what if the subatomic particles masses are balanced out (thus zero) by the force of them rotating around the sun.The way I've always understood the uncertainty principle (which isn't necessarily correct of course) is in terms of textbook introductions, where the information (such as position or momentum) is dependant on the extent to which you can physically extract such information in a physical setup.
I've found this is typically explained in relation to macro-scopic observations, where any measurements on a macro-scopic object need not adversely affect what the object in question is otherwise doing (had you not made the measurement). But in terms of subatomic objects, they are so fragile that any measurement you made on them would adversely affect the object, ie. compared to the case where you did not make a measurement on it. At least that is the idea. So there would be a fundamental uncertainty on what kind of information you can physically extract from the object, ie. in terms of that which you might like to be representative of the object considered as otherwise unmeasured.
Now to say an object is stationary, it seems to me, presupposes that you could obtain the information necessary to make such a statement in the first place. But if I understand the uncertainty principle correctly, you can't make such an assumption in the first place, ie. you can't represent some object as stationary in the first place. The uncertainty principle would rule it out.
If I understand the principle.
In my understanding the uncertainty principle is not about the predictability of the measurement setups, it si the intrinsic property of the quantum particles.it means that all of the properties of the particles do not change with the time continuously.
My friend and I had this argument about whether or not the uncertainty principle is applicable to stationary particles. I maintain that it is, because the principle is really about predictability ( isn't it?) But he maintains that it doesn't. So I would just like to clear things up . Does it or doesnt it? Thanks in advance.
there is still apply uncertainty principle even the particles in stationary states.
The Uncertainty Principle requires that we do not represent a particle as in a stationary state in the first place.
Its a statement about non-commuting observables and applies to any state - stationary or otherwise.
The use of non-commuting variables follows from the principle, not the other way around. There's nothing in mathematics that requires that two variables be non-commuting.
It is a theorem of non-commuting observables.
What motivates the use of non-commuting variables? It is the concept of non-commuting observables.
Have a read of the thread. It becomes obvious from the discussion that by "stationary particle" is meant a particle at rest. And it is in this context (not some other) that the Uncertainty Principle is being elaborated as ruling out such a proposed particle, ie. where mathematics itself does not.
What has motivation got to do with validity? When I muck around investigating a mathematical structure trying to prove something, or simply out of curiosity, all sorts of things motivate me - or maybe nothing at all. Either way its got nothing to do with its implication.
In QM words have a definite meaning. Stationary state is entirely different from stationary particle. Indeed a state where a particle is at rest with a definite position is impossible.
I think you'll find the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle is more than just a mathematical proposition. It has it's origin in experimental physics. Bohr sums it up quite well in this 1949 section of "Discussions with Einstein on Epistemological Problems in Atomic Physics" (highlights mine):
In this theory, a formalism is introduced, in which the kinematical and dynamical variables of classical mechanics are replaced by symbols subjected to a non-commutative algebra.
Things have moved on a lot since the famous, and it must be said magnificent, Einstein Bohr debates where pictorial visualisations were often used. They were mostly incorrect BTW - its really got nothing to do with firing photons at objects etc - that's just for pictorial vividness. But that was the early days of QM - much water has gone under the bridge since then - and wasn't really Einsteins deepest objection to the theory anyway which was detailed in EPR.
While a lot has certainly happened since those days, it's still as relevant today as it was then. The Uncertainty Principle remains the same principle. It hasn't changed.
Also, Bohr might have used pictures but he certainly didn't encourage them. Indeed he famously had a go at Feynman for using a pictorial representation of quantum mechanics. But as Feynman demonstrated you can indeed use pictures (or diagrams) to represent a useful concept, ie. as much as any other way. And Feynman's integral path is a very clever way of elaborating the physics in a pictorial way.
The basics of physics is still very much the same as it ever was
And as a side project, of course, is always the ongoing fascination with the weirdness - what are we missing? Are we missing anything? The interpretative game.
Its physical basis has changed - its simply a theroem abnout non-commuting onservables. Observables can be commuting or not - the uncertainly principle applies to non-commuting observables as a general therorem.
Actually the basic rock bottom essence of any science, including physics, is its all provisional, subject to one thing, and one thing only - correspondence with experiment.