Basically, in my two courses on quantum mechanics that I had already, and probably will be the last in-depth study of the subject, I had a certain interpretation of its foundations.(adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle || []).push({});

Basically, my idea was and is that because we observe a quantum state, the wave collapses, and so, it is our measurement that distorts - the measurement. So, my idea was that the uncertainty principle was based on this fact : we can't measure an undisturbed quantum state, and that's why there's always an inherent uncertainty.

Now, people have been telling me that I'm wrong, that it has nothing to do with our measurement, and that it's an inherent quality of quantum states to be only expressible with uncertainty.

Now, in practice this doesn't matter much, but in philosophy it does.

If the uncertainty is based on an act like our measurement, or a correlation between the measurement and the state, then by knowing all the initial states of all the particles (including the observer's), one can still predict the future. However, if this is an inherent quality of the particles themselves, then one can't possibly do this.

It has some consequences for the determinism/indeterminism discussion as well.

However

**Physics Forums | Science Articles, Homework Help, Discussion**

Join Physics Forums Today!

The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

# Uncertainty principle - epistemic or more?

**Physics Forums | Science Articles, Homework Help, Discussion**