B Understanding the Limits of Measurement in Quantum Mechanics

Thomas Gajdek
Messages
7
Reaction score
0
Is it somehow possible to know both noncommutating properities of eg. a partcle, with using two indicators? Eg. two teams, with one is studing the momentum, and other one the position - then it's somehow impossible to exchange informations?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
No. The principle is about the actual state of the system, not our knowledge of the state.
 
Orodruin said:
No. The principle is about the actual state of the system, not our knowledge of the state.
Oh right, i did'n get it for the first time reading about it.
 
Thomas Gajdek said:
Is it somehow possible to know both noncommutating properities of eg. a partcle, with using two indicators? Eg. two teams, with one is studing the momentum, and other one the position - then it's somehow impossible to exchange informations?

The Heisenberg uncertainty principle is, in fact, a statistical law and concerns the variance in measurements of a large number of identically prepared systems.

It doesn't, in fact, say anything about individual measurements of a system, as in your example.
 
Not an expert in QM. AFAIK, Schrödinger's equation is quite different from the classical wave equation. The former is an equation for the dynamics of the state of a (quantum?) system, the latter is an equation for the dynamics of a (classical) degree of freedom. As a matter of fact, Schrödinger's equation is first order in time derivatives, while the classical wave equation is second order. But, AFAIK, Schrödinger's equation is a wave equation; only its interpretation makes it non-classical...
Insights auto threads is broken atm, so I'm manually creating these for new Insight articles. Towards the end of the first lecture for the Qiskit Global Summer School 2025, Foundations of Quantum Mechanics, Olivia Lanes (Global Lead, Content and Education IBM) stated... Source: https://www.physicsforums.com/insights/quantum-entanglement-is-a-kinematic-fact-not-a-dynamical-effect/ by @RUTA
Is it possible, and fruitful, to use certain conceptual and technical tools from effective field theory (coarse-graining/integrating-out, power-counting, matching, RG) to think about the relationship between the fundamental (quantum) and the emergent (classical), both to account for the quasi-autonomy of the classical level and to quantify residual quantum corrections? By “emergent,” I mean the following: after integrating out fast/irrelevant quantum degrees of freedom (high-energy modes...
Back
Top