Research team challenges the limits of famous quantum principle

Feb 05, 2014
Research team challenges the limits of famous quantum principle
Heisenberg’s uncertainty limits how sharp measurements can be performed on quantum systems. UQ researchers have now performed joint measurements of single photons, challenging the limits of quantum theory. Credit: Martin Ringbauer

(Phys.org) —A team of physicists is challenging the very limits of Heisenberg's famous uncertainty principle by measuring quantum particles with unprecedented accuracy.

Physicists from The University of Queensland have performed joint measurements on single light particles with accuracy never seen before, and developed methods that could help improve the most sensitive quantum sensors.

Martin Ringbauer, PhD student at UQ's School of Mathematics and Physics and lead author of the experimental study, said the findings help answer long-standing open questions in .

"The uncertainty principle is one of the central features of quantum mechanics, which has been misunderstood for the longest time," Mr Ringbauer said.

This "Heisenberg principle" states it is impossible to jointly measure two incompatible quantities, for example speed and location, of a quantum particle with perfect accuracy.

"This experimental work settles a decade-long debate—'Heisenberg-like' relations do not hold for joint measurements," he said.

"Now that we have a complete theory, as well as experimental evidence, it is probably time to update the textbooks."

Research team challenges the limits of famous quantum principle
Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle does not allow the joint measurement of two quantum properties to be arbitrarily sharp. Quantum physicists from The University of Queensland have now demonstrated the optimal trade-off between the accuracy of these two measurements. Credit: Martin Ringbauer

Almost a century ago, renowned quantum theorist Werner Heisenberg found fundamental limits on how well a quantum system can be prepared and measured, known as Heisenberg's .

However, only the limit that pertains to the preparation of quantum systems has been quantified; the other two, relating to measurements, have long been a matter of debate, lacking a formal treatment.

These limits are: That it is impossible to jointly measure incompatible quantities, for instance, location and speed of a quantum object, with perfect accuracy; and that a measurement of one of these quantities necessarily disturbs the other.

Last year, UQ's Cyril Branciard proposed a new set of "uncertainty relations", for the joint measurement of incompatible quantities, which describe the minimal disturbance that will occur for a given measurement accuracy.

"Branciard's relations quantify how accurately we can measure," Mr Ringbauer said.

"Testing these relations, we are now able to show in the lab that we can actually reach this ultimate limit of accuracy," he said.

The study was published in January in the journal Physical Review Letters. A related work by Kaneda et al. in the same journal, has found similar results.

Explore further: Physicists prove Heisenberg's intuition correct

More information: Experimental Joint Quantum Measurements with Minimum Uncertainty, PRL, prl.aps.org/abstract/PRL/v112/i2/e020401

Related Stories

Physicists prove Heisenberg's intuition correct

Oct 17, 2013

An international team of scientists has provided proof of a key feature of quantum physics – Heisenberg's error-disturbance relation - more than 80 years after it was first suggested.

Scientists cast doubt on renowned uncertainty principle

Sep 07, 2012

Werner Heisenberg's uncertainty principle, formulated by the theoretical physicist in 1927, is one of the cornerstones of quantum mechanics. In its most familiar form, it says that it is impossible to measure ...

More certainty on uncertainty's quantum mechanical role

Oct 04, 2012

Scientists who study the ultra-small world of atoms know it is impossible to make certain simultaneous measurements, for example finding out both the location and momentum of an electron, with an arbitrarily ...

Recommended for you

Quantum mechanics to charge your laptop?

Sep 18, 2014

Top scientists from UC Berkeley and MIT found the expertise they lacked at FIU. They invited Sakhrat Khizroev, a professor with appointments in both medicine and engineering, to help them conduct research ...

Physicists design zero-friction quantum engine

Sep 16, 2014

(Phys.org) —In real physical processes, some energy is always lost any time work is produced. The lost energy almost always occurs due to friction, especially in processes that involve mechanical motion. ...

User comments : 155

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

Telekinetic
1.5 / 5 (10) Feb 05, 2014
Let this be a lesson to the old guard of thermodynamic law- the advent of new instrumentation and experimental design will topple the sacrosanct temples of science.
antialias_physorg
3.9 / 5 (17) Feb 05, 2014
Let this be a lesson to the old guard of thermodynamic law

You are aware that that is zero people? There is no such thing as a scietist that is a 'guard of any law' or that has some vested interest in retaining a status quo in some field of research.

In case it isn't blindingly obvious: Scientists do research. This means they are ALWAYS looking for something new and ALWAYS ready to challenge the current state of knowledge (that's the whole POINT of being a scientist).
Tangent2
2.6 / 5 (8) Feb 05, 2014
So Einstein was right, God does not play dice with the Universe.
Telekinetic
1.9 / 5 (13) Feb 05, 2014
@anti:

Maybe you're just a Pollyanna or live in a cave to be so naive. Scientists, who are usually human, protect information they've been taught and will fight tooth-and-nail to defend it, especially if funding is at stake, History is full of examples of scientists overturning previously held misconceptions at a cost to their professional reputations and even their lives during the Inquisition. Your faith in pure objectivity is misplaced.
antialias_physorg
3.9 / 5 (16) Feb 05, 2014
Maybe you're just a Pollyanna or live in a cave to be so naive.

No. I was a scientist and have gotten to know a lot of fellow scientists. You, on the other hand, live in a FOX-fed fantasy world that isn't even second hand but fully made up.

You are so benighted that you don't even know that if a scientist gets zero or a billion dollars in funding that this does not change his/her salary by one cent. Funding is nice - but it doesn't do anything for you personally.

There's nothing wrong with forming an opinion...but, dear god, forming an opinion on zero knowledge and experience is just stupid - even you must be aware of that.
Telekinetic
1.5 / 5 (8) Feb 05, 2014
I like that- "beknighted"- I'll post as Sir Telekinetic from now on. I know a number of scientists as well, and have heard tales of intrigue, backstabbing, slander,etc., from them. A lot more than salary rides on whether or not you toe the party line- it could mean your job. Apparently, you've never had to raise money for research or justify the work for those who hold the purse strings- otherwise you'd know exactly what I'm talking about.
Mimath224
3.5 / 5 (4) Feb 05, 2014
Telekinetic & antialias_physorg, Oh come on chaps why argue that point. As human beings we resist change (oh dear is that classical physics too ha!). Simple things like routines at work, at home etc. all become 'the norm' and changing them isn't always easy. It's in our nature and even when the evidence is clear change is seldom immediate...and that's just life eh?
The article quotes 'uncertainty relations' which suggests to me a kind 'division within' perhaps a further dividing of certain equations (such as commutators, Bra & ket operation descibed in some texts used to derive HUP?) Will be interesting to visit this again in the future.

johanfprins
2.1 / 5 (12) Feb 06, 2014
You are aware that that is zero people? There is no such thing as a scietist that is a 'guard of any law' or that has some vested interest in retaining a status quo in some field of research.


Oh my God! Nobody is as blind as those who do not want to see. What you state is how it should be, not how it actually is. At present the mainstream scientists who are in control are hell bent on retaining the status quo. In fact, I have not seen many exceptions to this attitude since 1930.

Too much money and prestige are at stake. Will a modern theoretical physicist even consider the possibility that the blimp of noise observed at CERN does not give other "particles" mass? Never!! They will be the laughing stock, as they should be, after having spent billions in building the biggest circus this planet has ever seen!

So stop ignoring actual facts by living in cloud-cuckoo land.
johanfprins
2.2 / 5 (13) Feb 06, 2014
BTW: Congratulations to these scientists: But they are now going to find out how difficult it is to get such new data accepted by the mainstream physicists.

The interpretation that one cannot measure position and momentum simultaneously, has all along been poppycock, since it implies that these two parameters cannot manifest simultaneously (whether you measure or not). It should be obvious to anybody, even with limited brainpower, that this violates Galileo's principle of inertia, on which all subsequent physics has been based.

According to this principle, as extended by Newton's first law, an entity with rest mass must remain stationary within an inertial reference frame, when no force acts on it. To remain stationary, the position and momentum must manifest simultaneously. It is incredible that the theoretical physicists who were bred during the 20th century, and who are still hell bent on keeping the status quo, could not have seen this simple fact for nearly 100 years by now!!
DonGateley
4.8 / 5 (4) Feb 06, 2014
"Testing these relations, we are now able to show in the lab that we can actually reach this ultimate limit of accuracy,"

The article implies that "this ultimate limit" is different than Heisenberg's. Or does it? What does this article say, exactly.
antialias_physorg
2.4 / 5 (5) Feb 06, 2014
I like that- "beknighted"

You like the benighted? We'll it suits you. (look up the word)

As human beings we resist change

The point of becoming a scientist is because you are a personality that loves change. Scientists love the unknown. That's the entire job description: find out stuff that is unknown. (Literally: from latin 'scientia' which means 'knowledge' a scientist is someone who seeks/creates new knowledge).

That the average slob fears change may be true - but don't go making assumptions about scientist from observing the guy working the Starbucks counter, please.

johanfprins
2 / 5 (8) Feb 06, 2014
"Testing these relations, we are now able to show in the lab that we can actually reach this ultimate limit of accuracy,"

The article implies that "this ultimate limit" is different than Heisenberg's. Or does it? What does this article say, exactly.


This article says that when you increase the accuracy of measuring position, you can simultaneously increase the accuracy in measuring momentum. This totally torpedoes the Copenhagen interpretation according to which an increase in the accuracy of measuring position must cause a decrease in the accuracy of measuring momentum, and vice versa.

In other words, it demands that the Copenhagen interpretation must be rejected; and since this means that "wave-particle duality" and "complementarity" must also be rejected, it means that ALL physics based on Quantum Field Theory must be wrong. Goodbye "Standard Model for Particles"; goodbye Higgs boson, quarks, and all the concepts which can only exist in Alice's Wonderland! At last!
johanfprins
1.6 / 5 (7) Feb 06, 2014
Anatalias: "The point of becoming a scientist is because you are a personality that loves change. Scientists love the unknown. That's the entire job description: find out stuff that is unknown."

This is the ideal which, however, has become the exception. Please WAKE UP!!!!!!!!
arom
2.5 / 5 (2) Feb 06, 2014
By the way, it is interesting to note that according to the conventional uncertainty relation, there is no explanation about its physical mechanism which tell how its work; maybe understand it (as below) could help to settle the dispute.

http://www.vacuum...19〈=en
antialias_physorg
3.4 / 5 (8) Feb 06, 2014
This is the ideal which, however, has become the exception.

No. That's the reality. I urge you to go and work as a scientist or actually get to know any of them. (I'm not talking about science managers. That's a different bunch. They do interdepartmental politics for funding. But those are not the ones doing the work or who understand anything about the science - and certainly not the ones who 'protect some vested interest in keeping outdated laws alive' or some such nonsense, as they don't have that knowledge)

Please WAKE UP!!!!!!!!

"Multiple exclamation marks. The sure sign of a diseased mind."
-- Terry Pratchett
johanfprins
2.3 / 5 (9) Feb 06, 2014
@ antialias_physorg

"No. That's the reality."

I have practised and taught physics for more than 50 years, and has an international reputation as a Materials Scientist and a teacher of theoretical physics. I have a reputable citation index and have been invited to teach at prestigious institutions like, for example, the Fermi School of Physics in Italy.

I KNOW what I am talking about. You pathetically "urge me to go and work as a scientist, or get to know any of them", while I have rubbed shoulders with most of the "renowned" physicists during my career.

What have you done! You know blue F-ALL, but parades on this forum as if you think you do. Most of your posts, if not all of them, have been consistently WRONG! It is I who must "urge you to go and work as a scientist", although I expect that you do not have the intelligence to do so.

Multiple exclamation marks are required in an attempt to penetrate one of the thickest skulls I have ever encountered in my life!
Telekinetic
1 / 5 (4) Feb 06, 2014
"That the average slob fears change may be true - but don't go making assumptions about scientist from observing the guy working the Starbucks counter, please."-antialias

And what if the guy working at the Starbucks counter actually brings forth a valuable scientific discovery? You'd reject it out of hand because of your smug condescension. You're a toady to the establishment, which makes you the antithesis of your definition of a scientist.

Telekinetic
1 / 5 (4) Feb 06, 2014
"That's a different bunch. They do interdepartmental politics for funding. But those are not the ones doing the work or who understand anything about the science - and certainly not the ones who 'protect some vested interest in keeping outdated laws alive' or some such nonsense, as they don't have that knowledge)"- antialias

What a bunch of horse shit. The lead scientists are also salesmen, but you've never been at those meetings.
swordsman
2.3 / 5 (4) Feb 06, 2014
Physicists are finally catching on to what engineers have known for many years. Any "single" measurement is always inaccurate due to the limitations of the instrumentation, which produces an error. However, measurements can be "characterized" to allow for error correction. An example is a voltage measurement in which the impedance of the voltmeter produces a load and an error. Knowing the load of the voltmeter, the actual voltage can be determined. Same with velocity measurement, etc.
Osteta
Feb 06, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Osteta
Feb 06, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
johanfprins
1 / 5 (4) Feb 06, 2014
@ Osteta,

"So at the moment, when Branciard's relations violate the Heissenberg relation, they would violate these physical constants as well."

This the most inane insane argument I have EVER read: It must be Zephyr in one of his infinite number of incarnations. Barnciard's relations DOES NOT VIOLATE the Heisenberg relation, but proves that the interpretation of this relationship has been WRONG all along. It must be, since Heisenberg believed in Voodoo. He for example stated that "the path (of an electron) only exists when it is observed".

What is unbelievable is that all mainstream theoretical physicists believed this superstitious bullshit for nearly 90 years by now!

Osteta
Feb 06, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Osteta
Feb 06, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
johanfprins
1 / 5 (3) Feb 06, 2014
@ Osteta,

When are you going to realise that you are only qualified to clean toilets at railway stations in Eastern Europe?
antialias_physorg
4.2 / 5 (6) Feb 06, 2014
And what if the guy working at the Starbucks counter actually brings forth a valuable scientific discovery? You'd reject it out of hand because of your smug condescension.

Not impossible, but exceedingly unlikely. It'd be like a midget beating the long jump world record.

The point is: you're saying that scientists are conservative - but that is the exact opposite of what makes someone want to become a scientist.

The lead scientists are also salesmen, but you've never been at those meetings.

Bzzt. Wrong. Wanna try again?

departments vie for funding. but today very little of the funding comes from the universities themselves. Funding is gotten through grants and partnerships with companies. Neither of which lends itself to writing proposals that 'protect the status quo'. Companies want new stuff and only promising research gets funding. "same old - same old" gets no funding.
Telekinetic
1 / 5 (5) Feb 06, 2014
@anti:
The most glaring case of foul play was when JP Morgan yanked funding from Tesla's research when Tesla spoke of "free energy", which is the bete noire of the scientific establishment. More recently, MIT was guilty of spreading rumors about the impossibility of cold fusion, since they've been working on a fusion reactor and receiving millions for research. You're the mental midget.
Noumenon
5 / 5 (1) Feb 06, 2014
This article says that when you increase the accuracy of measuring position, you can simultaneously increase the accuracy in measuring momentum. This totally torpedoes the Copenhagen interpretation [...]

In other words, it demands that the Copenhagen interpretation must be rejected; and since this means that "wave-particle duality" and "complementarity" must also be rejected, it means that ALL physics based on Quantum Field Theory must be wrong. Goodbye "Standard Model for Particles"; goodbye Higgs boson, quarks, and all the concepts which can only exist in Alice's Wonderland! At last!


The article says nothing of the kind. And the Copenhagen interpretation is as valid now as it was then.

The Copenhagen interpretation of the HUP was for independent measurements of identically prepared systems. The Branciard relations refer to approximate joint measurements of the same system, in order to clarify and quantify what the minimal disturbance must be, on account of HUP.
russell_russell
not rated yet Feb 06, 2014
http://phys.org/n...ion.html

I am two years behind the ongoing research. See my last embarrassing commentary questions about time keeping. Maybe the Branciard relations will set a limit to the precision of time keeping too.

There is the possibility that time is a construct and not physical. I don't see a better construct for order.
russell_russell
5 / 5 (1) Feb 06, 2014
http://phys.org/n...tum.html

Yes, Noumenon. Best ever article to explain Branciard relations. Much to the disappointment of those seeking the voo doo in quantum theory.
johanfprins
1 / 5 (3) Feb 07, 2014
Noumenon,

You forgot "IN"

And the Copenhagen interpretation is as INvalid now as it was then.

antialias_physorg
4.2 / 5 (5) Feb 07, 2014
MIT was guilty of spreading rumors about the impossibility of cold fusion

So? What do you care what MIT says? According to you there is already someone selling working cold fusion reactors, isn't there? So what do you need further funding for that?

Rumors do not cause funding to go one way or another. You obviously don't know how funding works: You apply for a grant based on ALREADY DONE, PREVIOUS work (it also helps if you have a track record of not squandering funds).
The point is that you have to have something rudimentary to show for investors to make them confident that funding further research will be worth it.

If the cold fusion guys have nothing to show (and in the past did not deliver any results on the ample funding they did get in the 80's and 90's) then it's no wonder they don't get funded currently.
Osteta
Feb 07, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (6) Feb 07, 2014
So what are you whining about? People from MIT regularly start up new companies when they get something working. Why haven't your cold fusion guys done so? Should be a cash cow, right?

Since (by your claim) it works they also don't need any funding any more. With a working proototype they can easily get venture capital.

...I wonder why this isn't happening. ( <-sarcasm )
Requiem
5 / 5 (7) Feb 07, 2014
I think Johan Prins, Mitchell Swartz, and Andrea Rossi should start a support group and tour the country. They'd make more money from idiots like cantdrive and zephyr lecturing about how the man keeps them down than they ever will from their unicorns and pixie dust.
Telekinetic
1 / 5 (3) Feb 07, 2014
anti:
By your prejudiced, sarcastic remarks about cold fusion, you just proved my point that you're too threatened to accept contradicting discoveries. The president of the Swedish Skeptical Society has personally assessed Rossi's work and approves. Why would I care about what MIT says? How about the survival of earth in regard to our primitive methods of energy production? No, antialias, you're not a scientist because you're curious about the "new". By sticking with the winning team in order to avoid unwarranted criticism and ridicule, you display cowardice.
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (5) Feb 07, 2014
By your prejudiced, sarcastic remarks about cold fusion, you just proved my point that you're too threatened to accept contradicting discoveries.

I'll accept it when I see it working and see some serious math. All I currently see is a lot of handwaving and dubious 'demonstrations' where no real experts are allowed to have a hands on inspection.
The current cold fusion activities raise all red flags for 'Hoax'.
When someone comes up with a good demonstrator and a good theoretical framework I'll look at it again. But currently they're just recycling hoax material. It was interesting the first few years (I followed the news on that in the 90's quite a bit) but the shtick gets to be old hat after a while.
Telekinetic
2 / 5 (4) Feb 07, 2014
A report from a highly credentialed group of investigators:

Giuseppe Levi, Evelyn Foschi, Torbjörn Hartman, Bo Höistad, Roland Pettersson, Lars Tegnér, Hanno Essén
(Submitted on 16 May 2013 (v1), last revised 7 Jun 2013 (this version, v3))
An experimental investigation of possible anomalous heat production in a special type of reactor tube named E-Cat HT is carried out. The reactor tube is charged with a small amount of hydrogen loaded nickel powder plus some additives. The reaction is primarily initiated by heat from resistor coils inside the reactor tube. Measurement of the produced heat was performed with high-resolution thermal imaging cameras, recording data every second from the hot reactor tube. The measurements of electrical power input were performed with a large bandwidth three-phase power analyzer. Data were collected in two experimental runs lasting 96 and 116 hours, respectively. An anomalous heat production was indicated in both experiments. The 116-hour experiment also included a calibration of the experimental set-up without the active charge present in the E-Cat HT. In this case, no extra heat was generated beyond the expected heat from the electric input. Computed volumetric and gravimetric energy densities were found to be far above those of any known chemical source. Even by the most conservative assumptions as to the errors in the measurements, the result is still one order of magnitude greater than conventional energy sources
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (2) Feb 07, 2014
The reactor tube is charged with a small amount of hydrogen loaded nickel powder plus some additives

@Telekinetic
i have a few questions, please.
1- what are "some additives" stated in my quote from you above? what exactly ARE those additives ?
2- do you have a link to this paper/publication?

thanks in advance for answering
Telekinetic
1 / 5 (2) Feb 07, 2014
From Cornell University Library:

http://arxiv.org/...5.3913v3

As to the other materials, they would most likely be withheld by the inventor. Wouldn't you?

Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (2) Feb 07, 2014
As to the other materials, they would most likely be withheld by the inventor. Wouldn't you?

@Telekinetic
if I were developing a high dollar proprietary device, yes. For the sake of a study and investigation into the feasibility of LENR or cold fusion, no. (but i would have study investigators sign a secrecy agreement if money were dependent upon their certification of said project)

what I would like to know is, were the investigating scientists made aware of said materials for the sake of investigation in order to rule out possible chemical reactions or other reactions from the investigation?
Although the paper states that measurements were above chemical source levels, that "of any known" part makes me think... I still want to know how they excluded certain possibilities.

have you contacted the authors?
Nestle
not rated yet Feb 07, 2014
the Copenhagen interpretation is as valid now as it was then.
Could the interpretation of theory be ever disproved, if it doesn't lead to different predictions, than the underlying theory? The science is just about testable things.
Telekinetic
1 / 5 (1) Feb 07, 2014
Capt. Stumpy:
I've already had a long, protracted argument with others here on the responsibility of Rossi et al., and I'll simply say that there is no way of holding non-disclosure agreement signators to their word in my own experience as well as Snowden, for example, once employed by the NSA. Rossi is wise to be secretive, and after years of sweat and toil, he is well within his rights.
Noumenon
not rated yet Feb 07, 2014
the Copenhagen interpretation is as valid now as it was then.
Could the interpretation of theory be ever disproved, if it doesn't lead to different predictions, than the underlying theory? The science is just about testable things.


Yes, the interpretation of wave-function as superposition of probability amplitudes and wave/particle duality, works well.
Captain Stumpy
not rated yet Feb 07, 2014
Capt. Stumpy:
I've already had a long, protracted argument with others here on the responsibility of Rossi et al., and I'll simply say that there is no way of holding non-disclosure agreement signators to their word in my own experience as well as Snowden, for example, once employed by the NSA. Rossi is wise to be secretive, and after years of sweat and toil, he is well within his rights.

@Telekinetic
dont take this the wrong way but... I dont care about his non-disclosure agreement, really.

I want to know, specifically, whether or not everything was accounted for, and what steps were taken to insure they were not being snowed. to me, that would include knowing the "some additives" that were used...
Thats it, really.

I just wanted to know how he came to those conclusions. not asking for proprietary data or state secrets.

Guess I will just have to ask the author...
DonGateley
5 / 5 (1) Feb 07, 2014
@Captain Stumpy: Or buy one since they are certain of success. :-)
johanfprins
not rated yet Feb 08, 2014
Yes, the interpretation of wave-function as superposition of probability amplitudes and wave/particle duality, works well.


No it does not! A moving electron-wave and a photon wave are both coherent waves and can thus not be a superposition of "probability" amplitudes; whatever the latter Voodoo means! All physics that is based on this "probability" concept is wrong and will have to be scrapped as soon as possible.
Nestle
not rated yet Feb 08, 2014
Leaving aside that electron isn't wave, coherent the less, I don't understand why coherent waves cannot be in superposition. What does interfere in dense aether model are wake density waves of vacuum around particles, not the particles as such.
johanfprins
not rated yet Feb 08, 2014
@ Nestle,

Zephyr, I try to avoid answering your comments since they are usually irrelevant nonsense. But in the general interest of real physics, I will relent in this case.

