What would the world be like if the HUP were not a thing?

  • I
  • Thread starter Souma
  • Start date
  • #1
17
1

Main Question or Discussion Point

Hello everyone,

If something is a principle of reality, then its absence means reality will not be reality anymore. This is my point of view on what a principle means. Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle, as Bohr stated, is not an indication of our ignorance, but what reality is. If this is true, does that mean our universe can’t exist if HUP was not ‘what reality is’? Or to put it in another way, is HUP necessary for our universe to exist? Will the universe be any different if HUP indicated something that exists, but we can’t find because of how we are developed, and not because of how the universe is developed?

The last question has a strong connection with John Bell’s experiment and Bell’s inequality, but Bell’s deduction was based on how we think hidden variables are, not on what hidden variables really are (since we don't know what those hidden variables are).

I am still a beginner in quantum mechanics, so bear with me.

Thank you very much.
 

Answers and Replies

  • #2
PeroK
Science Advisor
Homework Helper
Insights Author
Gold Member
13,356
5,906
Hello everyone,

If something is a principle of reality, then its absence means reality will not be reality anymore. This is my point of view on what a principle means. Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle, as Bohr stated, is not an indication of our ignorance, but what reality is. If this is true, does that mean our universe can’t exist if HUP was not ‘what reality is’? Or to put it in another way, is HUP necessary for our universe to exist? Will the universe be any different if HUP indicated something that exists, but we can’t find because of how we are developed, and not because of how the universe is developed?

The last question has a strong connection with John Bell’s experiment and Bell’s inequality, but Bell’s deduction was based on how we think hidden variables are, not on what hidden variables really are (since we don't know what those hidden variables are).

I am still a beginner in quantum mechanics, so bear with me.

Thank you very much.
Fundamentally there is no classical explanation for the atom or the basis of chemistry. To explain basic chemistry (starting with electron shells) requires quantum mechanics and the HUP. In that sense, yes the HUP is necessary for the universe we observe (and indeed for our own existence as a product of complex hydrocarbon chemistry).
 
  • Like
Likes bhobba, Souma and vanhees71
  • #3
29,527
5,860
Or to put it in another way, is HUP necessary for our universe to exist?
The HUP is something that falls naturally out of the math of QM. It is not an additional concept tacked on. I don’t know how you could get rid of the HUP and keep any part of QM.
 
  • Like
Likes bhobba, Vanadium 50, Souma and 1 other person
  • #4
68
43
Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle, as Bohr stated, is not an indication of our ignorance, but what reality is.
This is a metaphysical premise, and we do not know if it is true or not. There is the counterfactual camp that says that reality does have a state even when unmeasured. Those that interpret reality in this way would state that HUP is an indication of our ignorance.
The other camp is the locality camp, which says that information cannot travel faster than light. Those that interpret reality in this way would state that HUP is what reality is.
The two camps are mutually exclusive, and there are other interpretations that deny both counterfactuals and locality.

If this is true, does that mean our universe can’t exist if HUP was not ‘what reality is’?
No. Until an empirical test is devised to falsify the counterfactual interpretations, the possibility remains that HUP is simply a case of ignorance.

The last question has a strong connection with John Bell’s experiment and Bell’s inequality, but Bell’s deduction was based on how we think hidden variables are, not on what hidden variables really are (since we don't know what those hidden variables are).
We don't know IF they are. The local interpretations don't require hidden variables. Bell proved what I said above, that the two camps are mutually exclusive. You cannot have both locality and counterfactual definiteness.
 
  • Skeptical
  • Like
Likes Vanadium 50, Souma and PeroK
  • #5
17
1
Fundamentally there is no classical explanation for the atom or the basis of chemistry. To explain basic chemistry (starting with electron shells) requires quantum mechanics and the HUP. In that sense, yes the HUP is necessary for the universe we observe (and indeed for our own existence as a product of complex hydrocarbon chemistry).
Not very convincing. Even if HUP gives a good explanation to these things, it doesn't qualify it is a necessary thing for our universe.
 
  • Sad
  • Skeptical
Likes weirdoguy, Vanadium 50, etotheipi and 1 other person
  • #6
DrClaude
Mentor
7,337
3,516
Thread closed pending moderation.
 
  • Like
Likes etotheipi
  • #7
13,068
9,828
This thread will remain closed because of the general difficulties with any question of the kind "What if <insert a fundamental physical law> would not be?"

Logic tells us that anything can be derived from a false assumption, and this is not equal but similar in physics.
 
  • Like
Likes vanhees71 and Souma

Related Threads on What would the world be like if the HUP were not a thing?

Replies
16
Views
4K
Replies
3
Views
796
Replies
15
Views
3K
Replies
1
Views
391
Replies
10
Views
7K
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • Last Post
Replies
0
Views
1K
  • Last Post
Replies
4
Views
495
Top