# Common quantum question

jambaugh
Gold Member
The HUP is just the Fourier transform relation that (Delta k)(Delta x)>1/2 for any wave packet. This holds even for a classical light wave of finite extent.
The connection of the HUP with measurement problems was just bad advice given to Heisenberg by Bohr.
Yes and no. There is a corresponding classical phenomenon with classical wave-packets but neither electrons nor photons are waves and the $$\Delta k$$ and $$\Delta x$$ have distinct meanings when you talk about a wave packet and a quantum.

What's more the HUP generalizes to more than wave-esque measurements.
It also manifests when say considering spin measurements in different directions.

$$\Delta S_z \Delta S_{z'} \ge \frac{1}{2}|[S_z,S_{z'}]|$$

And likewise for Any pair of non-commuting observables.

I know it is conceptually easier to suppose that Heisenberg, Bohr et al "got it wrong" and QM is really a mistaken interpretation of its predecessor, Wave Mechanics. However this is not correct.

If you want to discuss it in detail start a relevant thread and I'll be happy to elaborate.

Regards,
James Baugh

Last edited:
Sure.

No. It is perversion of Heisenberg original explanation. Let me translate V.A.Fock that may be not available for you:” Most easily accepted the mathematical formalism of QM, and easier when it more and more complicated. When one wrote the relation between coordinate and momentum in the form of CR, i.e. as the connection between rather complicated mathematical notions, they did not meet objections. However, when W. Heisenberg presented the deduced from them but much more simple relation
Delta(x)*Delta(p)>=h/2

Then storm of objections rose”. Today the situation is not essentially better.

No. One data set contained about 100 000 outcomes. I use the QM property that the identical particles are indistinguishable and apply standard repeatability requirement. The same picture I will obtain in any other laboratory (inertial frame) as required from the measurements to present the objective reality. If the physical object is extended (like your face) you never will get the picture using one pixel.

Let me explain my attitude. Suppose you came to restaurant. What you prefer to eat? Originally prepared delicatessen or second hand vomiting? There are very good textbooks on QM. But in addition I send someone asking basic questions to obtain first hand answers from E. Schrödinger, W. Heisenberg, P.A.M. Dirac, V.A. Fock, A. Einstein, C. N. Yang and R. Feynman. That someone suddenly will find that to read and understand paper by A. Einstein is much easier than Moishe Zuchter. After that I suggest to study D.Hilbert, E. Cartan, H. Weyl, E. Wigner and J. von Neumann (for the theorists only). If that someone will survive, then I will start to explain him my story.

Regards, Dany.
Dude, you make no sense when you speak, and I don't think it's the fact that we're talking about physics...