Obviously coherent waves can superpose, BUT a single coherent wave, like a photon-wave or a moving electron-wave, CANNOT be a superposition of coherent waves. It can only superpose with other coherent waves. Thus to claim that a SINGLE coherent wave is a superposition of coherent waves is insane nonsense. Only a demented mathematicians like Heisenberg, Bohr, Dirac, Born, von Neumann etc. will argue such claptrap.
Noumenon
5 / 5 (1) Feb 08, 2014
Ironically, it is you two guys who wish to "interprete" what the underlying reality "IS", as "wake density waves of vacuum around particles" or "photon as coherent wave",...... while the Copenhagen view point was that such unobservable metaphysical speculation is manifestly meaningless gibberish,... and that the wavefunction is not to be interpreted as a wave of physical substance, but rather probability amplitudes,... the model being merely a means of making predictions. If an experiment is designed to detect electron "particles" then it will do so,.. while if it is setup to defract electron "waves" then it will do so.
johanfprins
1 / 5 (1) Feb 08, 2014
@Noumenon,

I know very well that the Copenhagen view is that " such unobservable metaphysical speculation is manifestly meaningless gibberish."

A person who believes this claptrap is a superstitious idiot who wants to believe that the Universe is held together by Voodoo. Although a measurement can change what one is measuring, it does not mean that before you measure there is no reality other than probabilities.

Furthermore, there is not a SINGLE shred of REAL experimental evidence that the latter Voodoo universe, postulated by the Copenhagen Paranormal Church is correct, or needed in any manner to understand quantum mechanics.

Please give me such experimental evidence: AND PLEASE do not again come with the double slit experiment involving single photons. The latter experiment does NOT require probabilities to explain that every coherent wave (thus also a SINGLE photon-wave) always move through both slits simultaneously when a diffraction pattern is generated. .

Noumenon
5 / 5 (1) Feb 08, 2014
Although a measurement can change what one is measuring, it does not mean that before you measure there is no reality other than probabilities.


No one is saying this. It is just that the conceptual form of that reality is dependent upon measurement. That is all.
johanfprins
1 / 5 (1) Feb 08, 2014
No one is saying this. It is just that the conceptual form of that reality is dependent upon measurement. That is all.


All physics is dependent upon measurement AND THIS INCLUDES INTERPRETATION OF WHAT YOU HAVE MEASURED. The way in which the Copenhagen Paranormal Church interprets the results obtained by measurement, is based on superstition and stupidity. This mentality should have been permanently relegated to the trash can since the time of Galileo. Unfortunately it has again been revived by Heisenberg, Bohr, Born etc.

It is as it is! Do not question how God does it Albert! There have been more open-mindedness during the Inquisition, than we have had in theoretical physics since the catastrophic Solvay Conference of 1927.
hjbasutu
not rated yet Feb 08, 2014
kitty we will now find out whether you are really alive or dead....hmmm nice
johanfprins
1 / 5 (1) Feb 08, 2014
kitty we will now find out whether you are really alive or dead....hmmm nice


Correct: When you are alive you are alive and when you are dead you are dead! The only beings who are alive AND dead are the modern theoretical physicists. They are alive since they can move around: They are dead because they have no brains. Let us stop the rule of these ZOMBIES for once and for all!
Telekinetic
not rated yet Feb 08, 2014
Capt. Stumpy:
I've already had a long, protracted argument with others here on the responsibility of Rossi et al., and I'll simply say that there is no way of holding non-disclosure agreement signators to their word in my own experience as well as Snowden, for example, once employed by the NSA. Rossi is wise to be secretive, and after years of sweat and toil, he is well within his rights.

@Telekinetic
I dont care about his non-disclosure agreement, really.

I want to know, specifically, whether or not everything was accounted for, and what steps were taken to insure they were not being snowed. to me, that would include knowing the "some additives" that were used...
.

You can trust the investigative skills of the former president of the Swedish Skeptical Society, Hanno Essen, to verify the demonstration. Even if the unnamed additives were explosive, like nitroglycerine or C4, you wouldn't have that amount of heat generated over a prolonged period as reported.
Captain Stumpy
not rated yet Feb 08, 2014
You can trust the investigative skills of the former president of the Swedish Skeptical Society, Hanno Essen, to verify the demonstration. Even if the unnamed additives were explosive, like nitroglycerine or C4, you wouldn't have that amount of heat generated over a prolonged period as reported

@Telekinetic
yep... i looked him up and saw his credentials.
i am awaiting his reply.
i would like more feedback about it other than "trust me, i'm a trained professional" or some such... i just want to know more about it.
mostly because i am skeptical myself
Captain Stumpy
not rated yet Feb 08, 2014
A person who believes this claptrap is a superstitious idiot who wants to believe that the Universe is held together by Voodoo

The way in which the Copenhagen Paranormal Church interprets the results obtained by measurement, is based on superstition and stupidity

@johanfprins
you are saying that the most successful theory in existence is voodoo but then you pop off with
Do not question how God does it Albert

the above quote is NOT logic, nor SCIENCE
putting religion before science is only good for making people stupid & lazy
religion is only good for controlling people and has NO PLACE in science
science is about PROOF
religion is about FAITH=the absence of proof
They are dead because they have no brains. Let us stop the rule of these ZOMBIES for once and for all!

so instead we should be letting the fractious acerbic delusional geriatric mental patients run the physics world?
Reliance on some perceived deity, real or imagined, is NOT science
not logical
Noumenon
5 / 5 (1) Feb 08, 2014
Do not question how God does it Albert


the above quote is NOT logic, nor SCIENCE
putting religion before science is only good for making people stupid & lazy


In johanfprins defense, he is not making a religious statement there, but is referring to a well known historical exchange between Einstein and Bohr,....

Einstein: 'I, at any rate, am convinced that He [god] does not throw dice' [referring to interpretation of he wavefunction as probability amplitudes]

Bohr: 'Einstein, stop telling God what to do'

.... of course they're not talking about god, but Reality. Bohr's point as represented by the Copenhagen interpretation (the wavefunction squared is probability and is not a physical wave of some substance),... is that we should expect that at the qm scale things will appear as voodoo, since after all an 'intuitive understanding' presupposes compatibility with how our minds evolved and this implies the macroscopic scale.
Noumenon
5 / 5 (1) Feb 08, 2014
.... in other words there is nothing wrong with the theory ([QED] it is the most accurate theory devised by man to date), the "voodoo" or strangeness of qm is purely a epistemological issue, and one should not presuppose what reality "should be like".
Protoplasmix
5 / 5 (1) Feb 08, 2014
I want to know, specifically, whether or not everything was accounted for, and what steps were taken to insure they were not being snowed. to me, that would include knowing the "some additives" that were used...
Thats it, really.

Hey Cap'n, see the May 29. 2013 post at this site, looks like the secret sauce was nixed from the latest EPO patent filing:
http://shutdownrossi.com/
As you can see from that site, just a bit of a history on the matter from someone with fairly big axe to grind. A separate history has been compiled here:
http://newenergyt...ne.shtml

Enough material to fill a book, "Investing in eCats" by Kahviat M. Ptor

=-=-=

Re the HUP, so does the "unprecedented accuracy" mean the universe is comprehensible in a predictable and deterministic way after all? :P
DonGateley
5 / 5 (1) Feb 08, 2014
When no measurement can distinguish between two (or more) theories can it be considered that either (or any) of them is "right." I think not. In the case of this argument "right" means intuit-able and that simply doesn't apply to QM.

All you've got are the measurements and a mathematical framework that fully predicts them at the only level that is observable which until further notice remains entirely probabalistic. Whether or not it makes sense to the armchair physicist is entirely irrelevant, like it or not.
Protoplasmix
5 / 5 (1) Feb 08, 2014
.... in other words there is nothing wrong with the theory ([QED] it is the most accurate theory devised by man to date), the "voodoo" or strangeness of qm is purely a epistemological issue, and one should not presuppose what reality "should be like".

True, but there was a time when atoms were thought to have no internal hidden variables, as it were. So I'm curious: what are the objections to a pilot wave theory that satisfies the Bell inequalities? And what are your (& anyone's) thoughts? Is that being too epistemological given the successes of QFT?
Noumenon
not rated yet Feb 08, 2014
.... in other words there is nothing wrong with the theory ([QED] it is the most accurate theory devised by man to date), the "voodoo" or strangeness of qm is purely a epistemological issue, and one should not presuppose what reality "should be like".

True, but there was a time when atoms were thought to have no internal hidden variables, as it were. So I'm curious: what are the objections to a pilot wave theory that satisfies the Bell inequalities?


It is still a non-local theory, so what intuitive understanding is recovered from such redundancy?
Protoplasmix
not rated yet Feb 08, 2014
It is still a non-local theory, so what intuitive understanding is recovered from such redundancy?

Completeness, maybe including unification with GR. Nothing major :)
Thanks, Noumenon.
Nestle
5 / 5 (1) Feb 08, 2014
..to claim that a SINGLE coherent wave is a superposition of coherent waves is insane nonsense.
And so? Do you really believe, that the Heisenberg, Bohr, Dirac, Born, von Neumann etc. based their carrier just on this claim - or are you fighting with ghosts? BTW If the coherent waves can superpose, will the result still be coherent?
Coherence (physics), an ideal property of waves that enables stationary (i.e. temporally and spatially constant) interference
So that the result of superposition cannot interfere with another waves anymore? It's hard to believe it. If it can, why the coherent wave couldn't be a product of superposition/interference of another ones?
DonGateley
not rated yet Feb 08, 2014
@Nestle: Of course they will still be coherent. You understand nothing about linear superpostion.
Captain Stumpy
not rated yet Feb 08, 2014
@Nestle: Of course they will still be coherent. You understand nothing about linear superpostion.

@DonGateley
Nestle / Osteta / Zephir is a Dense Aether wave acolyte, just FYI...

Hey Cap'n, see the May 29. 2013 post at this site, looks like the secret sauce was nixed from the latest EPO patent filing:

@Protoplasmix
thank you for the links. I will be reading them
i already see some things that make me wonder a great deal

essentially Rossi is claiming to have made a perpetual motion machine... energy 1magnitude greater than input? Really?
i REALLY would have to have proof of that
also, it would have to pass muster of a panel of physicists that are able to tear it apart as well as know all the mechanisms/components/chemicals.

i am super skeptical of his claims.
thanks Protoplasmix
interesting pages to read
johanfprins
not rated yet Feb 09, 2014
@ Captain Stumpy

You posted: "
" @johanfprins
you are saying that the most successful theory in existence is voodoo but then you pop off with

Do not question how God does it Albert

the above quote is NOT logic, nor SCIENCE
putting religion before science is only good for making people stupid & lazy
religion is only good for controlling people and has NO PLACE in science
science is about PROOF"


What you have just argued is exactly the essence of what I was conveying. That God should not be questioned is exactly what Bohr told Einstein. Thus what I am pointing out is that the Copenhagen interpretation is based on religious belief and therefore it is Voodoo. As you correctly point out, it has no place in science..

so instead we should be letting the fractious acerbic delusional geriatric mental patients run the physics world?
A very good description of modern day mainstream physicists. Note, however, that they are not all geriatrics. Although they are demented!
johanfprins
not rated yet Feb 09, 2014
.... in other words there is nothing wrong with the theory ([QED] it is the most accurate theory devised by man to date), the "voodoo" or strangeness of qm is purely a epistemological issue, and one should not presuppose what reality "should be like".


The mantra that the Copenhagen interpretation is "the most accurate theory devised by man to date" is a deliberate lie which is being propagated by a Goebbels-like enthusiasm.

