The uncertainty principle limits what we can know about a quantum system, and that fuzziness is not entirely caused by the act of measurement.
Image: flickr/@Doug88888
-
Gravity's Engines
We’ve long understood black holes to be the points at which the universe as we know it comes to an end. Often billions of times more massive than the Sun, they...
Read More »
By Geoff Brumfiel of Nature magazine
Contrary to what many students are taught, quantum uncertainty may not always be in the eye of the beholder. A new experiment shows that measuring a quantum system does not necessarily introduce uncertainty. The study overthrows a common classroom explanation of why the quantum world appears so fuzzy, but the fundamental limit to what is knowable at the smallest scales remains unchanged.
At the foundation of quantum mechanics is the Heisenberg uncertainty principle. Simply put, the principle states that there is a fundamental limit to what one can know about a quantum system. For example, the more precisely one knows a particle's position, the less one can know about its momentum, and vice versa. The limit is expressed as a simple equation that is straightforward to prove mathematically.
Heisenberg sometimes explained the uncertainty principle as a problem of making measurements. His most well-known thought experiment involved photographing an electron. To take the picture, a scientist might bounce a light particle off the electron's surface. That would reveal its position, but it would also impart energy to the electron, causing it to move. Learning about the electron's position would create uncertainty in its velocity; and the act of measurement would produce the uncertainty needed to satisfy the principle.
Physics students are still taught this measurement-disturbance version of the uncertainty principle in introductory classes, but it turns out that it's not always true. Aephraim Steinberg of the University of Toronto in Canada and his team have performed measurements on photons (particles of light) and showed that the act of measuring can introduce less uncertainty than is required by Heisenberg’s principle. The total uncertainty of what can be known about the photon's properties, however, remains above Heisenberg's limit.
Delicate measurement
Steinberg's group does not measure position and momentum, but rather two different inter-related properties of a photon: its polarization states. In this case, the polarization along one plane is intrinsically tied to the polarization along the other, and by Heisenberg’s principle, there is a limit to the certainty with which both states can be known.
The researchers made a ‘weak’ measurement of the photon’s polarization in one plane — not enough to disturb it, but enough to produce a rough sense of its orientation. Next, they measured the polarization in the second plane. Then they made an exact, or 'strong', measurement of the first polarization to see whether it had been disturbed by the second measurement.
When the researchers did the experiment multiple times, they found that measurement of one polarization did not always disturb the other state as much as the uncertainty principle predicted. In the strongest case, the induced fuzziness was as little as half of what would be predicted by the uncertainty principle.
Don't get too excited: the uncertainty principle still stands, says Steinberg: “In the end, there's no way you can know [both quantum states] accurately at the same time.” But the experiment shows that the act of measurement isn't always what causes the uncertainty. “If there's already a lot of uncertainty in the system, then there doesn't need to be any noise from the measurement at all,” he says.
The latest experiment is the second to make a measurement below the uncertainty noise limit. Earlier this year, Yuji Hasegawa, a physicist at the Vienna University of Technology in Austria, measured groups of neutron spins and derived results well below what would be predicted if measurements were inserting all the uncertainty into the system.
See what we're tweeting about
38 Comments
Add CommentThe amount of uncertainty about examples of the uncertainty principle increases with the number of studies quantifying quantum uncertainty.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe Uncertainty Principle applies both to fermions and bosons. Now, photons are fermions, in spite of not having mass although having energetic momentum. This is because of electromagnetic theory being described by the quantum mechanical theories of both Erwin Schödinger and the Heisenberg, Pauli, Jordan groups which were coordinated by P.A.M Dirac in the 1930s.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMaxwell´s equations in thermodynamics apply to the bosons in terms of distribution of particles. Electromagnetic particles, like photons and electron, known as fermions follow a different distribution. It was this discovery that made Max Planck one the greatest scientists in history.
Uncertainty is not the same thing as accuracy as this article suggests. That your measurement proves accurate after verification suggests nothing about how certain you were about its accuracy prior to verification.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisjulianpenrod,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou really ought to read articles all the way before commenting on them.
The headline of this article (which, by the way, was written by the scientific establishment, possibly behind some sort of door) is a bit sensationalistic. Observation still affects uncertainty--this is central to quantum mechanics and has been demonstrated as well as anything in science--but not to the extent that commonly believed by non-scientists.
Also the article is flat out wrong about Heisenberg, because although he gave the interpretation as an analogy to explain the principle, the mathematics which he himself developed don't depend upon observation, and remain the de facto mathematical tools for understanding the phenomenon.
Really, (and Heisenberg himself knew this), something more fundamental is happening than observation. The observer effect implies that there is some preexisting state which is destroyed by the observation, but what Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle ACTUALLY says (contra you and this article, my, you really should be better educated if you're going to comment), is that the two opposing observables (in this case polarizations, but position/velocity is the classic case) are actually not simultaneously defined--the act of observing actually represents a switch from one to the other, but the switch from one being defined to the other can come from effects unrelated to observation, so the important point to take away is that uncertainty is not actually a lack of observation, as the observer effect interpretation would imply.
All this study shows is that a weak observation can be made which doesn't introduce a large amount of uncertainty--however, the observation doesn't provide a large amount of information. There is always a give and take. What the uncertainty principle actually means is that there is a direct relationship between the information and uncertainty--if you remove information from a system you introduce uncertainty, and conversely if you remove very little information (but not none) you introduce very little uncertainty.
To real scientists, this result is a good experiment that confirms what they already knew, and changes absolutely nothing.
As Wikipedia says, the uncertainty principle is often confused with the observer effect. Please see:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncertainty_principle
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Observer_effect_(physics)
As I understand (with of course, some degree of uncertainty), the uncertainty principle most precisely pertains to measurements that depend on the particle/wave states of matter. For example, measuring the location of a photon requires that its wave function be collapsed, manifesting the photon as a particle. Measuring its momentum, of course, requires the photon to remain in its self-propagating wave state.
As I understand, measuring "interrelated polarization states" along one plane infers some crucial information about the polarization along the other plane. In neither case is the collapse of the wave function required to complete the necessary measurement...
The article states:
"The researchers made a 'weak' measurement of the photon’s polarization in one plane - not enough to disturb it, but enough to produce a rough sense of its orientation. Next, they measured the polarization in the second plane. Then they made an exact, or 'strong', measurement of the first polarization to see whether it had been disturbed by the second measurement.
"When the researchers did the experiment multiple times, they found that measurement of one polarization did not always disturb the other state as much as the uncertainty principle predicted. In the strongest case, the induced fuzziness was as little as half of what would be predicted by the uncertainty principle."
I don't think this uncertainty principle properly applies to the subtle, interrelated measurements tested in this experimental procedure...
I'm always confused when I read the interpretation, which Heisenberg himself is supposed to have used, that the process of measurement introduces uncertainty. The explanation that makes the most sense to me, which I've read elsewhere, is that position and momentum in quantum physics have the same relationship to each other as frequency and time-domain representations in electronics. So they are mathematically the Fourier transforms of each other. As an electronics engineer, that makes sense to me, as a signal sharply defined in the time domain exists everywhere when represented by frequency, and a sharply defined frequency can only be so if it exists for all time. But I have trouble reconciling that explanation with the measurement-perturbs-the-system-explanation.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thischarliefoxtrot goes to lengths to try to pretned I don't know what I'm talking about. The article said that it was Heisenberg who used the idea of observation changing a system and that he was aware that that was not the actual phenomenon at the heart of uncertainty. And that is what I said. But charliefoxtrot engages in a common New World Order act of non argument, gratuitous demagoguery, that is, pretending the individual is wrong, then going through an expansive display of doggerel, even if it is rehashed material from a textbook, to give the impression to the gullible, the NWO's target audience, that a lesson is needed and give an appearance that you are smart. The fact is, what I said was absolutely correct, Heisenberg knew a different phenomenon wa involved, yet he chose to invoke the idea of observation affecting parameters of a system.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisUnless, of course, someone wants to suggest, among other things, that the "inherent stochastic nature" at the heart of quantum mechanics is a vestige of the fact that every particle is being simultaneously "observed" by every other particle in the universe. Every particle looking at every other particle, at the same time being viewed by the particles they're viewing, the view of the particles they are viewing including that particle's reaction to the original particle observing the other particle. A constant, escalating iterative feedback system billions of years old which results in solid particles in "scientific" devices still responding to having been observed ages ago, resulting in even obervational equipment being incapable of giving a precise value.
Why is it that any article pertaining to an understanding of the Uncertainty Principle leads to a great many people purporting to be certain that they have a better grasp of the meaning of Uncertainty Principle than most other people who are equally positively certain that the other people who are certain are wrong in their belief that they understand the concepts underlying the Uncertainty Principle?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNew World Order??? I would bet you're CERTAIN about many things including that a UFO crashed at Roswell and the CIA assassinated JFK.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWith respect to Cramer's use of the New World Order non argument technique of mockery rather than actually discussing an issue, among other things, I never saw a single reference to Roswell before the late Eighties. The evidence suggests there never was such an event. It's a stalking horse to keep the unwitting UFO enthusiasts where the NWO wants them and not actually finding out the truth. This will almost certainly be mocked, but the "Yes, Virginia" letter, though it is claimed to date to the late 180's, doesn't seem to have seen print in popular culture until the Sixties. Older collections of Christmas stories and such don't seem to include it. At least, they didn't. The NWO isn't beyond fabrcating one now and claiming it is genuine. And, as for JFK, the rich and powerful never die. As craven and self absorbed as they have proven themselves to be, corporate crooks and political thugs wouild never be as calm as they are seen if they knew they would die. The CIA disn't kill Kennedy, no one did. The same for, for example, Princess Diana. So many peple questioning their sanity because they saw Marilyn Monroe, Elvis Presley, any of the Kennedys or Princes Diana walking around.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe concept of any way of observing an electron or other particle would induce changes in the electron is just another formulation of the Maxwell devil paradox, and it has its equivalents in psychology and other supposedly experimental sciences, where just the wording of questions and the questions it selves do modify the object of observation or experiment, the concept of a particle watching other has a funny correlate in the work by Italo Calvino "Cosmicomics", and for the Heisenberg uncertainty principle, my feelings have always been that any subatomic particle can be found in many different places, but all within a predefined path or sphere, or torus, or the geometric figure you may want to name, but a possibility exists that tuning all particles in an atom to somewhere in its orbital or in a more complex structure may affect its properties, or at least how it interacts with other structures at the same level and at the macroscopic or gross level, as we don't perceive the "essence" of things, if essence exists at all, it would be better having "concept" or "idea" substituted for "essence", our senses are tuned to perceive some features of material and energy things around, but as animals as lizards, birds and insects do perceive different colors that we can see, our perception of the world outside remains what Immanuel Kant called "an apriorism of the inner sensitivity". Am I right?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe topic of this article is Heisenberg's uncertainty principle. I haven't a clue what you are talking about (e.g. The CIA didn't kill Kennedy, no one did.)???
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAgain, Cramer attempts to "discredit" me using the New World Order technique not to discussing what I said but, in this case, character assassinating me. Cramer pretends I can't stay oin the topic and they invoke the issue of the CIA and the death of Kennedy.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt was Cramer who brought up the CIA and Kennedy, not me.
If Cramer wants to call that going off subject, then it is they who are guilty, not me.
A point, though. Should not all truth, any truth., be welcome in a venue supposedly deovted to truth?
Would somebody kindly take a minute to address something in this discussion that prompted a probably naive English major's Eureka moment? This is the prompt: "What the uncertainty principle actually means is that there is a direct relationship between the information and uncertainty--if you remove information from a system you introduce uncertainty, and conversely if you remove very little information (but not none) you introduce very little uncertainty."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMy 'moment' was this: I believe entropy can be described as the gradual dissolution of information in a given system. Does this mean that the vagaries involved in describing uncertainty could be resolved, and linked to accepted 'mechanics' in another field, if the above 'prompt' is true, and that the subtraction of information is actually an introduction of entropy? Apologies if this is really dumb. But how else do English majors get educated?
IMO your conclusion is somewhat valid in the general sense that increasing the information known about a process enhances predictability. For example, knowing whether a die has six sides or eight is critical to predicting the probability that it should land with any specific value (i.e., 1/6 or 1/8).
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIn this case, I think that knowing the weakly (only slightly disruptive but only marginally accurate) measured polarity of a particle constrains the more likely values of a subsequent measurement of an associated particle polarity.
As a (retired) information systems analyst, it grates me when physicists often (IMO) misapply the term 'information' to physics. There is no big universal database of particle state configurations...
However, observers can accumulate information regarding ongoing processes and events, as I described above.
IMO, the general uncertainty of particle behavior is primarily the result of their being determined by complex processes involving multiple contributing factors, about which precise information cannot be obtained. Again, to definitively determine the precise location of a particle requires the collapse of the wave function, for example the absorption of a photon's momentum by an electron - in this case knowing precisely where the photon is at one moment does not help to determine where it will be in the future (except that it no longer exists as a photon). The uncertainty of quantum particle behavior is thus inherent - gaining limited information from a weak measurement affects future measurements by constraining its inherent uncertainty - one is measuring the effect of the prior measurement as well as the particle's inherent behavior.
These are only my own thoughts - others may disagree. Others may actually be more knowledgeable than I, but unfortunately the incompetent are incapable of assessing the competency of others, much less their own...
To answer your last question, I suppose the correct answer is: read a good book. But I'm certainly not an English major, so I refer to the 'Cliff's Notes' of the internet:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncertainty_principle
After reading this article, I'm uncertain of the principle.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIs that the proof of the proof?
