Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Do you think the uncertainty principal will ever be solved

  1. Jun 8, 2010 #1
    are there any theories right know to solve it
  2. jcsd
  3. Jun 8, 2010 #2
    As far as I know, Ozawa proposed a new uncertainty relation replacing that of Heisenberg.
    “Universally valid reformulation of the Heisenberg uncertainty principle
    on noise and disturbance in measurement” Physical Review A, vol. 67, pp.
    042105-1 042105-6, April 2003.
  4. Jun 9, 2010 #3


    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    What do you mean by "solve"?
  5. Jun 9, 2010 #4
    it is solved according to most qm interpretations. The only ones that question it are hardcore deterministic theories such as Bohmiam mechanics.

    Some folks just cant handle the uncertainty :-)
  6. Jun 9, 2010 #5
    I believe he means, "will we ever overcome the limitations it seems to impose", as though it were Measurement Problem. I think that is a fundamental misunderstanding of what the HUP is, and means.

    It appears to be fundamental to nature (see CMB) and not something to be "solved".
  7. Jun 9, 2010 #6
    but it does not actually limit anything. We dont need the certainty to be able to work with, or manipulate quantum states. If it was a problem we wouldnt have lasers, dvds etc...

    The "problem" is all in our mind, its a philosophical issue regarding determinism.
  8. Jun 9, 2010 #7
    I'm just attempting to guess at what he meant, based on what many people believe about the HUP, I am by no means arguing against QM formalism.
  9. Jun 9, 2010 #8
    sorry i know, i was just sort of agreeing with you :-)
  10. Jun 9, 2010 #9
    High five! :wink:
  11. Jun 9, 2010 #10


    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Of course it does.

    The uncertainty relation is a theorem in QM that tells you something about how the results of a large number of measurements will be distributed, and there are no experiments that contradicts it, so I don't know how you can say that it's "all in our mind".
  12. Jun 9, 2010 #11


    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Education Advisor

    Would you consider the deBoer effect something only in our minds?

  13. Jun 9, 2010 #12
    I was saying the HUP does not limit our ability to manipulate technology using qm. I think you've misunderstood what i was saying.
  14. Jun 9, 2010 #13
    whats the deboer effect? Sorry for my ignorance :-)
  15. Jun 14, 2010 #14


    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    Why is it the case that two or more fermions cannot be in the same state?

    Why does the Dirac Eq. work?

    Why does the Rosenbluth cross section for electron- proton scattering work?

    Why does force cause acceleration?

    Good physics allows generalizations; QM does so in spades. The ultimate issue in QM is: why does it work? For the most part, physicists accept HUP because it is fundamentally tied to the very basics of QM, and has been so since the 1920s. Fredrik has it exactly right.

    My take is: to "solve" the HUP requires us to "solve" QM And, to "solve" QM requires us to solve E&M, classical mechanics and so on. Why are the notions of force, mass, electric charge, angular momentum, among others, useful ? Quite a few years ago, Wigner pondered why mathematics works in describing Nature -- who knows? So, we take it for granted that our mathematically expressed theories have validity -- if their conclusions are confirmed by experiments. Usually we try to expand the range of validity of our theories until we run into conflicts with experiment.

    In short, we take much for granted, including making inferences from theories that seem to be successful, that is supported by experiments. The HUP is a perfect example of such an inference. And, when you study scattering experiments,for example, the HUP jumps off the page. An example that I think shows the basics of the HUP starts with a position eigenstate -- for simplicity, we're talking NR QM. Look at the momentum distribution of this state. Then the basics of the HUP will be writ large.

    So, more generally, why do we need to work with non-commuting variables in QM?
    Reilly Atkinson
Share this great discussion with others via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook