Uncertainty theory doesn't disprove fate?

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter sigh hens
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Theory Uncertainty
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the implications of uncertainty theory in quantum mechanics and its relationship to the concept of fate or determinism. Participants explore whether uncertainty theory suggests that the future is predetermined or if it indicates inherent indeterminacy in the behavior of particles.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants propose that uncertainty theory implies a limitation in measurement precision, suggesting that the future could still be predetermined.
  • Others argue that uncertainty theory indicates that particles do not possess fixed positions or momenta, challenging the notion of determinism.
  • A participant suggests exploring the "hidden variables" theory, noting that various versions have been proposed but have been disproven.
  • Another participant emphasizes that Heisenberg's uncertainty principle reflects a fundamental aspect of nature, rather than a measurement disturbance.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the implications of uncertainty theory, with no consensus reached on whether it supports determinism or indeterminacy.

Contextual Notes

Some claims depend on interpretations of quantum mechanics and the definitions of determinism and indeterminacy, which remain unresolved in the discussion.

sigh hens
Messages
10
Reaction score
0
From my understanding, uncertainty theory only says that we would be unable to measure the position and momentum of a particle with enough precision to predict its future. But this doesn't mean that the future isn't predetermined and that all particles don't act in a domino-like manner.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Actually, no. It is not just a matter of measurement, the particle doesn't even have a fixed position or momemtum.
 
ok, so I guess I need to further my understanding of the theory. Thanks
 
You might want to look into the "hidden variables" theory, I think that gets down to the heart of what you're asking about. There have been multiple versions of this same idea proposed over the years since QM was first concieved, and they've all been disproven to my knowledge.
 
Don't think of Heisenbergs uncertainty in terms of a mearsurement disturbance. Position and momentum are simply not more accurate defined in nature than in Heisenberg's uncertainty allows. It's built into nature.
 

Similar threads

Undergrad Uncertainty Principle in QFT & Early Universe Conditions
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
Undergrad The Wavefunction when Mass is Much Greater than Planck's Constant
  • · Replies 21 ·
Replies
21
Views
2K
Undergrad Understanding the meaning of "uncertainty" in Heisenberg's UP
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
3K
Undergrad Double slit experiment and the Uncertainty Principle
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
3K
High School Uncertainty versus impossibility of measurement
  • · Replies 48 ·
2
Replies
48
Views
4K
Undergrad Momentum-Position vs. Energy-Time Uncertainty Relations
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
3K
Undergrad Time of flight measurement uncertainty
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
Undergrad Single slit diffraction and the HUP
  • · Replies 25 ·
Replies
25
Views
2K
Undergrad Momentum of a stationary particle/wave?
  • · Replies 36 ·
2
Replies
36
Views
6K
Undergrad Does a certainty in the position imply infinite variation in speed?
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K