- #1
- 30
- 0
it should be called as unpredictability rather than uncertainty principle because the event is certain but we cannot predict it.
Last edited by a moderator:
it should be called as unpredictability rather than uncertainty principle because the event is certain but we cannot predict it.
it should be called as unpredictability rather than uncertainty principle because the event is certain but we cannot predict it.
... the event is certain but we cannot predict it.
This is not correct according to QM. You can only speak of things that you can measure. Since you cannot know what the event is until you measure it, and you cannot be certain of the outcome of the measurement until you perform it, there is no certain event.it should be called as unpredictability rather than uncertainty principle because the event is certain but we cannot predict it.
This is not correct according to QM. You can only speak of things that you can measure. Since you cannot know what the event is until you measure it, and you cannot be certain of the outcome of the measurement until you perform it, there is no certain event.
Dictionary.com said:Indeterminate
adjective
1. not determinate; not precisely fixed in extent; indefinite; uncertain.
2. not clear; vague.
3. not established.
4. not settled or decided.
5. Mathematics.
a. (of a quantity) undefined, as 0/0.
b. (of an equation) able to be satisfied by more than one value for each unknown.
Still, unpredictability is not a good word. We don't have the means to observe "expected" behaviors as they happen. We have the means to extrapolate from the behaviors of lots of particles (statistically), but that's pretty much the end of the classical regime, IMHO. Uncertainty is not a bad word to describe what happens to classical physics when we start looking at individual particles, or even lots of particles. Their collective behavior is predictable, but their individual behavior is not.every one will give example of tossing a coin.but the coin shows head or tail according to physical law of force given for tossing. if you have a good machine, we can give desired force and get head or tail that is what ever we want. it is not uncertain event, if we measure exact force. similarly, sub atomic particles. so, i think we have to change the philosophy of physics.
In the Stern-Gerlach experiment, the silver atoms are all in the same superposition state. According to you, they should all deflect in the same direction, but they don't. Half of them deflect in one direction and half in the opposite direction.every one will give example of tossing a coin.but the coin shows head or tail according to physical law of force given for tossing. if you have a good machine, we can give desired force and get head or tail that is what ever we want. it is not uncertain event, if we measure exact force. similarly, sub atomic particles. so, i think we have to change the philosophy of physics.
Is there any evidence to support your statement? Because I know of none.
What exactly do you mean by inconsistent? If you mean it in the logic sense I don't really get your point.I like "inconsistency principle" better, because identically prepared systems don't give consistent measurements :)