principle | of Nature out of it. *The problem was the inability to measure both | the position and the momentum of a particle. *And it appears that the | Copenhagen interpretation embraced Heisenberg's uncertainty principle | as an integral part of quantum mechanics. | | What is the reasoning behind this? *What is the logic? Measurement. It's quite simple. To measure when and where a horse passes the winning post, sunlight bounces off the post, the grass, the jockey and the horse and it is all reflected into the steward's camera for a photo-finish. If you magnify the photograph you'll find that the horse's nose is an inch in front or behind the line when the photo was taken. This doesn't matter if the other horse's nose is two inches behind the line, but if it is 1.001" behind then you need to magnify the photograph even further to decide the winner. Watch carefully and notice the movement of the horse's head. *http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bi_2JkAFRGk The centre of gravity of the horse and rider can be further ahead while the other horse still wins by stretching its neck out. In other words the head is constantly accelerating and decelerating even if the rider has a constant velocity (which he does not, it changes every time the horse's hooves hit the ground). Now you might think all we need is a faster shutter on the camera, take more frames, use higher magnification, but if you do that you'll be measuring the hair on the horse's nose instead of the nose. That's ok, you say, but now magnify even further until you are measuring an atom in the hair on the nose of the horse. Even more and you are measuring the position of an electron in the atom in the hair on the nose of the horse, and something strange happens. One photon from the sunlight, the same photon that reflects and enters the camera, knocks the electron right out of the atom. It affected the result. Ok, you say, don't use sunlight... but then you can't see anything. The uncertainty principle says if you make a measurement, the act of measuring affects the result. The other horse won by an electron because the first horse was measured. AND... there is a limit to magnification which depends on the wavelength of light used, hence the use of electron microscopes, electrons have a shorter wavelength. You need not worry about the uncertainty principle in everyday life, but when you want to see the microscopic it becomes important. You "illuminate" the atoms with a beam of electrons and that disturbs the atom. Heisenberg didn't invent the principle, he quantified it. Intresting thing is GR breaks down on sub-scale sizes. No smooth like space curve inside Planck time,an distance.To me that *implies gravity space geometrical structure undergoes probability quantum fluctuations Hmmmm * TreBert Uncertainty is the heart of the universe. Uncertainty is the heart of humankind. Uncertainty can be in the Pentium clip,for it has a layer of 20 atoms across. This means electrons can leak out of the chip and cause a shortcircuit. TreBert |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
The uncertainty principle
On Nov 6, 5:17*am, Painius wrote:
I've never understood this principle, the "uncertainty principle". What was Heisenberg, et al., thinking? It seems they took a technical problem and built an entire principle of Nature out of it. *The problem was the inability to measure both the position and the momentum of a particle. *And it appears that the Copenhagen interpretation embraced Heisenberg's uncertainty principle as an integral part of quantum mechanics. What is the reasoning behind this? *What is the logic? Who knows how much our technical abilities might rise? *There may very well come a time when we'll be able "to know the value of all the properties of the system at the same time". *And then what will happen? *Heisenberg's uncertainty principle will be so deeply embedded in quantum physics that there will be no getting rid of it! How can anyone logically and reasonably draw out an entire principle of Nature based upon a technical problem in one small area of physics? * * * * * * * * * * * ------------------------------------------- * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * WIKIPEDIA: Suppose that we want to measure the position and speed of an object — for example a car going through a radar speed trap. Naively, we assume that the car has a definite position and speed at a particular moment in time, and how accurately we can measure these values depends on the quality of our measuring equipment — if we improve the precision of our measuring equipment, we will get a result that is closer to the true value. *In particular, we would assume that how precisely we measure the speed of the car does not affect its position, and vice versa. In 1927, Heisenberg proved that these assumptions are not correct. Quantum mechanics shows that certain pairs of physical properties, like position and speed, cannot both be known to arbitrary precision: the more precisely one property is known, the less precisely the other can be known. This statement is known as the "uncertainty principle". The uncertainty principle isn't a statement about the accuracy of our measuring equipment, but about the nature of the system itself — our naive assumption that the car had a definite position and speed was incorrect. On