There are so many obvious inconsistencies when it comes to the Copenhagen interpretation that only persons with frontal lobotomies will think it is "accurate"

The only successes that have derived from quantum mechanics are not based on the validity of the Copenhagen interpretation, but on using the Schroedinger's equation to model chemistry and solid state physics. In these cases the engineering approach were followed: "Shut up and calculate".

Not calculate and fudge by renormalisation when you do net get what you expected to get. Quark! quark!
johanfprins
not rated yet Feb 09, 2014
[Do you really believe, that the Heisenberg, Bohr, Dirac, Born, von Neumann etc. based their carrier just on this claim -
Yes they have: In order to claim that an electron-wave or a photon-wave are "probability-waves" one has to assume that each wave is a superposition of many coherent waves. We know that the latter is not the case, since a SINGLE photon is a SINGLE coherent wave for which c=(omega)/k. It can therefore not be superposition of many coherent waves. The same is true for a free electron-wave moving with a SINGLE de Broglie wave-length.

You , like the brainless luminaries, like Bohr, Heisenberg, Born, von Neumann, etc. etc.are claiming that a SINGLE coherent wave can be a superposition of many coherent waves. Can you not see how absurd this is?

Obviously you cannot, since a duck cannot paddle and fart bubbles in it! How old are you? Still playing with plastic ducks in your little bath tub?
Noumenon
not rated yet Feb 09, 2014
Coherence (physics), an ideal property of waves that enables stationary (i.e. temporally and spatially constant) interference

So that the result of superposition cannot interfere with another waves anymore? It's hard to believe it. If it can, why the coherent wave couldn't be a product of superposition/interference of another ones?


Right and it is. A single 'coherent photon wave' is still a wave-packet, with constructive(localized) and destructive(everywhere else) superposition of amplitudes/phases. It is just not of physical waves, but instead, 'probability amplitudes'. A single "coherent photon wave" has equal position and momentum uncertainty, and so is idealized and not general.
Noumenon
not rated yet Feb 09, 2014
Please give me such experimental evidence: AND PLEASE do not again come with the double slit experiment involving single photons. The latter experiment does NOT require probabilities to explain that every coherent wave (thus also a SINGLE photon-wave) always move through both slits simultaneously when a diffraction pattern is generated.


There are a number of such experiments... the interesting ones, whether two slits or beam splitter interferometers, are the delayed choice and quantum eraser types.

In the delayed choice two slit, AFTER the photon goes through either slit-A or slit-B or both-AB and WHILE it is traveling, the experimenter chooses which method to detect.

If he CHOOSES a screen, he will always get an interference pattern (assembled from multiple trials), while if he chooses two photon detectors arranged so that only detector-A can detect from slit-A, and only detector-B can only detect slit-B, he will ONLY register one or the other, not both.

...
Noumenon
not rated yet Feb 09, 2014
... where probability comes into play is in interpreting these results; If detector-B registers a photon, then it is known with 100% certainty that it went through slit-B, because only detector-A could register a photon from slit-A. Further it must be ONE of the slits, and only one OR the other A/B.

On the other hand, the experimenter could via free will choose another form of detection, AFTER the photon goes through the slits or slit,.... that does not indicate which slit the photon went through,... but will nevertheless register a photon with 100% certainty. In this case an interference pattern will emerge indicating that some locations of the screen (or a detector placed at a specific spot) have a higher probability of receiving a photon than others. It is probabilistic because it is not known which slit the photon went through.
Noumenon
not rated yet Feb 09, 2014
..... at some places, point-D of the screen, the probability of seeing a photon is zero because of destructive interference,... but yet had the experimenter chosen the photon slit-A/B detectors instead, the probability would have been 50% for one detector or the other, even if one of the detectors is placed at point-D.

How do you explain that while rejecting the probability interpretation of the wave-function,.. the photon as a wave-packet of probability amplitudes?

A more complicated arranged experiment can even use a Entangled photon detection to kill the interference effect of its partner.
Noumenon
not rated yet Feb 09, 2014
... in previous threads, I mentioned Compton scattering and the 'photo electric effect', where the energy imparted is proportional NOT to intensity of the light as in classical wave physics, but to frequency. The frequency of the photon wave-packet, is uncertain to the inverse extent that the photon position is known, both being represented by superposition of probability waves.
Noumenon
not rated yet Feb 09, 2014
In the previous mentioned two slit experiment, if the wave-function description of the photon was one of physical waves rather than probability amplitudes, then it should not matter which detection method was chosen. Presumably this supposed physical wave would not then be dependent upon what free choice the experimenter made after it went through the slits and interfere with itself or not and if the experimenter choose slit-photon detectors he would get varying degrees of intensity matching the screen results, rather than whole photons with probability NOT matching the screen results.

Where am I going wrong here?
Noumenon
not rated yet Feb 09, 2014
If your (johanfprins) position is that the quantum nature of light is a property only of the emitting or absorbing source (with boundary conditions) rather than an intrinsic and independent property of light itself, then why was this notion rejected eventually, when it was indeed the first natural position taken and advocated for? The answer is, on account of the force of experiments.
johanfprins
not rated yet Feb 09, 2014
Right and it is. A single 'coherent photon wave' is still a wave-packet,


You are stating impossible physics: A SINGLE coherent wave CAN NEVER be a wave-packet EVER! A wave packet is formed by the superposition of coherent waves with different frequencies. Its speed is given by v=(dw)/dk, where w stands for omega (the angular frequencies of the wave) which can be differentiated since there is a spread of frequencies.

The speed for a SINGLE coherent wave is determined by a SINGLE frequency w and is thus given by v=w/k. The fact is that ANY wave for which v=w/k CAN THUS NEVER BE A WAVE-PACKET EVER! The speed of a photon-wave is given by c=w/k. Only a person who does not understand elementary high school physics will claim that such a wave is a "wave-packet".

And only a person with a completely demented mind will state that a photon-wave has "probability amplitudes". Why do you want to invent and believe in such Voodoo, if it is not required to explain quantum mechanics?
johanfprins
not rated yet Feb 09, 2014
Please give me such experimental evidence: AND PLEASE do not again come with the double slit experiment involving single photons.


There are a number of such experiments... the interesting ones, whether two slits or beam splitter interferometers, are the delayed choice and quantum eraser types.


I know all these experiments, since I know more physics than you will ever be able to know with your feeble mind,> I know the ridiculous demented explanations given by people like Wheeler, Feynman, Zeilinger etc. These experiments can all be explained in terms of the way that REAL wave-entities interact in REAL LIFE. One does not require Voodoo probability amplitudes to understand what is happening.

Real waves change shape and size (morph) when the boundary conditions under which the wave finds itself changes. This fact explains ALL the experiments that are used by weirdo morons to argue that quantum mechanics is ""weird". They are weird, not Nature!
johanfprins
not rated yet Feb 09, 2014
... in previous threads, I mentioned Compton scattering and the 'photo electric effect', where the energy imparted is proportional NOT to intensity of the light as in classical wave physics, but to frequency. The frequency of the photon wave-packet, is uncertain to the inverse extent that the photon position is known, both being represented by superposition of probability waves.


I skipped some of your posts since they are just a regurgitation of what the weirdo's have been arguing all along. These arguments are senseless illogical Voodoo.

Every entity with distributed mass energy (which a wave has owing to E=m*c^2) has a centre-of mass, and if the wave is a matter-wave (like an electron), and a force is not acting on this entity this centre-of-mass is stationary within an inertial reference frame as Galileo has argued and as Newton has incorporated into his first law. This means that even when the entity is moving there is NO UNCERTAINTY in its position and momentum.
johanfprins
not rated yet Feb 09, 2014
The energy of a photon wave is also distributed mass-energy, even though the photon wave has no rest-mass. Thus even though the photon can, owing to the latter fact, not be stationary within any inertial reference frame, it still has a definite centre of mass owing to Einstein's E=m*c^2. And this definite centre of mass of the photon moves like the centre-of-mass of an electron wave relative to any and all inertial reference frames: i.e. its centre-of mass follows a definite path where the instantaneous position and momentum coordinates of this path manifest SIMULTANEOUSLY with 100 % accuracy.

There is NO built in uncertainty as Heisenberg hallucinated when he was desperately looking for an appointment to become a professor. Unfortunately for physics he did get an appointment. It has, however, been to the advantage of the civilised world since he ended up running the nuclear bomb project for the Nazis. I tremble when I think what could have happened if he were a realist!
johanfprins
not rated yet Feb 09, 2014
If your (johanfprins) position is that the quantum nature of light is a property only of the emitting or absorbing source (with boundary conditions) rather than an intrinsic and independent property of light itself, then why was this notion rejected eventually, when it was indeed the first natural position taken and advocated for? The answer is, on account of the force of experiments.


A very interesting question. I believe that it was politics. If the Goettingen-Copenhagen axis accepted realism, the spotlight would have moved totally onto Schroedinger in Zurich. This they could not allow, and started to look for any excuse possible to prevent this from happening. They unfortunately succeeded.

One must give them credit that they even bamboozled Einstein. But it was and still is a Voodoo bamboozle, which has gone on for far too long. The time is long overdue for theoretical physics to move back to reality. Nature IS NOT WEIRD: The scientists who claim this are the weirdo's.
chardo137
5 / 5 (1) Feb 09, 2014
Here is a link to arXiv where you can download the full paper: http://arxiv.org/abs/1308.5688
Noumenon
not rated yet Feb 09, 2014
If your (johanfprins) position is that the quantum nature of light is a property only of the emitting or absorbing source (with boundary conditions) rather than an intrinsic and independent property of light itself, then why was this notion rejected eventually, when it was indeed the first natural position taken and advocated for? The answer is, on account of the force of experiments.


A very interesting question. I believe that it was politics. If the Goettingen-Copenhagen axis accepted realism, the spotlight would have moved totally onto Schroedinger in Zurich. This they could not allow, and started to look for any excuse possible to prevent this from happening. They unfortunately succeeded.


This can't be right, because it was none other than N. Bohr himself who initially attempted to maintain the classical field non-quantum view of light independent of matter eminence/absorption.
johanfprins
not rated yet Feb 09, 2014
A very interesting question. I believe that it was politics. If the Goettingen-Copenhagen axis accepted realism, the spotlight would have moved totally onto Schroedinger in Zurich. This they could not allow, and started to look for any excuse possible to prevent this from happening. They unfortunately succeeded.


This can't be right, because it was none other than N. Bohr himself who initially attempted to maintain the classical field non-quantum view of light independent of matter eminence/absorption.


Where did he do this? If he really tried he should have succeeded.

The incontrovertible known history is that both Heisenberg and Bohr was immediately antagonistic when Schroedinger formulated his wave equation..

Heisenberg took a train to Munchen where Schroedinger, by invitation of Willie Wien (who incidentally voted that Heisenberg should not be given his doctorate) gave a seminar. As it turned out, not to objectively listen to Schroedinger's arguments.
johanfprins
not rated yet Feb 09, 2014
Heisenberg interrupted Schroedinger so many times that Willie Wien had to keep on reprimanding him. Clearly Heisenberg did not want to know what Schroedinger had to say. If before that time there was objectivity in theoretical physics, this was the beginning of the end of it.

Subsequently Bohr invited Schroedinger to Copenhagen, where he proceeded to shout Schroedinger down in such a cruel fashion, that Schroedinger became so ill so that he had to be confined to bed, Even while trying to recuperate in bed, Bohr kept sitting at his bedside and proceeded with his "third degree" barrage.

This is where the catastrophe of the 1927 Solvay conference started, at which objectivity and honesty in theoretical physics (at least the amount that still existed after the bad treatment of Boltzmann led him to commit suicide) was finally eradicated, and it has consistently stayed this way, for nearly 90 years by now.

Since then billions of dollars have been spent on Voodoo physics. Higgs, quarks!
Noumenon
not rated yet Feb 09, 2014
A very interesting question. I believe that it was politics. If the Goettingen-Copenhagen axis accepted realism, the spotlight would have moved totally onto Schroedinger in Zurich. This they could not allow, and started to look for any excuse possible to prevent this from happening. They unfortunately succeeded.


This can't be right, because it was none other than N. Bohr himself who initially attempted to maintain the classical field non-quantum view of light independent of matter eminence/absorption.


Where did he do this? If he really tried he should have succeeded.

The incontrovertible known history is that both Heisenberg and Bohr was immediately antagonistic when Schroedinger formulated his wave equation..


Bohr's "BKS" half baked theory in 1924, before Schroedinger work in later 1925.
Noumenon
not rated yet Feb 09, 2014
The story you tell is the time when some physicists started to realize that quantum physics is no longer of 'objective independent reality' as in scientific realism, but now instead is of 'observable experience', as in scientific positivism.

Schrodinger and Einstein had no retort.

Incredibly many physicists are still expecting a Realist description of reality!!
johanfprins
not rated yet Feb 10, 2014
Bohr's "BKS" half baked theory in 1924, before Schroedinger work in later 1925.


Let me again remind you that I know more about physics than you will EVER know. I taught physics for 50 years and worked in industry, where Copenhagen Voodoo has no place whatsoever, since one is working with reality NOT Voodoo!

If Bohr were a real scientist he would have returned to the problem after Schroedinger derived his equation. Furthermore, he would not have been so stupid to think that the rule he discovered for "stable atomic orbits" , namely L=n(hbar)*(omega), is the complete physics involved.

A rule in physics is helpful, but it is not physics until you can model why the rule is valid.

Bohr stupidly believed, and most mainstream physicists still believe that an electron STILL circles the nucleus when L=n(hbar)*(omega). It CANNOT, since if it did it would have continuously radiated EM energy; as is known that it must from experimentally measuring Bremstrahlung.
johanfprins
not rated yet Feb 10, 2014
The story you tell is the time when some physicists started to realize that quantum physics is no longer of 'objective independent reality' as in scientific realism, but now instead is of 'observable experience', as in scientific positivism.


Yes when they decided to enter Voodooland, instead of using their brains.

Schrodinger and Einstein had no retort.


They were bamboozled by Heisenberg and Bohr to attack windmills.

Incredibly many physicists are still expecting a Realist description of reality!!


Only those with brains. One can derive Bohr's rule L=n*(hbar) directly from the Special Theory of Relativity since the length of an electron-wave increases with speed, also when moving along a circle.

When the length becomes equal to the circular orbit, the centre of charge of the electron cannot be on the circle anymore. It then jumps to the centre of the orbit where it is now STATIONARY: Radiation STOPS! No Voodoo "particle-wave duality" is required.
Mimath224
5 / 5 (1) Feb 10, 2014
Chaps, I find the debate fascinating because of the opposing ideas involved. However, it does leave me, a layman, somewhere in 'no-mans land'...perhaps more like one of the 'observables' wondering who is taking 'pot-shot'.
In mainstream we have the HUP implying that if we try to observe a QM object say for x, the act of observing will affect the object thus making it much more difficult to ascertain p. The basic (intuitive) reason being that at QM we are dealing with comparable energies. (very crude energy ananology:hit a large rock with a paper bag nothing happens but hit it with another large rock...). Mainstream also talks of particle/wave duality which further complicates the issue.
I am always open to the idea that things change and that as technology advances scientist can be more accurate in making determinations, Isn't that the case here? Or are the results implying that HUP needs a complete overhaul?
I have read the papers by Branciard and that of from Queensland univ...cont.
Mimath224
5 / 5 (1) Feb 10, 2014
cont. and they leave me with a few more questions. One of the papers uses/says Euclidian space parameters but is that valid? I'm not suggesting it isn't but I'm asking those of you who are experienced.
Another point was that the 'black box 'M' was opened allowing the measurements to be made. Should I interpret this as making 2 simultaneous measurements on the object but one measure is made in the advancing direction (outside the 'box') thus allowing calculations to be made on just how big a 'hit' the object was given?
Would appreciate some help here. Thanks
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (1) Feb 10, 2014
Or are the results implying that HUP needs a complete overhaul?

If you go to the article (thanks chardo137!) this is what it looks like (if I read it correctly): The HUP is not violated (Figures 3 and 4 are the ones you'll want to look at for 3-state and weak measurement methods respectively).
As you can see the gray area still holds (if that was broken we'd have seen a HUP violation. Actually the lower dashed line is the ideal limit unattainable in practice. The blue line is the limit including experimental limitations)

Another statement that was thought related to the HUP is violated, though (the product of disturbance and inaccuracy over the entire spectrum - upper right black dotted line). It seems that the same-spectrum aspect needs to be taken ito account when defining a lower limit (green curves)
johanfprins
not rated yet Feb 10, 2014
@MIMATH 2240,

It is amazing that people who should be sane and have common sense allowed Heisenberg to get away with his Voodoo-land hallucinations.

Obviously, it is NEVER possible to measure ANYTHING with 100% accuracy. ANY measurement disturbs what you measure. At small scales the amount of disturbance is usually bigger. This is NORMAL REAL physics. That is why a person with common sense knows that you should correct for this inaccuray.

But to state that, since you cannot measure position without disturbing the position, means that position has an inbuilt uncertainty in Nature, is the meanderings of a disturbed mind. There is no experimental proof of this and will NEVER will be.

It also violates EVERYTHING else that we know about physics; especially the most important law on which ALL physics is based: Namely Galileo's principle of inertia which states that the centre-of-mass of ANY object that moves with a momentum p, is stationary within its own inertial reference frame.
Osteta
Feb 10, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
johanfprins
not rated yet Feb 10, 2014
Galileo's inertia combined with Newton's first law demands that the position and momentum of the centre-of-mass of an object must simultaneously manifest with 100% accuracy, independent of whether one can measure with 100% accuracy.

Since this is so, the interpretation that Heisenberg gave to the relationship between the position of a wave and its k-vector (after multiplying with Plancks'' constant, which incidentally need not be there since it cancels out) MUST be wrong!

If Heisenberg is correct, Galileo's inertia and Newton's first law must be wrong: And this means that ALL physics, including QM must be wrong and must be scrapped en toto.

In fact NOT all physics is wrong! Only the physics based on the inbuilt probability-interpretation, must be wrong and must be scrapped. This physics encompasses Quantum Field Theory and all the renormalized claptrap, like the Standard Model for Particles: "Particles", "sparticles", "anyons", "vector boson's", "Higgs bosons" , and similar BS.
johanfprins
not rated yet Feb 10, 2014
are the results implying that HUP needs a complete overhaul
Nope, it's explained bellow sentence "Heissenberg relations are based on fundamental physical constants" in this thread..


Zephyr, as usual you grab a non-existent dead-alive cat by its tail. NOBODY denies that the constants in this expression, are fundamental constants: What is disputed is Heisenberg's demented interpretation of this expression, which by the way has NOTHING to do with the position and momentum of an undefined "particle". It relates to the position and k vector of a wave; and is totally determined by wave mechanics WHICH DOES NOT REQUIRE "PARTICLES" and NEVER will require "particles" to be valid.

I already advised you to get a job for which you are really qualified; like cleaning toilets on the railway stations in Eastern Europe! At least you will then be doing something useful for mankind..
swordsman
not rated yet Feb 10, 2014
I have claimed, for many years, that the Heisenberg principle is flawed. We engineers have used the method of "characterization" to make single measurements of dynamic processes. To do this, one must take multiple measurements under various conditions, more or less similar to what is stated in this article. For example, any measurement of voltage or current has error in it. To determine the exact voltage, we use the laws of electromagnetics and many, many measurements to characterize the measurement system.
See http://science-si...berg.htm
Osteta
Feb 10, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
antialias_physorg
not rated yet Feb 10, 2014
I have claimed, for many years, that the Heisenberg principle is flawed. We engineers have used the method of "characterization"

I guess that you don't know what characetrization is - nor the statistics behind it.
That you use many measurements does not make any one measurement of one particle better than the HU. The standard deviation doesn't decrease with such measurements - no matter how many measurements you make.
johanfprins
not rated yet Feb 10, 2014
I have claimed, for many years, that the Heisenberg principle is flawed. We engineers have used the method of "characterization" to make single measurements of dynamic processes. To do this, one must take multiple measurements under various conditions, more or less similar to what is stated in this article. For example, any measurement of voltage or current has error in it. To determine the exact voltage, we use the laws of electromagnetics and many, many measurements to characterize the measurement system.
See http://science-si...berg.htm


BRAVO!! The time has come to close down physics departments, especially those that dabble in modern Theoretical physics, and place physics under the control of engineering faculties. We as human beings cannot afford the extravaganzas which emanate from institutions like Princeton, Harvard, Stanford, the Perimeter Institute, University of Cambridge etc. etc.etc, etc, anymore.
johanfprins
not rated yet Feb 10, 2014
as usual you grab a non-existent dead-alive cat by its tail. NOBODY denies that the constants in this expression, are fundamental constants
As usually you grab a non-existent dead-alive cat by its tail. I didn't say, that somebody denies that the constant in some expression are fundamental constants..;-) Just try to read it again.


I read it again and that is EXACTLY what you posted. You did not post any arguments that can be used to logically defend Heisenberg's hallucinations. Thus you are so confused that you do not know whether you are alive or dead!

You at least proved that although Schroedinger's cat cannot be alive and dead, there are weirdo's like you who are actually existing in this vegetative Zombie-state.
johanfprins
not rated yet Feb 10, 2014
I have claimed, for many years, that the Heisenberg principle is flawed. We engineers have used the method of "characterization"

I guess that you don't know what characetrization is - nor the statistics behind it.
That you use many measurements does not make any one measurement of one particle better than the HU. The standard deviation doesn't decrease with such measurements - no matter how many measurements you make.


At least you are consistently proving with 100% accuracy that you are a certifiable idiot: There is no standard deviation in this case. It is amazing that it is only in your case possible to measure so accurately. In only YOUR case it is inbuilt into your psyche. It is NOT generally inbuilt in Nature as Heisenberg moronically claimed. YOU are the ONLY exception!

BTW, the standard deviation is determined by the measuring apparatus, and NOT by what you measure, as claimed by the Copenhagen, Voodoo-morons. What you measure is not "uncertain": LOL!!
russell_russell
not rated yet Feb 10, 2014
So we all agree. Arbitrary precision is possible. Mathematical objects numbering more than one refuse to commute sometimes.

People too. Sometimes.
Mimath224
5 / 5 (1) Feb 10, 2014
Suppose I roll a ball along the ground which I have marked out in, say, 3 m intervals. When the ball reaches the first mark in 1 sec I know it's v & p, simiarly for the next mark. But as the ball gets further away from me I need better equipment to be accurate. I might say the same for the size of an object that there is a point that is too small for me to provide an accurate description of the objects v & p. In such a case I might then use HUP to provide an estimation of v & p providing I realize that I'm using a mathematical tool to help describe a physical phenomena. So in the end I'd be thinking that the object must have some location and some velocity at a given moment but available methods are just not good enough (yet) to provide the accuracy I want. I will just have to wait.
I have assumed a point particle here which I realize wouldn't work for a wave where I would have to decide, say, to use the wave-front.
So is HUP okay as far as it goes but later tech will improve upon it?
russell_russell
not rated yet Feb 11, 2014
Pick a point on the surface of the ball. This point lies on another point from an arbitrary surface the ball 'rolls' on. These two points will never coincide again. So much for 'simultaneous' events.

Until future math finds a path (solution) where the two points coincide again 'where' they first coincided.
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (2) Feb 11, 2014
t is amazing that it is only in your case possible to measure so accurately.

Did you even read the paper? Do so. Then comment again (or not. See if anyone cares)

@Mimath:
Suppose I roll a ball along the ground...

The problem is that there is already a basic uncertainty in preparing your system. If you could prepare your system in an absolute manner then that would already violate the HUP (as you could then claim that this preparation is an aboslute measurement)

but available methods are just not good enough (yet) to provide the accuracy I want.

That's the weird thing about the HUP: It doesn't depend on the measurement methods you use. It looks like it's inbuilt. So future tech isn't going to solve that.
johanfprins
not rated yet Feb 11, 2014
That's the weird thing about the HUP: It doesn't depend on the measurement methods you use. It looks like it's inbuilt. So future tech isn't going to solve that.


Can you not see that you are living in Voodoo-land? ~

Consider a rod with length L and measure its length with a vernier. Can you get the length with 100% accuracy? Of course you cannot since there does not exist a vernier with zero distances between its markings. Thus your measurement has an uncertainty GENERATED BY THE MEASURING EQUIPMENT.

Now if somebody comes along and states that this uncertainty is NOT caused by the measuring device, but is inbuilt within the length of the rod, and that its length does not exist until you measure it, and when you do, the rod can have different probable lengths; anybody with common sense will conclude that this person is a crackpot.

This is what Heisenberg postulated nearly 90 years ago, and what is believed to be the case by weirdo's like you. It is obviously Voodoo claptrap!
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (2) Feb 11, 2014
Thus your measurement has an uncertainty GENERATED BY THE MEASURING EQUIPMENT

*sigh* The uncertainty is in the object AND in the measurement apparatus. Because if you cannot have a perfect measurement apparatus you also cannot have a perfect object (otherwise you could use the object as a measurement apparatus and then use it as a measurement apparatus for another object)

The contradiction in your thought process is only one step long. How can you miss such a simple fallacy?
johanfprins
not rated yet Feb 11, 2014
I am the one who has to sigh.

Although a measurement can change what you measure, such a change has NOTHING to do with the object "not being perfect". The only uncertainty involved when making a measurement is caused by the fact that no apparatus can measure with 100% accuracy. This does not require that the object that is being measured must not be perfect, Nowhere has this "imperfection" EVER been proved experimentally.

Only a crackpot like Heisenberg, and a weirdo like you will argue that, since one cannot construct an apparatus that can measure with 100% accuracy, the object that is being measured must be "non-perfect". This is unadulterated Voodoo claptrap.
Noumenon
not rated yet Feb 11, 2014
I think there is some confusion here between the quantum uncertainty principal, the observer effect, and "margin of error".

When Heisenberg describe the uncertainty principal as 'the act of measurement disturbs the system being measured',.... he either gave a classical analogy designed to facilitate acceptance by classically minded physicist of the time, or did not fully understand the profundity of his own discovery. I believe it was the former.

The above mentioned "observer effect" already existed in pre-quantum classical physics so in itself was nothing new. In QM the HUP is intrinsic to nature and has a different meaning of 'observer disturbs the system being measured' than it's classical analog....
Noumenon
5 / 5 (1) Feb 11, 2014
It is implicit within the Schrodinger wave equation formulation (which presumably johanfprins accepts), and is easy to show that momentum must be taken to be a non-commuting operator in position space, -h/2π ∂/∂x. The momentum space representation is a Fourier transform of the position space representation, and vice-versa. You can't use both Hilbert space representations for the same experimental design, for the same measurement, at the same time.
Noumenon
5 / 5 (1) Feb 11, 2014
,.... to arbitrary precision, ...which is implied by different Fourier representations of the same wave-form. You can see why the momentum operator can not commute.
Osteta
Feb 11, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
johanfprins
not rated yet Feb 11, 2014
... gave a classical analogy designed to facilitate acceptance by classically minded physicist of the time, or did not fully understand the profundity of his own discovery. I believe it was the former.


What profundity? What is profound in realising that when you make a measurement you change the boundary conditions that the object finds itself under, and that this could modify what IS ACTUALLY OUT THERE before the measurement, to be modified by the measurement?

In QM the HUP is intrinsic to nature and has a different meaning of 'observer disturbs the system being measured' than it's classical analog....


This is wishful thinking by a weirdo since there is NO EXPERIMENTAL evidence to support this conclusion whatsoever! The different meaning given to it by Heisenberg is based on superstitious Voodoo: Nothing else. Nature is NOT Heisenberg's Voodoo! The laws of Nature are not based on intrinsic probabilities.
Noumenon
5 / 5 (1) Feb 11, 2014
What is profound in realising that when you make a measurement you change the boundary conditions that the object finds itself under, and that this could modify what IS ACTUALLY OUT THERE before the measurement, to be modified by the measurement


But this is why the notion of scientific Realism is untenable,..science CAN ONLY KNOW what is observed, which logically implies post measurement! It CAN NOT know what exists just prior to measurement by definition.

If you are able by superhuman magic to take the entire experimental apparatus and observer into account as you suggest, into a quantum superposition along with the system being measured, then yes, as pointed out even by Bohr, the Correspondence principle implies you will recover classical physics, as does already decoherence.

But this does not solve the incompatibility between unitary evolution of the wavefunction and the state reduction upon measurement, because it is only possible to measure and think at the macro-scale
Mimath224
5 / 5 (1) Feb 11, 2014
@Noumenon it seems that you are making an effort to help clear the confusion and given the above posts, that's a bold move. Not to sure it will work though. When beginning to read texts HUP and the Schrodinger wave eq appear to be coming from a different standpoint. In layman's terms HUP says that the more accurate a measurement is made on (say) x the accuracy will less for p. I know my knowledge is nowhere complete here but my understanding is that one can derive HUP (actually an equation very close to HUP) by starting with 'uncertainty' of matrix operators.
Schrodinger eqs are also looking at energy levels of a system on a continuous basis, hence calculus. In other words, going from perhaps a discrete level in HUP to continous Schrodinger eqs (which go futher into energy wells, transmission & relection coefficients etc.) Adding solutions you end up with a wave packet (functions that interfere consrtuctively is some location but destructively at others (this includes the...) cont
johanfprins
not rated yet Feb 11, 2014
But this is why the notion of scientific Realism is untenable,..science CAN ONLY KNOW what is observed, which logically implies post measurement! It CAN NOT know what exists just prior to measurement by definition.


What Heisenberg claims is that ACTUAL probabilities exist on their own before a measurement is made: i.e. they exist even when a measurement is not made. How does he know this without making an experimental measurement? I repeat again: There exists NO EXPERIMENTAL evidence that this is the case. Thus, it is an illogical Voodoo-assumption made by a crackpot scientist.

But this does not solve the incompatibility between unitary evolution of the wavefunction and the state reduction upon measurement, because it is only possible to measure and think at the macro scale


What unitary evolution? Another crackpot notion of Heisenberg: A Schroedinger wave can ONLY evolve with time when the boundary conditions, under which the wave finds itself, change.
Mimath224
not rated yet Feb 11, 2014
cont. (...Fourier transform you mentioned).
Noumenon
not rated yet Feb 11, 2014
my understanding is that one can derive HUP (actually an equation very close to HUP) by starting with 'uncertainty' of matrix operators.
Schrodinger eqs are also looking at energy levels of a system on a continuous basis, hence calculus. In other words, going from perhaps a discrete level in HUP to continous Schrodinger eqs (which go futher into energy wells, transmission & relection coefficients etc.) Adding solutions you end up with a wave packet (functions that interfere consrtuctively is some location but destructively at others (this includes the Fourier transform you mentioned).


Heisenberg's matrix mechanics and Schrodinger's wave formulation, was shown by Schrodinger himself to be equivalent. The Schrodinger formulation also uses operators, as in momentum and position referred to above. Apply the commutator [x,p] = xp - px, to some arbitrary function and you will not get zero, because momentum is taken as -h/2π ∂/∂x.
Noumenon
not rated yet Feb 11, 2014
There is a HUP for each set of like non-commuting variables. btw, solutions to Schrodinger equation result in discrete levels as well, depending on the potential term which defines the 'boundary conditions'.
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (1) Feb 11, 2014
Mimath:
There's very real consequences of the HUP.
One is vacuum fluctuations (which have been observed via the casimir effect) and also the fact that electrons don't fall into atomic nuclei (despite the immense attraction between the negatively charged electrons and the positively charged protons in the nucleus).
If it were simply a matter of "not yet developed ability to measure stuff correctly" then there would be no reason why the electrons would not just jump on top of the protons and create neutrons. But the electron isn't a ball. It's smeared out. Try to confine it more towards the nucleaus and the momentum uncertainty grows.
(You can also see the effect with SINGLE slit experiments. Try to make the slit tighter (confine the position) and the area on the screen where they hit widens (more uncertainty in momentum in that direction).
Also: if the electron were a localized ball it'd emit radiation when orbiting the nucleaus because it'd move in a circle. However it doesn't
Noumenon
1 / 5 (1) Feb 11, 2014
edit
johanfprins
1 / 5 (2) Feb 11, 2014
There is a HUP for each set of like non-commuting variables. btw, solutions to Schrodinger equation result in discrete levels as well, depending on the potential term which defines the 'boundary conditions'.


Correct, the equations exist, but Heisenberg's interpretation of what they mean is crackpot Voodoo. For the momentum-position "HUP"-equation it is argued that the better defined the position is the greater the uncertainty in momentum. This would mean that for the energy-time "HUP", the more instantaneous the time is, the greater the uncertainty in the energy. But a wave evolves from instant to instant: This would mean that the energy must spontaneously fluctuate between minus infinity and plus infinity. We know that this does not happen for an electron-wave. Thus again crackpot Voodoo!
johanfprins
1 / 5 (1) Feb 11, 2014
Mimath:
There's very real consequences of the HUP.
One is vacuum fluctuations (which have been observed via the casimir effect)


There are energy-fluctuations owing to the "HUP" of time and energy, but these DO NOT occur within the vacuum, but occurs within the volume of an existing wave. A wave can borrow energy (delta)E for a time-interval (delta)t. Superconduction is possible owing to this behaviour. But it can ONLY do this once a wave exists. This energy cannot occur spontaneously from the vacuum as the weirdo's who developed QED claimed, without any experimental proof whatsoever!

But the electron isn't a ball. It's smeared out.


Then why do you claim it is a "particle". You are correct the electron is a wave and nothing else BUT a wave. It can be a localised wave or when it moves at very high speed in the vacuum it can be very, very long: Even kilometres.

I have to take a break now, but will be back later to answer your other crackpot statements.

antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (2) Feb 11, 2014
Then why do you claim it is a "particle"

It's a particle-wave, which is neither a particle nor a wave but something entirely different. It is just something that has some waveLIKE properties and some particleLIKE properties which makes it sensible to talk about it AS IF it were a particle in some contexts and AS IF it were a wave in others (depending on whether in the context you're talking about it displays particleLIKE or waveLIKE behavior).

If you get too hung up on the words wave and particle in particle-wave and therefore think it must be something along the lines of macroscopic particles or waves then you're missing the point completely.
johanfprins
1 / 5 (1) Feb 11, 2014
Also: if the electron were a localized ball


Then why do you claim that it is a "particle" if it is NOT a localised ball? Do you now agree that an electron cannot be a "particle"?

it'd emit radiation when orbiting the nucleus because it'd move in a circle. However it doesn't


Exactly! That is why when L=n*(hbar) the electron cannot be circling the nucleus as Bohr claimed, and it still claimed, that it actually does. Only when n is not an integer is this possible.

"You can also see the effect with SINGLE slit experiments. Try to make the slit tighter (confine the position) and the area on the screen where they hit widens"


This is what ALL waves always do: Why should there be an inbuilt uncertainty in the laws of Nature when photon- and electron-waves do EXACTLY what one expects that waves MUST do?

BTW: It is more probable that planets move in epicycles than that the Casimir effect is caused by Voodoo "vacuum-fluctuations".
johanfprins
1 / 5 (1) Feb 11, 2014
Then why do you claim it is a "particle"
It's a particle-wave,


Wow! So Nature is schizophrenic? Can you not taste it in your mouth when you are talking S--T?

which is neither a particle nor a wave but something entirely different


REALLY? So what is it then? Or must we not ask God what it is since that will be blasphemy?