Forgive my rustiness on the history of the Einstein/Bohr rivalry about the Heinsnberg principle, but perhaps Einstein was right in his 1927 Solvey thought experiment and the EPR (or whomever those other guys were)papers which haunted Bohr for more years while trying to shoot down Einstein's indirect measurment approach to measure both position and velocity of a photon. Next, we'll find out that the spooky" business at a distance of non-locality (which requires one to defy the notion that the speed of light is the universal speed limit) is wrong too. One thing that Bohr was dead wrong about was his statement that everything that had been discovered to date (circa 1930) about quantum mechanics had aready been discovered. As for poor Werner, it must have been difficult to take on all all challengers to the Uncertanty principle when you worked with (for?) a man like Bohr. And one thing that Einstein got right was that the knowledge of quantum mechanics at that time was by no means "complete," as Bohr asserted.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThis is what we had written in our blog: basudeba.blogspot.com
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisImagine an observer and a system to be observed. Between the two let us assume two interaction boundaries. When the dimensions of one medium end and that of another medium begin, the interface of the two media is called the boundary. Thus there will be one boundary at the interface between the observer and the field and another at the interface of the field and the system to be observed. In a simple diagram, the situation can be schematically represented as shown below:
Here O represents the observer and S the system to be observed. The vertical lines represent the interaction boundaries. The two boundaries may or may not be locally similar (have different local density gradients). The arrows represent the effect of O and S on the medium that leads to the information exchange that is cognized as observation.
All information requires an initial perturbation involving release of energy, as perception is possible only through interaction (exchange of force). Such release of energy is preceded by freewill or a choice of the observer to know about some aspect of the system through a known mechanism. The mechanism is deterministic – it functions in predictable ways (hence known). To measure the state of the system, the observer must cause at least one quantum of information (energy, momentum, spin, etc) to pass from him through the boundary to the system to bounce back for comparison. Alternatively, he can measure the perturbation created by the other body across the information boundary.
The quantum of information (seeking) or initial perturbation relayed through an impulse (effect of energy etc) after traveling through (and may be modified by) the partition and the field is absorbed by the system to be observed or measured (or it might be reflected back or both) and the system is thereby perturbed. The second perturbation (release or effect of energy) passes back through the boundaries to the observer (among others), which is translated after measurement at a specific instant as the quantum of information. The observation is the observer’s subjective response on receiving this information. The result of measurement will depend on the totality of the forces acting on the systems and not only on the perturbation created by the observer. The “other influences” affecting the outcome of the information exchange give rise to an inescapable uncertainty in observations.
basudeba
I always read Heisenberg as the logical extension of the problem of measurement, that a measurement can only be as accurate as the measuring device. If you're measuring something with a ruler marked off in whole inches, your measurement is accurate to within plus or minus one-half an inch. The logical extension of this is that no measurement at any scale can be more accurate than plus or minus one half of Plank's constant.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisCan you please give any supporting evidence to your conclusion that "If you're measuring something with a ruler marked off in whole inches, your measurement is accurate to within plus or minus one-half an inch." All available evidence goes against such conclusion. Hence you cannot generalize such an unfounded conclusion.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIn case you want to argue that quantum systems behave differently, we can give you macro examples of each and every so-called quantum effect including superposition, spin, entanglement, tunneling etc. Measurement is a process of comparison between similars. Hence result of measurement are always scalar quantities, i.e., numbers. Numbers are a property of all "objects" by which we differentiate between similars. If there are other similar objects, the number is one; otherwise, it is many, which gives rise to the number sequence based on perception. Thus, result of measurement is always perceived as real (wave function collapse). Thus, the only uncertainty in the result of measurement can come from mechanical error. Yet, uncertainty is real, because, by the time we complete measurement, the object has evolved in time. What we call the result of measurement, is really a description of the object at a fixed instant in the past. We do not know its present or any other state. We impose our ignorance on the theory to combine all such unknown states and call it the superposition of states.
Similarly, entanglement is neither universal nor infinite. It tapers off after some finite distance. We can give innumerable example of entanglement in the macro world.
basudeba.blogspot.com
Quinn - And then farther down in the article: "Don't get too excited: the uncertainty principle still stands, says Steinberg"
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSounds like they are also uncertain about it being false.
