Measuring classical object to arbitrary precision

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

This discussion centers on the concept of measuring classical objects, such as a baseball, to arbitrary precision compared to quantum objects, which are subject to the Heisenberg uncertainty principle. Participants explore the paradox of defining precise measurements in classical mechanics while acknowledging that quantum effects inevitably influence measurements. The conversation concludes that while classical measurements can be idealized in theory, real-world applications cannot escape quantum limitations, making the notion of "mythical classical precision" a thought experiment rather than a practical reality.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of the Heisenberg uncertainty principle
  • Familiarity with classical mechanics concepts
  • Basic knowledge of quantum mechanics
  • Experience with measurement theory in physics
NEXT STEPS
  • Research the implications of the Heisenberg uncertainty principle in practical measurements
  • Explore classical mechanics versus quantum mechanics in measurement contexts
  • Study thought experiments related to measurement in physics
  • Investigate the role of photons in measuring quantum objects
USEFUL FOR

Physicists, students of physics, and anyone interested in the philosophical implications of measurement in classical and quantum mechanics.

YummyFur
Messages
97
Reaction score
0
This has been nagging me in the background of my mind for many years and I've decided to get it sorted.

I note that I'm not sure if this should be in the classical or quantum forum.

I have heard it mentioned by many and often when referring to the inherent uncertainty when measuring quantum objects, that unlike classical objects which can be measured to arbitrary precision, quantum objects...etc

It's this reference to the apparent precision that puzzles me. They will say, first how as we zero in on the momentum we become more fuzzy about position of a quantum object, unlike say a car or a baseball which we are told can be measured to this so called arbitrary precision.

My question is, how do we measure this mythical classical baseball that avoids the quantum object problems.

Do we measure from the centre of the baseball? Where exactly is that, or the leading edge of the baseball, again, where is that because it seems to me that the edge of the baseball is a quantum object.

Why is the edge of the baseball, the very leading atom, the atom that is most furthest forward of the rest of the baseball any different to a single atom without the rest of the baseball.

And further, when we are going for this arbitrary precision, then do we not have to use a quantum object to measure. If the baseball is set up to break a beam of photons, then again the photons just bring back the quantum uncertainty if we try to approach this arbitrary precision.
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
YummyFur said:
My question is, how to we measure this mythical classical baseball that avoids the quantum object problems.

You can't avoid it, but you could in a make-believe classical world. I don't think anybody is saying that in the real world you can measure the position and momentum of a baseball bat to a degree of accuracy that violates the Heisenberg uncertainty principle.

But then again, in the make-believe classical world, you can in principle measure everything accurately..., so the statement about the bat could just as well be made about some kind of a make-believe "classical atom".
 
Ah, ok that makes sense. I get it now. It's a principle sort of like a perfect thought experiment.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 36 ·
2
Replies
36
Views
3K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
3K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
3K
  • · Replies 36 ·
2
Replies
36
Views
9K
  • · Replies 22 ·
Replies
22
Views
3K