Heisenberg incertitude principe ? contradicting ?

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter JPC
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Heisenberg
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion centers around the Heisenberg uncertainty principle and its implications for determinism and randomness in nature. Participants explore the philosophical and conceptual aspects of measurement in quantum mechanics, questioning the nature of reality and the role of observers in defining physical properties.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Debate/contested
  • Conceptual clarification

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants question whether the Heisenberg uncertainty principle implies that nature contains random numbers, expressing skepticism about the lack of a predefined future.
  • Others argue that quantum mechanics inherently involves indeterminism, suggesting that events cannot be repeated due to a form of random noise.
  • There is a discussion about the meaning of measurement, with some asserting that properties do not exist until measured, while others challenge this notion by questioning why a property should be undefined without an observer.
  • One participant illustrates the measurement problem using the analogy of Schrödinger's cat, emphasizing that the act of measurement affects the observed system.
  • Some participants reference the Copenhagen interpretation and hidden variables, noting that the debate over determinism versus indeterminism remains unresolved in the context of quantum mechanics.
  • Concerns are raised about the implications of classical descriptions of the universe being inadequate for understanding quantum phenomena.
  • There is a suggestion that hidden variables could exist, which might explain the uncertainty, but this remains speculative.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express a range of views on the implications of the Heisenberg uncertainty principle, with no consensus reached on whether reality is fundamentally indeterministic or if hidden variables could provide a deterministic framework. The discussion remains unresolved with multiple competing perspectives.

Contextual Notes

Participants highlight the limitations of classical mechanics in explaining quantum phenomena and the ongoing debate surrounding interpretations of quantum mechanics, including the definitions of measurement and observation.

  • #31
JPC said:
So in conclusion is there really inderteminism ? Or does it just appear as inderteminism to us because we cannot yet find any logic behind it ?

- If the theory of hidden variables is true, it would mean no ?
- If nature can produce true probability based random numbers it would mean yes ?

Correct. We don't know what really happens. It might even be that what really happens is something our classical brains can never understand, although I hope that isn't the case! QM says nothing about what really happens, it just let's us predict the statistical (and classical) results of experiments.
 
Last edited:

Similar threads

Undergrad Photons and Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
3K
Undergrad Interpretation of QM in the Heisenberg Picture
  • · Replies 34 ·
2
Replies
34
Views
6K
Undergrad Sample space, outcome, event, random variable, probability...
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
3K
Graduate Peter Morgan (QM ~ random field, non-commutative lossy records?)
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
3K
High School Simple error propagation questions
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
4K
Undergrad Heisenberg Uncertainty vs Measurement Error
  • · Replies 48 ·
2
Replies
48
Views
5K
High School Quantum Entanglement information transmission idea to knock down....
  • · Replies 41 ·
2
Replies
41
Views
5K
Graduate How can a 1 kilometer body (3i/Atlas) flip 180 degrees suddenly?
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
667
Graduate The Heisenberg Uncertainty of Bowling Balls
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
4K
Graduate Confused about magnitude of error
  • · Replies 18 ·
Replies
18
Views
3K