Doesn't Quantum Entanglement violate to a certain extent Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle ?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHow can you connect entanglement to uncertainty? As we have said above, uncertainty is a process inherent in Nature, because of the nature of measurement. When you measure something by sending a pulse of light, the light travels through a medium - the field between the object of measurement and the measuring device. The pulse then bounces back through the same medium to give you the required information. But the medium through which the pulse traveled might have changed in the meantime (you simply don't know), so that you cannot be sure that the result of measurement is accurate. You cannot prove the uncertainty (to that extent the mathematics is wrong), but you cannot ignore the possibility either.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisEntanglement is not related to measurement. It is not a quantum phenomenon either. A pair of socks is also an example of entanglement. If while traveling you carry from two pairs two socks for the right leg by mistake, you will discover it whenever you look at it. The left socks are in your room. This does not make the socks in a superposition of all quantum states and reduce suddenly to a fixed state when you look at one. The entangled quantum particles are like a rubber string. You pull and the ends stretch. Beyond certain limit, they break and separate. There is no mystery about that.
mbasedeba@gmail.com
basudeba, my impression is that this is just one of those rules you learn when you start doing lab experiments. Google the phrase "The degree of accuracy is half a unit each side of the unit of measure".
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWe agree with your comment Sir, and that is precisely the problem we are pointing to. All text books or presentation or papers on any scientific subject begin and end with praising the theories in superlative terms. This is creating a genre of superstitious persons. Present day scientists are the biggest single block of superstitious people. The cult of incomprehensibility and reductionism is compounding the problem.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisKindly examine our statement on merits and if there is any mistake, please point it out precisely.
Kindly do not take these words as offensive. Please reflect on it.
basudeba
"Not one member of the "rank and file" has ever seen anything that is consistent with quantum mechanics, relativity, "evolution"."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAbsolutely false.
Quantum mechanics and relativity can be observed by simply using a smartphone with a GPS.
Evolution HAS been observed happening in various current species, there are MANY examples of it in action. This is aside from the monumental amount of evidence that support it in the past from countless scientific fields. Don't let the facts get in your way though, I'm sure it's a big conspiracy :)
What julianpenrod meant was well correct, though his language might be misleading. He has given one example often cited by many people. And there he certainly is correct. Sered is also right. But what he has described is related to technology - not theory. During the last century, technologists (who call themselves experimental scientists more than engineers) have achieved wonders. The theoreticians are only taking credit for the technologists achievements.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIncidentally, we have commented something about evolution elsewhere in these columns, giving a different interpretation. You can visit basudeba.blogspot,com
basudeba
Incidentally,
I definitely should read the paper before commenting but it seems to me that there is a problem here steming from a heuristic interpretation of Heisenberg's principle.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMany quantities in QM, most notably X and P (position and momentum) are the Fourier transformation of each other and for those Parseval's theorem applies!!!
From the quantum state, psi, you can't know both accurately for there is this inequality that must be satisfied for such quantities.
Heuristically interpreting this as the result of experimentation is quite another thing. As written above, electronic engineers are fully aware of this in problems related to electric signals and noise.
Just my 2c
Dear Sir,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou are again falling into the same trap we have pointed out earlier. The validity of a physical statement rests with its correspondence to reality. The validity of a mathematical statement rests with its logical consistency. Most of the mathematics you are talking about is not logically consistent.
Mathematics is related to accumulation and reduction of numbers. Since measurements are comparison between similar quantities, mathematics is possible only between similars (linear) or partly similars (non-linear) but never between the dissimilars. We cannot add or multiply 3 protons and 3 neutrons. They can be added only by taking their common property of mass to give mass number. These accumulation and reduction of numbers are expressed as the result of measurement after comparison with a scaling constant (standard unit) having similar characteristics (such as length compared with unit length, area with unit area, volume with unit volume, density with unit density, interval with unit interval, etc). The results of measurements are always pure numbers, i.e., scalar quantities, because the dimensions of the scaling constants are same for both the measuring device and the object being measured and measurement is only the operation of scaling up or down the unit for an appropriate number of times. Thus, mathematics explains only “how much” one quantity accumulates or reduces in an interaction involving similar or partly similar quantities and not “what”, “why”, “when”, “where”, or “with whom” about the objects involved in such interactions. These are the subject matters of physics. Hence please do not be bugged down in the so-called mathematical jungle. Be physical.
For further clarification, you may write to mbasudeba@gmail.com
Dear sir,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI really agree with your notion that mathematics only expresses some nos. to express the accumulation or reduction of a physical quantity and does not elaborate upon the physical mechanism. In other words, mathematics is a language of exactitude and preciseness to understand some physical phenomenon . It is an elegant tool of exactitude to understand relation between a nos. of parameters related to some physical phenomenon. BUT per se mathematics is not realty if physical mechanism or process of the physical phenomenon behind mathematical interpretation is i) either missing or ii) we are unable to comprehend the same due to limitations of our intuition and mental faculty.
I want to state that comprehension of physical realty behind mathematical interpretation is also of equal, if not more, significance.
In the above context, I am posing some directed query to you. Einstein's GR speaks of gravitation as curvature of space-time. Theory also assumes smoothness and continuous nature of space. GR is highly loaded in favor of mathematical treatment and it does not speak any thing of "what", "how" and "why" of curvature of space in physical terms. In fact, it establishes the curvature of space thru mathematical interpretation only. Text books and most of links also speak of curvature in terms of "abstract mathematical co-ordinates" only. If space carries no physicality, there should be no meaning of curvature of space also on physical paradigm. Now we shall face a conundrum. Once we speak of physicality of space implying space composed of some building blocks, however small they may be even below Plank scale, smoothness and continuous character of space are also gone. It implies basic assumption of GR vanihes
How do you view the above conundrum?
What we should conclude
i) GR speaks of some elegant and complex mathematical treatment and interpretations. All the interpretations and conclusions are valid on mathematical and on logical grounds BUT there is no realty and truth on the physical paradigm
OR
ii) Apart from mathematical realty, there is also corresponding realty on physical paradigm but due to our mental and intuition limitations, we are unable to comprehend the realty of curvature of space in physical terms
vinodsehgal1957@yahoo.com
Dear Dir,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWe fully agree with your statement that "mathematics is not realty if physical mechanism or process of the physical phenomenon behind mathematical interpretation is i) either missing or ii) we are unable to comprehend the same due to limitations of our intuition and mental faculty". We have said Numbers are a characteristic of "objects" by which we differentiate between similars. Thus, their accumulation or reduction has to be real. But when mathematics is made abstract - not related to objects,hence their numbers - it no longer remains mathematics. For example, if with 5000 dollars you purchase a car, with 1000 dollars you purchase 1/5 of a car. Mathematically it is valid. But physically 1/5th of a car does not make sense. Thus, we cannot blindly rely on mathematics. All of physics is mathematical, but all of mathematics is not physical.
Curvature of spacetime is much misunderstood. Space is the interval between objects like time is the interval between events. Since an interval means absence of continuity, space cannot be the object proper. It is related to its contours. We take this relationship in the reverse way - take the contour to explain the interval through alternative symbolism. Thus, spacetime geometry is not related to space as an object, but to the interval of objects in space. The interval is the back ground structure. Thus, change in the density of the background structures changes the position of the objects. This is called the change in the spacetime geometry. But often, nature of such change is misunderstood.
Equivalence principle of GR is not real nor valid, as it leads to the Russel's paradox of set theory. If the spacecraft is not related to the external field, we will not know that we are moving up. If it is related, then only we will see the distance between us is increasing. But we will not know about the nature of the force. Since distance is same when measured from either end, the mathematics is same. But the physics - increase in inertial mass - is wrong. Till date there has been no experiment to prove that inertial mass increase is a reality. It has been assumed to be true. The so-called experiments are either fallacies or can be explained differently. We have explained all these in our paper "PHYSICS BEYOND STANDARD MODEL". You can see it in our blog.
You are welcome for further clarification.
mbasudeba@gmail.com.
Dear Mr basudeba,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThanks for your detailed comments. I have also received your paper on relativity separately thru mail and I am pursuing the same.
Your comments at 33 above make sense to me but when I go deeply into the niceties, a nos. of new issues arise . As an illustration, your following quotes in the comments :
"Space is the interval between objects like time is the interval between events."
So you describe
Space = Interval between objects i.e. matter
Time = Interval between events i.e motion
For the sake of discussions to be simplistic and meaningful, I limit up to space only and keep Time in abeyance. Without going into semantics, following issues arise in my mind :
i) Space is the interval -- a gap, lack of continuity between matter. That is one way of describing space. Semantically, there may be a nos. of ways to describe any realty. But, as we agree, like mathematical description, semantics description per se is also not realty. Semantics only describe realty but not any realty in themselves - physical or non-physical.
WHEN WE SAY SPACE IS GAP -- INTERVAL BETWEEN MATTER, NEXT OBVIOUS ISSUE ARISES :GAPS ARE COMPOSED OF WHAT? OR WHAT IS FILLED IN THOSE INTERVALS? ONE CAN SAY INTERVALS ARE COMPOSED OF NOTHING. NOTHING IN REAL SENSE IMPLY NIL EXISTENCE. BUT CAN ANY SENSIBLE PERSON STATE THAT THERE IS NIL EXISTENCE OF SPACE?
ACTUALLY WHOLE QUERY ABOUT SPACE WHICH SCIENTISTS, PHILOSOPHERS AND MYSTICS HAVE BEEN TRYING TO UNRIDDLE SINCE MILLENNIA IS:
WHAT THAT INTERVAL OR GAP IS BETWEEN MATTER? MERELY STATING THAT SPACE IS INTERVAL BETWEEN MATTER DOES NOT ADD MUCH.
