- #1

- 2,810

- 605

In some experiments like Heisenberg's microscope and Davisson–Germer experiment,we see that by using light to understand the actual path of electrons,the electrons are disturbed and so the result is changed(in the second case,the interference pattern is replaced by the distribution of classical particles.)

I want to know,can we compare this experiments to unsuccessful attempts for designing a heat engine with 100% efficiency and therefor proposing the kelvin-planck statement of the 2nd law of thermodynamics?

Can we say that uncertainty was proposed as a result of such experiments and then QM was formulated somehow that it contains uncertainty principles and so the derivations of it can't be accounted as proofs?(I mean derivations using Fourier transformation and non-commuting operators)

So is there another way besides them to derive the minimum for the product of uncertainties?

If a method of «watching the electrons»is proposed that does not use photons,there is a possibility of its rejection.So why do we say that its fundamental to the nature?

Thanks

I want to know,can we compare this experiments to unsuccessful attempts for designing a heat engine with 100% efficiency and therefor proposing the kelvin-planck statement of the 2nd law of thermodynamics?

Can we say that uncertainty was proposed as a result of such experiments and then QM was formulated somehow that it contains uncertainty principles and so the derivations of it can't be accounted as proofs?(I mean derivations using Fourier transformation and non-commuting operators)

So is there another way besides them to derive the minimum for the product of uncertainties?

If a method of «watching the electrons»is proposed that does not use photons,there is a possibility of its rejection.So why do we say that its fundamental to the nature?

Thanks

Last edited: