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?

"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.

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

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

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

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

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/

"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

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/

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/