SDetection said:
Hi all, I'm sorry I was having problems with my ISP (in a critical time !).
Well, I think my analogy is true because, the spinning tire observer's interpretation of his uncertainty is analogous to Heisenberg's interpretation of his uncertainty principle, as explained by the following:
Yes, I was going to argue using that , according to the HUP :
Even if an electron was the observer of itself, its exact location would be still uncertain !. And it's true , but it's because :
As space is indefinitely divisible, also the photons/electrons are. And this is why the exact location of any known particle is uncertain !. And hence:
Einstein's hidden variable is particles indefinite divisibility.
So, I think this is the actual and physical interpretation , and also it explains the double-slit experiments interference phenomenon.
And as time of events is also indefinitely divisible, everything in space and time is uncertain !.
As I have told you, and f95toli and others have indicated, multiple times, you REALLY need to read the basics on this first. It is obvious you have mostly read a couple of short summaries and have not yet gone deep enough. That is precisely why I made the analogy I did about "little" thinks... it has little or nothing to do with the smallness!
In fact, the HUP is a specific limitation on PAIRS of measurements. But not just any pairs: the HUP applies only to so called
non-commuting observables (sometimes called canonical conjugate pairs). Let's say there are 6 observables for a photon which form 3 pairs. Position and momentum form such a pair, let's call them p and q. Also there are a pair of spin observables, let's call those y and z.
Then the rule is that knowledge of p precludes knowledge of q, and vice versa.
Another rule is that knowledge of y precludes knowledge of z, and vice versa.
But knowledge of p does NOT preclude knowledge of y or z, and vice versa.
Knowledge of q does NOT preclude knowledge of y or z, and vice versa.
1. So you can experimentally determine p and z to ANY level of precision your microscope allows (of course we have some pretty good measurement apparati these days). The reason is that they are not a non-commuting pair, and so the HUP does not apply! If your analogy made any sense at all, that wouldn't be possible for any pair of observables. There would be no differentiation between any particular 2.
In addition, you can measure any spin observable - say y - 5 times in a row and you will get the same answer. But measure z even once and y will change. So clearly the issue is not some disturbance caused by the observation itself. So everything is NOT uncertain, as you imagine, only some things.
2. There are additional arguments which are ironclad as well, which I won't repeat because you need to read up first.
Now, please keep in mind that everyone who first learns the HUP pretty much has the same view and the same skepticism to start with. So no issue about that. But I might ask: you use a computer, do you trust that the computer manufacturer knows how a computer works? Or do you insist that computing is impossible in the face of the evidence otherwise? You should take a moment to learn where other have gone before you before you start dissing arguments that have been put forth before and found lacking. This particular one evaporated around 1928 or so.
.
.