PRIMARY QUERY ABOUT SPACE IS WHAT THOSE GAPS ARE?
ii) As per your description, existence of space is contingent upon existence of intervals between matter. Intervals between matter are contingent upon matter. if there is no matter, from where gaps will come into existence? It amounts to state that if there is matter then only space comes into existence. Now let us envision a hypothetical situation :
Cont. from 34
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSuppose all the matter of universe is converted to energy. This is a scientific fact that matter can be converted into energy. In the scenario when entire matter is converted into matter, there shall be zero matter in universe. In SUCH SCENARIO, CAN WE ENVISION NIL EXISTENCE OF SPACE?
iii) Semantically, I can also state that space is the absence of matter. But this also does not add much value since that is what we want to comprehend as to "what is in that absence?" ABSENCE OF MATTER IS SPACE, NO PROBLEM. I CAN WELL COMPREHEND THIS. BUT WHAT THAT ABSENCE -- SPACE IS ? THIS WE DON'T KNOW AND THAT IS THE PRIMARY ISSUE.
iv) When we dissect more deeply nature of matter also, we are stuck somewhere at matter also.
v) It appears to me that Space is more fundamental than matter but not vice versa. Space may exist without matter but matter can not exist without space. Does this statement of mine makes some sense to you?
This is also my opinion that inertial mass is constant in all situations. In a way inertial mass is intrinsic to matter. It defines matter as matter. But from where inertial mass emerges out? From Higgs Boson? This will displace the query further. From where Higgs Field emerges out? where Science will end? I think no end is nearing.
Another issue : Is there any existence of matter without inertial mass ( Or Higgs Field?). Is it not true that it is due to virtue of inertial mass ( or Higgs Field) that matter comes into existence? But from what? Energy or something else? I am not sure
vinodsehgal1957@yahoo.com
Dear Sir,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWe are extremely grateful to you for raising some foundational questions. However, some of our views have not been reflected properly in your analysis. Hence we clarify.
We never said space is absence of matter. We only said it is the interval between objects, which means, both matter and space are contained in some background structure. We posit that the so-called dark energy provides this background structure.
We never said that time is the interval between events means interval between motion. Motion involves displacement as a whole. Event can mean partial displacement also. A better definition would be effect of energy on motion.
Existence of space is not contingent upon existence of intervals between matter. The interval is necessary for perception of space.
The mass-energy equation has been thoroughly misunderstood. Equality sign does not mean conversion. Two atoms of hydrogen and one atom of oxygen equal one molecule(?) of water. But does it mean water and hydrogen-oxygen are convertible? All experience show otherwise. Had it been so, water should have been in the sky and hydrogen-oxygen should also be freely available in oceans. Even if we combine hydrogen-oxygen, it does not get converted to water automatically. Similarly, mass and energy are not ordinarily convertible. They can be convertible under primordial conditions only - which means only at extremely high energy. But it is not automatics or above a threshold. It follows a different rule of physics. We are making a paper on this subject and will publish in due course. For the moment we can only say that half of all stuff is "dark" and half of the balance is energy. This explains three quarters of dark energy.
Regards,
basudeba
Respected Mr Basudeba,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisthough I have been communicating with you separately thru mails, however, interaction at a public forum can be beneficial to us, due to some contribution from public if they want to add, as well as to public. in view of this, I am responding against your comment 36
"Motion involves displacement as a whole. Event can mean partial displacement also"
I have not followed your above quotes. How do you define an event? How do you distinguish between partial displacement and and displacement arising from motion.
As far as my understanding goes, an event takes place when a material body occupies a new spatial position or even same spatial position spread over time. Both new spatial position and same spatial positions must arise from motion in material body. An event is necessary for defining time ( For defining only not for existence) and motion is necessary for defining an event. As such, motion is imperative for defining Time.
But issue of defining and comprehending and time becomes very complex for a material body where no motion is involved. As an hypothetical case, suppose a particle is suspended still ( without any motion)in universe since Big Bang. Will no time flow for that particle in the absence of any motion? There are some people in scientific community who state that Time comes into existence on creation of motion only. NO motion -- No Time.
I also agree with you that E=mc^2 does not imply necessary conversion. Conversion shall take place under certain conditions of fission and fusion only. But whenever conversion shall take place, energy produced from mass m shall be equal to value as computed thru this equation. Have you some different interpretation than this?
