It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
- Link
"You have this basic uncertainty, and then by measuring you add an additional uncertainty," Sulyok said. "But with an apparatus performing two successive measurements, you can identify the different contributions." Using their data, the physicists were able to calculate just how the different types of uncertainty add together and influence each other. Their new formula doesn't change the conclusion of the Heisenberg uncertainty principle, but it does tweak the reasoning behind it.
Originally posted by charles1952
reply to post by arpgme
I'm afraid to follow the link for fear of what I might find. I'm not ready for philosophical physics this early.
Is he saying that the basic uncertainty, which exists before measuring, is itself changeless? A fixed uncertainty? If it's not then wouldn't the basic uncertainty change between the succesive measurements? And wouldn't that make determing the "measurement uncertainty" impossible?
Originally posted by arpgme
What do you think about this?
Originally posted by TheRedneck
The Heisenberg Uncertainty principle isn't really a theory on the nature of quantum mechanics as much as it is a statement on the limitations of our technology. In short, it is an excuse for not knowing everything about a quantum particle, because the only way we know of to measure the location of a particle changes its momentum and vice versa.
Originally posted by arpgme
- Link
"You have this basic uncertainty, and then by measuring you add an additional uncertainty," Sulyok said. "But with an apparatus performing two successive measurements, you can identify the different contributions." Using their data, the physicists were able to calculate just how the different types of uncertainty add together and influence each other. Their new formula doesn't change the conclusion of the Heisenberg uncertainty principle, but it does tweak the reasoning behind it.
What do you think about this? Is it just some greater law that we are unaware of, or is it truly randomness? Is this an indicator of our free-will or just an illusion divorcing us from the reality of determinism? What do you conclude?
Science is getting really shaky nowadays, it's becoming more and more speculative, more and more about theories based on these "strange" findings rather than actual knowledge. I wish I knew all of the answers about our universe.
The Heisenberg Uncertainty principle isn't really a theory on the nature of quantum mechanics as much as it is a statement on the limitations of our technology.
*
I dont even know why they bothered doing the experiment at all. Its been long known that the simple analogy told by Heisenberg (eg. a photon giving a 'kick' to the particle during measurement) has nothing whasoever to do with the fundamental nature of the uncertainty principle.
Originally posted by EnochWasRight
Light is particle, wave and consciousness. Consciousness is spirit.
Originally posted by EnochWasRight
We are greater than the sun and moon
Originally posted by EnochWasRight
Entropy in information theory demonstrates...
Originally posted by EnochWasRight
When sperm and egg come together, the love creates a new life in the womb.
Originally posted by EnochWasRight
Light is particle, wave and consciousness. Consciousness is spirit.
But we know that photons/light is particle and wave, but how do we know it is consciousness?
So, we came from the sun and moon, and the sun and moon came from the source when it was all together as once huge energy, I guess...