Uncertainty Principal: Limit of measurement, or the nature of things

[coktail]

Hi!

I found a few old threads lying around regarding this, such as this one, but I thought I'd start a new one asking the question in my own way. So here goes.

Is the uncertainty described by the Uncertainty Principal a result of the fact that by measuring something we affect it, or a result of the fundamental nature of sub-atomic particles?

If it's just the nature of things, then is the fact that we also can't measure things without affecting them just compounding the issue, like salt in a wound?

Super-bonus-follow-up question: Does the idea that we can't measure things without affecting them hold true on a macroscopic level as well, but just not significantly so?

 

[mfb]

It is a result of the fundamental nature of those particles.

There are (very recent) measurements which do not influence the particles so significantly, they can really measure both complementary quantities - but the fundamental uncertainty is unavoidable.

Super-bonus-follow-up question: Does the idea that we can't measure things without affecting them hold true on a macroscopic level as well, but just not significantly so?

Well, every measurement requires some interaction...

 

[San K]

Hi!

I found a few old threads lying around regarding this, such as this one, but I thought I'd start a new one asking the question in my own way. So here goes.

Is the uncertainty described by the Uncertainty Principal a result of the fact that by measuring something we affect it, or a result of the fundamental nature of sub-atomic particles?

If it's just the nature of things, then is the fact that we also can't measure things without affecting them just compounding the issue, like salt in a wound?

Super-bonus-follow-up question: Does the idea that we can't measure things without affecting them hold true on a macroscopic level as well, but just not significantly so?

besides what mfb posted above:

the maths...also supports ...just the "nature of things"