Dear Sir,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou are correct that an event takes place when a material body occupies a new spatial position or even same spatial position spread over time. Both new spatial position and same spatial positions must arise from motion in material body. The problem with understanding our comment on the relationship between motion and events is our categorization of motion. If you accept that a body has parts, you must admit that motion can be of three types:
1) motion of the body as a whole, while the parts are not in motion.
2) motion of the parts, while the body as a whole is not in motion.
3) Motion involving both the body and its parts.
An event covers all three, which involve motion of either kind. Thus, without the above description, to tell that ‘event means motion’ can be misleading.
You have spoken about a material body where no motion is involved and the particle is suspended still (without any motion) in universe since Big Bang. But there are no such bodies. Everything in the universe is ever moving. Hence it is called Jagat. The view that Time comes into existence on creation of motion only is correct. No motion - No Time.
You say that conversion takes place under certain conditions of fission and fusion. But what are fusion and fission? They are coupling and decoupling. Coupling or decoupling (addition and subtraction) can take place only between similars. Thus, it cannot imply conversion. Both fusion and fission require energy in the first place. Whenever such conversion takes place, energy involved (not produced) from mass m shall be equal to a value as computed through the equation. Mass and energy are inseparable conjugates, but are not convertible. Confined primordial stuff is mass and mass released from confinement releases energy. Thus it is energy that confines. Hence fusion generates more energy than fission, because it breaks two atoms first before uniting them. According to our theory, the preset values of the electric charge of quarks contain an error element of 3 percent. Thus, the charge of protons is +10/11 and that of electrons is -1/11. The excess negative charge is not revealed as it is directed inwards – towards the nucleus. From the same theory we have derived the value of the fine structure constant alpha as 7/960, which corresponds to the measured value. Thus, it must be correct. This makes all particles charged. The conversion of the “matter” and “energy” takes place before generation of charge itself.
basudeba
Fun to talk in circles? An exclellent representation of quantum principles are available on youtube by searching for lectures by Nobel Laureate Richard Feynman. Your wordsd make no sense, I ampped them out as a series of stements and they cannot be responded to, do it yourself. Quantum physics is not all that odd, it is just hte science of studying things that are extremely small and it has challenges. As an example lets say you wanted to measure the speed of a billiard ball moving across a table in a pitch dark room and you had a flashlight for illumination. Since all of the light would be coming from one direction, as you measure the balls movement, the light is actually moving hte ball away from yu due to pressure exerted onit by the light photons hitting it! Of course due to the relative mass of hte billiard ball and the photons the movement is imperceptble and is ignored in all but the most extreme calculations. Te problem becomes whenyou want to try to measure something very small, lets say a neutron for example which is several orders of magnitude more massive than an electron. If the electron hits the neutron moving at a velocity at say the speed of light naturally, then a relatively large amount of energy is being entered into the system that is represented by hte neutron and this energy has to have an effect and it is measureable. That is all they are saying...if a particle extremely small is moving along in the dark, we need to illuminate it in order to measure it and the act of illuminating it changes its velocity, direction and all other aspects of its latency...that is the heart of the uncertainty principle, we can be sure where it was going at what speed before we illuminated it...quit pretending it is scientific hogwash because you are an idiot fundamentalist!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt may come as a surprise to past and present adherents of Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle (HUP) but recent mathematical progress means we can also look at uncertainty from a theoretical point of view. Quantum theory, depending on HUP, is incomplete as Einstein thought. See book Self-field theory, a new mathematical description of physics, by A.H.J. Fleming, published by Pan-Stanford Press 2012; analytic solutions for the motions of the electron and the proton inside the hydrogen atom have been found obviating the need of the numerical and probabilistic quantum theory. The basis of this new formulation includes the magnetic currents of particles and not just the electric fields as in quantum theory. In this formulation, the photon is composite and hydrogenic-like.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt is well known the inequality relationship of HUP applies to any quantum system in general. The equations for the orbital and cyclotron motions of each electron in self-field theory (SFT) are given as two equality equations. Apart from the 'greater than' relationship compared with the exact relationship, the 3 equations are identical. Whereas there is one inexact relationship in HUP there are two equality relationships in SFT. SFT thus completes the Bohr Theory that did not include any magnetic effect on the electron.
In the light of this mathematics HUP can be seen as a theoretical error; in practice it appears as a numerical error in any computer calculations.
Let me add that HUP will always be a good engineering approximation able to be used across domains from photon to universe in the same way that Newton's law of gravitation is still used today by those involved in gravitational research.
Let me further add that the magnetic moments involved in this new mathematics (SFT) at the terrestrial domain may be able to give us much more quantitative information about the way techtonic plates, earthquakes and tsunamis develop over time.
But there are other benefits like 'clean' chemistry waiting to be investigated.