Is It Possible to Overcome the H.U.P.?

[Whitestar]

In my previous post entitled, "Overcoming the H.U.P.? part one": https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=5467 , I discussed about the remote possibility of eliminating it. I have another theory about the subject but before I begin, I should point out that I'm by no means a physicist, let alone a scientist. However, I have read quite a few books on physics and have some limited grasp on how the universe supposedly works. In part one of this topic, I tried to address one simple question:


How can you probe without probing?


Virtually any probe by definition inserts some aspect of itself into the area to be examined, whether that probing is electronic or physical. Even passive wave emissions as in radar have a particulant aspect to them. Particles can be very loosely defined, but anything we recognize as physical and a few grey areas, such as light itself-- is composed of them, and anything affecting those particles will have particles as well even if it's something as esoteric as gravitons.


If we had something like "chrono particles" we may be able to predict both the velocity and position of an atom. But the big problem with this is that it violates cause and effect. We would have no free-will and no casino owner in his or her right mind would continue to be in business. I think it's comforting to know that as long as the H.U.P. is here to stay, we have free-will.


Thoughts anyone?


Whitestar

 

[selfAdjoint]

If wishes were horses beggers might ride.

The particles and fields we have so far discovered in the world, as well as the ones we theorize about - including strings and branes - obey the uncertainty principle. It is the deep essence of the quantum nature of reality - according to modern science. In order to eliminate it you would have to overthrow modern physics, root and branch.

Yeah, time travel = violation of causality might be a way to do that. It is anyway just as much outside of modern physics as the uncertaainty principle is inside it.

 

[Hurkyl]

Or to phrase it a different way...

The HUP is a statement about how things are, not about how things are measured.

 

[russ_watters]

Originally posted by Hurkyl
Or to phrase it a different way...

The HUP is a statement about how things are, not about how things are measured.

Hmm. I had a nice post in the other thread about the difference between a theoretical and a technological barrier. I guess it was ignored...

To repeat what Hurkyl said another way (maybe it'll sink in through repetition): there is a limit to how exact a position and velocity can BE - not just a limit to how exactly they can be measured.

I guess this problem arises from a common way HUP is explained. A Brief History of Time talks about what happens when you try to measure something. But its more fundamental than that.