. It is just something that has some waveLIKE properties and some particleLIKE properties which makes it sensible to talk about it AS IF it were a particle in some contexts and AS IF it were a wave in others (depending on whether in the context you're talking about it displays particleLIKE or waveLIKE behavior).
What utter BULLSHIT!!

If you get too hung up on the words wave and particle in particle-wave and therefore think it must be something along the lines of macroscopic particles or waves then you're missing the point completely.
No you are missing the point completet
johanfprins
1 / 5 (2) Feb 11, 2014
Then why do you claim it is a "particle"
It's a particle-wave,


Wow! So Nature is schizophrenic? Can you not taste it in your mouth when you are talking S--T?

which is neither a particle nor a wave but something entirely different


REALLY? So what is it then? Or must we not ask God what it is since that will be blasphemy?

. It is just something that has some waveLIKE properties and some particleLIKE properties which makes it sensible to talk about it AS IF it were a particle in some contexts and AS IF it were a wave in others.


What utter BULLSHIT!!

If you get too hung up on the words wave and particle in particle-wave and therefore think it must be something along the lines of macroscopic particles or waves then you're missing the point completely.


No, you are missing the point completely, since you cannot explain this schizophrenic behaviour except to claim that "God should not be questioned". You practice superstition, not physics!
Noumenon
1 / 5 (1) Feb 11, 2014
Then why do you claim it is a "particle"


It's a particle-wave,


Wow! So Nature is schizophrenic? Can you not taste it in your mouth when you are talking S--T?


Who are YOU to say what nature is independently of observation?

... it is you who are speaking voodoo metaphysics,... because it is you who wish to say 'what' reality IS independent of measurements.

The underlying Reality is NOT particles NOR waves,.. these are simply analogical mathematical concepts used to model and link observations for the purposes of predictions. That is ALL. Science at the qm scale claims no more than this ! We can not say what reality IS independently of our conceptualizations and observations. It's remarkable how many physicist still do not understand the epistemic issue underlying qm.

This is why Heisenberg gave up trying to construct intuitive models altogether,... as we have no experience at the qm scale anywa
johanfprins
not rated yet Feb 11, 2014
Who are YOU to say what nature is independently of observation?


Since it is Voodoo bullshit. Obviously, when you measure you can change what you measure, but you do not "create" reality by measuring. There is no experimental proof whatsoever that this is or or needs to be so. A person who wants to believe this without proof is superstitious, and is too stupid to contribute anything to physics. Who are YOU to make such an absurd claim without any experimental proof?

... it is you who are speaking voodoo metaphysics,... because it is you who wish to say 'what' reality IS independent of measurements.


That measurements can change the reality that is out there, to give different results, does not mean that reality is dependent of measurements. Only a crackpot idiot will reason as such without ANY experimental proof that it is so. You have no experimental proof that reality is dependent on measurement whatsoever. But find it exciting to believe in fairy tales.

johanfprins
not rated yet Feb 11, 2014
The underlying Reality is NOT particles NOR waves,.. these are simply analogical mathematical concepts used to model and link observations for the purposes of predictions. That is ALL.


Thus, according to you these equations should not really work, since they are not really reality! How demented can your reasoning be!! Can you not see what an utter fool you are!

We can not say what reality IS independently of our conceptualizations and observations. It's remarkable how many physicist still do not understand the epistemic issue underlying
.

Physics is experimental philosophy and if you want to make such grandiose demented claims you must back it up by experiment; which you cannot do.

This is why Heisenberg gave up trying to construct intuitive models altogether


So we do not have any experimental results when it comes to QM? Heisenberg was an incompetent fool. Even his father told him that he was too stupid and should not even try to do physics.

russell_russell
not rated yet Feb 11, 2014
An observer role to nature is tenable. Untenable are ad hoc, a posterior, custom-tailored boundaries to accommodate the witness of all new observables science continuously brings forth. Intrinsic probabilities fulfill the description. Prescribed boundaries do not.
Nestle
not rated yet Feb 11, 2014
according to you these equations should not really work, since they are not really reality
The equations aren't reality, they're regressions of reality. The waterfall is not a parabola. Quantum mechanics has many limits, but the concept of wave-particle duality doesn't belong into it. It's quite exact interpretation of QM. Even AWT i.e. aether wave theory has its name according to this duality - the observable reality has both particle, both wave character like the density fluctuations of dense gas or like the interference of waves in many dimensions. Both concepts have their apparent strengths and weakness.
johanfprins
not rated yet Feb 12, 2014
An observer role to nature is tenable. Untenable are ad hoc, a posterior, custom-tailored boundaries to accommodate the witness of all new observables science continuously brings forth. Intrinsic probabilities fulfill the description. Prescribed boundaries do not.


You must be SUPERMAN with X=ray eyes: Congratulations. Most of us have limited sensors which cannot observe ALL that is out there (outside our bodies; and even within our bodies outside our brains; within which, what we interpreted what we observe. If you are a moron, like Heisenberg was, you interpret the signals coming from outside in terms of Voodoo concepts,

To hallucinate like this is even easier when measuring what our normal senses cannot see. One then needs an external measuring apparatus. Such an apparatus introduces boundary conditions out there which will not be there without the presence of the measuring equipment: These boundary conditions, especially on the micro-scale disturbs what is out there.
johanfprins
not rated yet Feb 12, 2014
If you are brainless you will assume, correctly, that you do not have the mental capacity to interpret the disturbed data in order to arrive at the actual reality that was out there, just before you made the measurement. You then assume, moronically, like Heisenberg did, that you must accept the disturbed data as the actual reality. It is like looking in a curved mirror and accept that the distorted image you see of yourself is REALLY what you look like.

A competent scientist will correct for the disturbances caused by the boundary conditions of the measuring apparatus, to intelligently interpret the reality that existed JUST BEFORE the measurement is made.

Obviously, a brainless person cannot do the latter; and should thus not even try to practice, or argue physics, especially not anonymously in a scumbag manner: This is why Heisenberg should have listened to his father's excellent advice. It is amazing that our mainstream physicists since 1927, have been brainless.
johanfprins
not rated yet Feb 12, 2014
Zephyr, Nestle, etc. please help the human race by doing what you can do best: Cleaning toilets at railway stations.

"Wave-particle duality"!!

OK inform me what you have to measure to conclude that you have measured a particle, which cannot be a wave. Nobody has EVER answered this simple question: Thus nobody knows what a "particle" is; BUT stupidly they argue that there are such entities which act in a manner that cannot be modelled in terms of waves only. So give me the properties of a "particle" which ensures that such a Voodoo entity cannot be a wave.
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (2) Feb 12, 2014
So Nature is schizophrenic?

No. That's what I'm tzrying to tell you. There are macroscopic particles, macroscopic waves. When you go to the microscopic level there are just froodledums( which have been, unfortunately, labeled "particle-waves". Scientists have no problem keeping in mind that this is something entirely different...unfortunately too literal minded, like yourself, people get hung up on labels)

So what is it then?

Call it "froodeldums" for all I care (or "probability-distributed-entity-which-can-only-interact-with-other-like-entities-in-a-quantized-way").
It's just as good (or bad) a label as "particle-wave".
johanfprins
not rated yet Feb 12, 2014
So Nature is schizophrenic?

No. That's what I'm tzrying to tell you. There are macroscopic particles, macroscopic waves. When you go to the microscopic level there are just froodledums( which have been, unfortunately, labeled "particle-waves". Scientists have no problem keeping in mind that this is something entirely different...unfortunately too literal minded, like yourself, people get hung up on labels)


This is BULLSHIT which comes from a severely demented mind. There is no experimental evidence that froodledums exist: Only a person who suffers from hallucinations will be able to see such undefined non-entities.

So what is it then?

Call it "froodeldums" for all I care (or "probability-distributed-entity-which-can-only-interact-with-other-like-entities-in-a-quantized-way").
It's just as good (or bad) a label as "particle-wave".


It is still BULLSHIT since it is meaningless jabbering, which cannot be used to model real physics in any manner.
Noumenon
not rated yet Feb 12, 2014
You're the 'Don Rickles' of physics.

What do you mean by "real physics"? If you don't mean that a theory makes accurate predictions of observable quantities, what else could this possibly mean?!

Science is inductive which means it is based purely on observable quantintities. You can NOT say anything beyond what the observations tell you, otherwise you enter into metaphysics (which unfortunately is a trend among physicists even today) and Models can ONLY link one observation to another.

The definition of "observables" (qm) implies bringing Reality from the micro to the macro scale because that is where our minds have evolved and where we must exist and design appararus and interprete results.

No one knows what Reality "IS ACTUALLY LIKE" independtly from conceptual models made by man and used to make predictions!!
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (1) Feb 12, 2014
which cannot be used to model real physics in any manner.

Since we use the effects of these 'Bullshit' entities predictably in technological devices I'd argue we use them for 'real physics'.

The question is: Why would you even insist that the microscopic must adhere to macroscopic analogies (and only two at that)? Is emergent behavior that difficult a concept to understand? We observe emergent behavior on all kinds of scales.

johanfprins
not rated yet Feb 12, 2014
You're the 'Don Rickles' of physics.

What do you mean by "real physics"? If you don't mean that a theory makes accurate predictions of observable quantities, what else could this possibly mean?!


Only the Schroedinger equation makes accurate predictions PROVIDED YOU TOTALLY IGNORE THE COPENHAGEN VOODOO BULLSHIT. When you accept that the Copenhagen bullshit is correct, you end up having to fudge the mathematics by creating hallucinations like "electron-seas"" or using what is euphimistically called "renormalization" to FORCE your model to give you what you want to get. This is not physics but utter bullshit. Exactly what YOU are consistently posting on this forum.

Science is inductive which means it is based purely on observable quantintities.


Provided that what you measure is interpreted by a person with brains: Which you, just like Heisenberg, do not have!

johanfprins
not rated yet Feb 12, 2014
You can NOT say anything beyond what the observations tell you, otherwise you enter into metaphysics (which unfortunately is a trend among physicists even today) and Models can ONLY link one observation to another.


YOU, and Heisenberg (and his Voodoo cronies) are the people who are NOT taking the data at face value, but who are interpreting experiment in terms of the paranormal, by invoking probabilities for which there is NO EXPERIMENTAL PROOF WHATSOEVER. And then YOU have the arrogance to accuse people with common sense of doing exactly what YOU are actually doing!!

The definition of "observables" (qm) implies bringing Reality from the micro to the macro scale because that is where our minds have evolved and where we must exist and design appararus and interprete results.


YOU are claiming that a definition is more important than experimental data! There is NO EXPERIMENTAL PROOF WHATSOEVER, that the "definition of observables" brings reality from micro to macro!
johanfprins
not rated yet Feb 12, 2014
which cannot be used to model real physics in any manner.

Since we use the effects of these 'Bullshit' entities predictably in technological devices I'd argue we use them for 'real physics'.


I assume that you are referring to transistors? These devices are based on Schroedinger's equation which was used in this field by totally ignoring the Copenhagen bullshit.

The question is: Why would you even insist that the microscopic must adhere to macroscopic analogies (and only two at that)?


Where have I INSISTED on this? NOWHERE!! But if Maxwell's wave equations model all quantum mechanics, as can easily be proved that they do, why do YOU insist that the microscopic world must be weird? Just to satisfy your immature craving for the paranormal?

We observe emergent behavior on all kinds of scales.


So what are you trying to say by invoking the word "emergent"? Not that you are able to formulate anything cogently!

Mimath224
5 / 5 (1) Feb 12, 2014
antialias_physorg, johanfprins & Noumenon I'm just curious about your actual stances with regard to HUP & Schroedinger's eqs since the arguments in posts aren't always that easy to follow, for a layman. I am being genuine here as I would just like to know, so just for my benefit do you think you clarify (without reference to what others think). Reading texts and web info often leaves out the controversy to which each of you are involved. Perhaps then I could understand just a little more about what your different positions are on the present article. My thanks in advance.
As a layman I quite often keep the HUP, Schroedinger's eqs (and Maxwell's) separate and for doing perhaps a slightly different job because that seems to be the way mainstream texts introduce them. This may be totally wrong but then I'm not working in the field so I like to hear from those who having woking knowledge of the subject. Articles like this one just 'inform' me of progress...or is that idea wrong too?

Nestle
not rated yet Feb 12, 2014
These devices are based on Schroedinger's equation which was used in this field by totally ignoring the Copenhagen bullshit
Schroedinger's equation just illustrates the particle-wave duality by its solution perfectly. The above line is the quantum wave function (imaginary wave profile), the bottom line is its probability function (particle density profile). Also, the transistors aren't based on Schroedinger's equation. The solid state physics is based on huge entangled ensembles of particles of nearly classical behavior. If some model describes them well, it's an energy band model, not the quantized energy levels.
johanfprins
not rated yet Feb 13, 2014
@ Mimath224,

As a layman I quite often keep the HUP, Schroedinger's eqs (and Maxwell's) separate and for doing perhaps a slightly different job because that seems to be the way mainstream texts introduce them


You are correct. The mainstream texts are wrong: They advocate claptrap which I have been forced to teach my students for many years. I had to wait until I retired; or else it could have had financial implications when applying for funding. I already argued 52 years ago that Einstein applied the Lorentz transformation incorrectly when he derived "length contraction" of a rod and "time dilation" on a "moving clock". Every time that I raised these issues, I was treated with derision.

Fortunately Physics Essays changed their editorial policy, and is now demanding that the referee and the author must argue until one has to concede. The referees had to concede. My manuscripts are now being published :"Length contraction" (Dec. 2013) and "time dilation (march 2014).

johanfprins
not rated yet Feb 13, 2014
In fact, as you will see in the March article, Minkowski's space-time is, just like the Copenhagen interpretation, impossible Voodoo-physics. Obviously this means that modern theoretical physics based on Quantum Field Theory must be deeply flawed.

As I have already posted time and again on this forum, Maxwell's wave equations for light, dovetails neatly with quantum wave-mechanics, This means that Schroedinger's equation is already commensurate with Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity (STR. It also means that gravitation is NOT caused by the curvature of space-time since the latter does not exist. Time only changes with position within the volume of a coherent wave since such a wave has a phase-time. Using this phase time, which can be derived from the Lorentz equations for a moving electron, one finds that a moving electron MUST be a coherent wave that moves with a de Broglie wavelength. This is derived directly from the STR, which follows directly from Maxwell's equations.
Mimath224
5 / 5 (1) Feb 13, 2014
@johanfprins, many thanks for your reply. You mention the March article...on this site? or another? That might be difficult to answer directly here so perhaps you could use the 'private message' section. As a teacher myself (not in advanced physics though) I know the feeling for it isn't only the sciences that suffer from this 'do it this way or out' attitude. However, I am always wary about discarding all because those things that may not be quite right can be useful in other respects. This article I think shows that, and uses HUP but then takes it further showing that even 'tablets of stone' can be 'adjusted' (?).
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (1) Feb 13, 2014
@Mimath:
The HUP does seem to work out quite well as a theory. Especially if you read the paper this article is based on you can't help but be impressed how closely the measured data follows the predicted (lower) limit by that theory.
There are quite a few experiments and observations that wouldn't be possible without the HUP (or something that could take its place). Especially if we start positing something that could be 'more exact' than the HUP we run into all kinds of problems with observables that THAT would predict (and which aren't observed).
johanfprins
not rated yet Feb 13, 2014
You mention the March article...on this site? or another?


Physics essays still has to publish this and then I cannot post it on any other site. It will still be available before March on https://www.resea...tions/?. The title is: Directional emissions from a moving light source: Coincidence and Simultaneity.

As a teacher myself I know the feeling for it isn't only the sciences that suffer from this 'do it this way or out' attitude. However, I am always wary about discarding all because those things that may not be quite right can be useful in other respects.


I agree with the latter: I am an excellently qualified Materials Scientist and Theoretical Physicist, who practised science for more than 50 years, But there are also times when you have to discard totally: For example epicycles.
Mimath224
5 / 5 (1) Feb 13, 2014
@johanfprins Once again, many thanks. As I am not a scientist I'm not sure the link you provide is the right one for me but thank you anyway. I look forward to reading to reading it.
johanfprins
not rated yet Feb 13, 2014
This article I think shows that, and uses HUP but then takes it further showing that even 'tablets of stone' can be 'adjusted' (?).


The expressions for HUP are valid, and they do find applications in physics: For example, the HUP of energy-time is responsible for superconduction; provided it is not interpreted in terms of Voodoo like Heisenberg has done. In fact, if you interpreted the HUP of energy-time in this manner all waves would at any instant in time have infinite energies. This is obviously absurd.

What I am pointing out is that the probability interpretation given to the HUP equations is so wrong that it must be totally discarded. This interpretation is not, and can NEVER be helpful in any manner. All it has caused is that billions of dollars have been wasted in CERN to build the largest CIRCUS this planet has ever seen with the highest concentration of Bozo's hunting bosons; which are figments of demented minds!
russell_russell
not rated yet Feb 13, 2014
Epicycles are a bad example. The amount and processes of physics eeded to replicate and predict the data from observations has never represented the "reality" giving rise to observational data.

Your notion of HUP
http://www.cathod...nism.pdf

may not embrace probability space as "intrinsic" to nature.
You still have "Inherent Uncertainity" in your formalism:
http://www.nytime...wanted=2

An excerpt from The Ingenious Gentleman Don Quixote of La Mancha set out to revise physics:

"This is further proof that entanglement allows communication between different parts of an entangled wave at a speed that is faster than the speed of light. It is also further proof that the Copenhagen-interpretation must be wrong since two separate waves (or "particles") cannot achieve this feat; just as Einstein, Podolsky and Rosen had correctly pointed out: The principle of complementarity is wrong!"
johanfprins
not rated yet Feb 13, 2014
Epicycles are a bad example.


Epicycles had some merit since they could have been real. The interpretation that Nature has intrinsic probability, has no such merit; since it is paranormal Voodoo that has been plucked out of the air by demented minds.

It is sad that human nature is such that people will rather believe a whopper-lie than to pursue rational common sense. Goebbels knew this well, and our modern theoretical physicist are just as skilled as Goebbels was.

There exists NO experimental data that requires insane ideas like inherent probabilities to model this data. But, of course it is much more fun to believe, for no logical reason whatsoever, that Nature is weird to human beings. This has always been the attitude of superstitious people.

Communication at light speed only occurs between separate entities. A single wave consists of continuous EM matter-energy. It is thus in instantaneous contact with itself no matter how large its volume is.
johanfprins
not rated yet Feb 13, 2014
Two entangled photons are not separate photons, but forms a SINGLE EM wave which is in instantaneous contact with itself.

This is even explained in mainstream text books on quantum statistics: When photons entangle they lose their distinguishability: This means that they do not exist as separate entities anymore but constitute a SINGLE macro wave, which consists of continuously distributed EM energy. Therefore, when you tickle one part of the wave, the whole wave knows this instantaneously.

If your measurement disentangles a SINGLE wave into two separate entities, the whole wave experiences this disentanglement at the same instant in time, no matter how large the wave is. Thus the properties of the two photons MUST instantaneously correlate with one another. There is no Voodoo involved.

It follows directly from Maxwell's equations that a SINGLE EM wave must change instantaneously when the boundary conditions change instantaneously, no matter how large the wave is.
Mimath224
not rated yet Feb 13, 2014
@johanfprins
Two entangled photons are not separate photons, but forms a SINGLE EM wave which is in instantaneous contact with itself.

This is even explained in mainstream text books on quantum statistics: When photons entangle they lose their distinguishability:... constitute a SINGLE macro wave, which consists of continuously distributed EM energy. Therefore, when you tickle one part of the wave, the whole wave knows this instantaneously...

Yes, I can see your point and I'm inclined to agree but as a layman I don't think I could take it that far. The texts I have (both 'popular' and mathematical) always refer to entangled photon pairs and do not make the extension of combining these into a single wave or being part of the same wave. I appreciate that the photon pair will come from the same point source but is it equally valid that they MUST belong to the same wave? It seems to be too simple a step to make...maybe just my lack of confidence eh?
johanfprins
not rated yet Feb 14, 2014
I can see your point and I'm inclined to agree but as a layman I don't think I could take it that far. The texts I have always refer to entangled photon pairs


They toe the official Voodoo dogma of "wave-particle duality", which is in fact proved to be wrong by quantum statistics. According to the latter, two separate photons become indistinguishable when they entangle to form a SINGLE macro-wave. If this were not the case Boltzmann statistics would have applied.

I appreciate that the photon pair will come from the same point source but is it equally valid that they MUST belong to the same wave?


Yes it is: It is propagated in text books that entangled photons are indistinguishable, until a measurement disentangles them: Thus, a pair of photons which entangle is not a pair of separate photons. The mainstream physicists claim that they are since they prefer the Voodoo of "wave-particle duality"; even when their own logic proves compellingly that this is impossible.
johanfprins
not rated yet Feb 14, 2014
A photon-wave is the smallest-energy, SINGLE, coherent, light-wave that a source can emit. It is not possible to construct a light-source that can emit less energy.

There is, however, no limitation on constructing a light source that can emit a SINGLE coherent wave with MORE energy than that of a photon; or else we would not have had laser light. Laser light is a SINGLE wave which DOES NOT consist of separate distinguishable photon-waves.

Such a wave can, however, disentangle into separate photon-waves when it encounters boundary-conditions that demands that this must happen.

However, it can also morph to move through two slits without disentangling at all. The two lobes moving through the slits, jointly STILL constitute a SINGLE wave.

This is why information can be teleported from one lobe to the other. If they were two separate waves, the latter would not be possible, since separate waves can only communicate by means of intermediary waves moving with speed c.
Mimath224
5 / 5 (1) Feb 14, 2014
A photon-wave is the smallest-energy, SINGLE, coherent, light-wave that a source can emit. It is not possible to construct a light-source that can emit less energy......
This is why....If they were two separate waves, the latter would not be possible, since separate waves can only communicate by means of intermediary waves moving with speed c.

Okay, I with you...up to a point. I think maybe that I'm unable to follow certain points because lack of know/exp. Rather than you trying to educate me single handed perhaps you could direct me to some info that I could read. Alternatively how does what you post translate to say, the bosonic state 1/sqr2[IR>1 IL>2 + IL>1 IR>2] x... (etc.) for a a single photon?
Another point, your earlier post 'What I am pointing out is that the probability interpretation given to the HUP equations is so wrong that it must be totally discarded.'
QStats gives HUP in terms of prob?
Appreciate your help,Thanks..the old grey matter is doing o/t ha!
johanfprins
not rated yet Feb 14, 2014
Modern physics has become such a farce that there is nothing in the mainstream ilterature that I can direct you to.

The differentiation between "bosonic particles"" and "fermionic particles" is nonsensical. Consider an ideal metal and solve Schroedinger's many-body equation; one obtains delocalised single electron waves. When now allocating spins, we have that two identical waves with opposite spins overlap completely to form a wave with zero spin. Thus such a wave must, as far as the Copenhagen interpretation is concerned, be modelling a "boson-particle".

But it is found that it does not! In order to get the correct energy distribution for these electron-waves, one has to use Fermi-Dirac statistics which is only valid for fermions. And this is required even though the waves pair to form boson-states.

Where can I direct you to when hundreds of thousands of physics professors and their PhD students could not pick up this simple discrepancy during the past 80 years?
Mimath224
not rated yet Feb 14, 2014
@johanfprins thanks for your comments. I'll keep your posts here in mind and see what I can find out in the future.