a scale of cars and people, these uncertainties are too small to notice, but when dealing with atoms and electrons they become critical. The uncertainty principle shows mathematically that the product of the uncertainty in the position and momentum of a particle (momentum is velocity multiplied by mass) could never be less than a certain value, and that this value is related to Planck's constant. * * * * * * * * * * * ------------------------------------------- So Heisenberg used mathematics to "prove" the uncertainty principle. That might make sense to a mathematician, but how does a logically-minded, reasonable physicist accept that such "uncertainty" MUST result in an *entire* principle of Nature? Think how uncertain looking into the submicro realm is.Are new view(thinking) on the atom has changed. It is now a very fuzzy tennis ball. The fuzz cased by electron cloud surround the nucleas.No more as a solar system as in our macro realm. Reality is micro realm is a world we have great problems relating with. That I am certain of. Fact is electrons can go from A to B(jump orbits) without traveling across intervening space(WOW) Feynman said this "Things on a small scale do not act like things on a large scale" Matter can pop in and out from nothing as long as its done with little or no time laps. Then we have subparticles no matter how far apart "know what each is doing"(think spin) This has been proven. All this stuff Einstein hated. QM is our best theory. TreBert |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
The uncertainty principle
On Sun, 6 Nov 2011 12:15:37 -0000, "Androcles"
wrote: "Painius" wrote in message .. . | I've never understood this principle, the "uncertainty principle". | | What was Heisenberg, et al., thinking? | | It seems they took a technical problem and built an entire principle | of Nature out of it. The problem was the inability to measure both | the position and the momentum of a particle. And it appears that the | Copenhagen interpretation embraced Heisenberg's uncertainty principle | as an integral part of quantum mechanics. | | What is the reasoning behind this? What is the logic? Measurement. It's quite simple. To measure when and where a horse passes the winning post, sunlight bounces off the post, the grass, the jockey and the horse and it is all reflected into the steward's camera for a photo-finish. If you magnify the photograph you'll find that the horse's nose is an inch in front or behind the line when the photo was taken. This doesn't matter if the other horse's nose is two inches behind the line, but if it is 1.001" behind then you need to magnify the photograph even further to decide the winner. Watch carefully and notice the movement of the horse's head. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bi_2JkAFRGk The centre of gravity of the horse and rider can be further ahead while the other horse still wins by stretching its neck out. In other words the head is constantly accelerating and decelerating even if the rider has a constant velocity (which he does not, it changes every time the horse's hooves hit the ground). Now you might think all we need is a faster shutter on the camera, take more frames, use higher magnification, but if you do that you'll be measuring the hair on the horse's nose instead of the nose. That's ok, you say, but now magnify even further until you are measuring an atom in the hair on the nose of the horse. Even more and you are measuring the position of an electron in the atom in the hair on the nose of the horse, and something strange happens. One photon from the sunlight, the same photon that reflects and enters the camera, knocks the electron right out of the atom. It affected the result. Ok, you say, don't use sunlight... but then you can't see anything. The uncertainty principle says if you make a measurement, the act of measuring affects the result. The other horse won by an electron because the first horse was measured. AND... there is a limit to magnification which depends on the wavelength of light used, hence the use of electron microscopes, electrons have a shorter wavelength. You need not worry about the uncertainty principle in everyday life, but when you want to see the microscopic it becomes important. You "illuminate" the atoms with a beam of electrons and that disturbs the atom. Heisenberg didn't invent the principle, he quantified it. Actually, I must disagree. Heisenberg quantified the fact that AT THAT TIME one could not measure both the position and the momentum of a particle with any amount of precision. One could get a precise measurement ONLY if one measured JUST the position, or JUST the momentum of the particle. That was the only thing that was actually "quantified". Then he and Bohr and others JUMPED TO THE CONCLUSION that this MUST BE a principle of quantum Nature. And what I don't understand is how they could do that. There was absolutely no scientific basis to call what they observed a "natural principle", and then go further to name it the "uncertainty principle". ALL it did was to give other scientists leave to PLASTER that principle all over anything they did not understand. OH, we don't understand how the Big Bang actually took place, so we'll just tack that uncertainty principle on it and say that the uncertainty principle ALLOWS for there to have been a "disturbance in the continuum" that made the singularity begin to expand. Astronomers had reason to believe that space-time wasn't just "nothing". It was NOT an "ether" nor an "aether" like the classical physicists believed, but it wasn't just "nothing", either. They came up with the idea that "virtual particles" could be formed without violating the laws of physics, the laws of Nature. So they called their virtual particles "quantum foam", and they defined it by saying that "the uncertainty principle ALLOWS (mycaps) particles and energy to briefly come into existence, and then annihilate, without violating conservation laws". I can see that the idea of quantum foam is probably very close to reality. What I do not understand is why they must invoke such a thing as the uncertainty principle to justify their discovery. It has become another of several unjustified paradigms in science, in astronomy. And no matter what future observations and experiments are made, if they don't understand what they see, they will have the uncertainty principle to tack onto it. Then they can stop thinking about it and not worry about WHY they see what they see. The uncertainty principle is nothing more nor less than a CRUTCH, and it should be annihilated out of existence in the minds of otherwise good and smart scientists. -- Indelibly yours, Paine http://astronomy.painellsworth.net/ |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
The uncertainty principle
"Painius" wrote in message ... | On Sun, 6 Nov 2011 12:15:37 -0000, "Androcles" | wrote: | | | "Painius" wrote in message | .. . | | I've never understood this principle, the "uncertainty principle". | | | | What was Heisenberg, et al., thinking? | | | | It seems they took a technical problem and built an entire principle | | of Nature out of it. The problem was the inability to measure both | | the position and the momentum of a particle. And it appears that the | | Copenhagen interpretation embraced Heisenberg's uncertainty principle | | as an integral part of quantum mechanics. | | | | What is the reasoning behind this? What is the logic? | | Measurement. | It's quite simple. To measure when and where a horse passes the | winning post, sunlight bounces off the post, the grass, the jockey | and the horse and it is all reflected into the steward's camera for a | photo-finish. If you magnify the photograph you'll find that the | horse's nose is an inch in front or behind the line when the photo | was taken. This doesn't matter if the other horse's nose is two inches | behind the line, but if it is 1.001" behind then you need to magnify | the photograph even further to decide the winner. Watch carefully | and notice the movement of the horse's head. | http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bi_2JkAFRGk | | The centre of gravity of the horse and rider can be further ahead while | the other horse still wins by stretching its neck out. In other words the | head is constantly accelerating and decelerating even if the rider has a | constant velocity (which he does not, it changes every time the horse's | hooves hit the ground). | Now you might think all we need is a faster shutter on the camera, take | more frames, use higher magnification, but if you do that you'll be | measuring the hair on the horse's nose instead of the nose. That's ok, | you say, but now magnify even further until you are measuring an | atom in the hair on the nose of the horse. Even more and you are | measuring the position of an electron in the atom in the hair on the | nose of the horse, and something strange happens. One photon from | the sunlight, the same photon that reflects and enters the camera, | knocks the electron right out of the atom. It affected the result. Ok, | you say, don't use sunlight... but then you can't see anything. | The uncertainty principle says if you make a measurement, the act | of measuring affects the result. The other horse won by an electron | because the first horse was measured. AND... there is a limit to | magnification which depends on the wavelength of light used, hence | the use of electron microscopes, electrons have a shorter wavelength. | You need not worry about the uncertainty principle in everyday life, | but when you want to see the microscopic it becomes important. | You "illuminate" the atoms with a beam of electrons and that disturbs | the atom. Heisenberg didn't invent the principle, he quantified it. | | Actually, I must disagree. I expected nothing less from an idiot such as yourself. Do all the disagreeing you want, it won't change anything. | Heisenberg quantified the fact that AT | THAT TIME one could not measure both the position and the momentum of | a particle with any amount of precision. Mathematics transcends time. Heisenberg quantified the fact. (period, end of sentence) One cannot measure both the position and the momentum of a particle with any amount of precision. | One could get a precise | measurement ONLY if one measured JUST the position, or JUST the | momentum of the particle. That was the only thing that was actually | "quantified". That's silly. The HUP says you can measure either but not both. | Then he and Bohr and others JUMPED TO THE CONCLUSION that this MUST BE | a principle of quantum Nature. Bull****, it's a principle of measurement. I've already explained it to you with a horse race example. If the horse's nose is faster than the horse's body then the jockey can win, but it is really the horse's nose that wins. The horse's nose doesn't get the prize money. | And what I don't understand is how | they could do that. That's your problem, you don't understand or want to. Look CAREFULLY at this simple oscillation. http://www.kettering.edu/physics/dru.../SHO/damp.html There are three significant POSITIONS for the mass: up, down and in the middle. There are four significant VELOCITIES for the mass: stopped, +ve, stopped, -ve. When the mass is up, the speed is stopped. When the mass is down, the speed is stopped. When the mass is in the middle, the speed is either +ve or -ve. You cannot tell velocity from a photograph of the position. http://www.irishshowbands.net/fixtie...airoplanes.jpg You know which way the ride is going from the way the people are facing. You cannot tell from how far they are from vertical. Unless you want to understand you never will. 'There is nothing so easy but that it becomes difficult when you do it with reluctance.'- Marcus Tullius Cicero |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
The uncertainty principle
On Thu, 10 Nov 2011 00:09:22 -0000, "Androcles"
wrote: Bored by your uncivil words, we move on. -- Indelibly yours, Paine http://astronomy.painellsworth.net/ |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
The uncertainty principle
On Wed, 9 Nov 2011 07:27:31 -0800 (PST), "G=EMC^2"
wrote: On Nov 6, 5:17*am, Painius wrote: I've never understood this principle, the "uncertainty principle". What was Heisenberg, et al., thinking? It seems they took a technical problem and built an entire principle of Nature out of it. *The problem was the inability to measure both the position and the momentum of a particle. *And it appears that the Copenhagen interpretation embraced Heisenberg's uncertainty principle as an integral part of quantum mechanics. What is the reasoning behind this? *What is the logic? . . . So Heisenberg used mathematics to "prove" the uncertainty principle. That might make sense to a mathematician, but how does a logically-minded, reasonable physicist accept that such "uncertainty" MUST result in an *entire* principle of Nature? Think how uncertain looking into the submicro realm is.Are new view(thinking) on the atom has changed. It is now a very fuzzy tennis ball. The fuzz cased by electron cloud surround the nucleas.No more as a solar system as in our macro realm. Reality is micro realm is a world we have great problems relating with. That I am certain of. Fact is electrons can go from A to B(jump orbits) without traveling across intervening space(WOW) Feynman said this "Things on a small scale do not act like things on a large scale" Matter can pop in and out from nothing as long as its done with little or no time laps. Then we have subparticles no matter how far apart "know what each is doing"(think spin) This has been proven. All this stuff Einstein hated. QM is our best theory. TreBert I agree that a good deal of quantum physics is soundly enough based to provide us with all kinds of useful wonders, such as computers and other digital equipment. Not all of it is useful, though, Bert. And the uncertainty "principle" is not so useful. I allow that there is a certain amount of uncertainty about a lot of things, even here on the macro level. Look at death. How many of us are *truly* certain about what happens to us when we die? Look at life. How many of us are even remotely certain about the future? Look at our health. How many of us are truly certain that the medicines/pills we take actually do all that much good, and that our bodies aren't actually doing most of the "work", itself? Scientists have shown that uncertainty becomes "magnified" when we attempt to magnify the quantum world. It intensifies, as proved by our measurement inabilities, and so forth. Maybe they're right, but maybe they're very wrong, and it actually *is* just the infancy of our technical ability. I feel it was a little premature for Heisenberg and Bohr, (BACK IN THE DAMN 1920s) to jump to the conclusion that the uncertainty of quantum measurements must be the result of a full-fledged natural principle! This seriously needs to be rethought, in my humble opinion. You're right about those mysterious movements of electrons to and from other orbits, though. They seem to physically disappear and then "magically" reappear in the other orbit. This is one of the reasons I like your "an electron is comprised of millions, or even billions of photons spinning around in very compressed orbits" idea. After all, what is it that enables an electron to "jump" to another orbit? The electron either emits a photon, or it absorbs a photon. Where do these photons come from (when they are emitted they come from the millions of photons that are already there), and where do these photons go (when they are absorbed they join the millions of photons already there)? -- Indelibly yours, Paine http://astronomy.painellsworth.net/ |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
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 |
More Challenger Doubletalk and Uncertainty | [email protected] | Space Shuttle | 6 | February 2nd 08 12:19 AM |
AUSTRALIA CLIMATE CHANGE REPORT FORECASTS UNCERTAINTY | [email protected] | Astronomy Misc | 3 | June 21st 07 06:33 AM |