The end of the Universe

[sMartins]

That's not the heisenberg uncertainty principle. You're talking about https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Observer_effect_(physics)

It is.

[DDDsDD999]

That's not the heisenberg uncertainty principle. You're talking about https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Observer_effect_(physics)

It is.

No it's not.

Feel free to explain me this then:

The equation is literally how the position, Δx, and momentum, Δp, deviations relate to a reduced planck's constant. It's the uncertainty principle, and it's not about observational interference.

Just read the third paragraph, it explains what you're confusing it with. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncertainty_principle

Historically, the uncertainty principle has been confused with a somewhat similar effect in physics, called the observer effect, which notes that measurements of certain systems cannot be made without affecting the system

[sMartins]

It is.
It's too complicate to talk about the phylosophic interpretations of the Uncertainty principle ..... what we know so far, after the Bell's theorem 1964, it's the agnostic position is false, only the realistic position, supported by Einstein also, and the orthodox position, that it's what I was talking about, or called also Copenhagen interpretation are possible solutions so far, and from there the metaphor I was doing about our limits, intrisic in our nature.

[Alitis]

Its good you like physics, and it's not bad if you are confused. You can now admit that there is no concistency to what you say and move on to actually learning something
( sorry for being sarcastic, I am just having fun here

[loftar]

It is.

It's really not, though. The uncertainty principle is true about any wave phenomenon, not just quantum phenomena. The same relation (albeit with different metrics, units and therefore proportionality constants) can be applied to eg. water waves or sound waves, which are completely classical phenomena.

only the realistic position, supported by Einstein also, and the orthodox position, that it's what I was talking about, or called also Copenhagen interpretation are possible solutions so far

Both of those are really very dated propositions these days. Currently, the dominant line of research to explain the observer effect (as distinct from the uncertainty principle) is decoherence.

[sMartins]

It's really not, though. The uncertainty principle is true about any wave phenomenon, not just quantum phenomena. The same relation (albeit with different metrics, units and therefore proportionality constants) can be applied to eg. water waves or sound waves, which are completely classical phenomena.

It's really not, what exactly? That was Jordan talking about the interpretation of the uncertainty principle ( in quantum mechanics).

Both of those are really very dated propositions these days. Currently, the dominant line of research to explain the observer effect (as distinct from the uncertainty principle) is decoherence.

Yeah, I don't know anything more recent than that, at least anything that I can really understand .... but that was a perfect example to talk about our limits as human kind.

I never talked about waves ... but yeah from what I remember it's about every wave phenomenon, but for macroscopic objects it's not a problem cause you consider just the wave or the particle, but the problem is when you want to know both the position and the momentum of the particle that is acting as a wave ( I mean the particle/wave = electron ). While it's not a problem for the ocean waves, it is for quantum objects .... I mean, I'm very rusty .... but that's the deal.
The tunnel effect if you want to talk about something that's only a quantum effect .... not sure what you mean.

P.S. I never talked about the observer effect.

“Observations not only disturb what has to be measured, they produce it….We compel [the electron]
to assume a definite position…. We ourselves produce the results of measurements.”
Is the moon there when nobody looks?
Reality and the quantum theory

[Jalpha]

When people start linking complex mathematical forumlae my eyes glaze over a bit. It just looks like something out of Full Metal Alchemist to me and I don't believe in magic spells. I'm not sure where we got the concept that an idea can be condensed into a short combination of symbols. It is to me as it is to others when I write one of my paragraph sentences.

Quantum Physics does raise a great many questions though, it is poorly understood and there is a great deal to be done with it. My interest is not so much from the angle of the double slit experiment, which holds only passing relevance to my existence. It instead stems from cell division and replication, the way individual cells can work together in almost total harmony without language or any set of instructions.

Yes mainstream scientists are pushing for biologists to enter the fray of chaos which is Quantum Mechanics and they should do so.

[sMartins]

Maybe I was not clear enough for everybody talking about the uncertainty principle.
In short, we discovered that we are able to measure the position in the space of a quantum particle (like a ball) but we are not able to tell about its speed, but if we do not know how it's moving, or if it's not moving for example ..... here the real question: where it was the particle before we measured it?

This is the crazy thing, it's about our ability and limits.
And here we go .... there are multiple interpretations, of which I gave you the most popular (not sure if still the most popular, but I think so): the particle wasn't really anywhere. It was the act of measurament that forced the particle to take a stand.

[Jalpha]

However, by measuring the position of the particle several times following the original observation it is possible to infer its position prior to the original measurement. Whether the particle is lying or tricking us is largely irrelevant. The particle only holds any meaning whilst under observation or whilst affecting something which is under observation.

It's not so much that if a tree falls in the forest and nobody is there to hear it then it didn't fall at all. It's more that if a tree falls in a forest and nobody is there to hear it then it is irrelevant.

Now is a particle actually simultaneously a particle and a wave or is the whole universe shivering under the strain of existing and we glimpse this in the double slit.

Edit: I may have been confused after scrolling through a page of the Elric brothers formulae. The uncertainty principle seems different in that it states that we can never precisely know both the location and size of any object. This seems to be a result of our broken/unfinished mathematical system, especially after scrolling through a page of obscure formulae. There seems to be no logical reason why the uncertainty principle exists, only a mathematical one.

[sMartins]

Yeah I know right, you are refusing to answer cause irrelevant, but that is the agnostic interpretation that Bell's theorem proved to be wrong, cause it makes an observable difference if the particle had a precise (though unknown) position prior the measurament or not. It was only an experimental question between realistic and orthodox after Bell.
Right now, from what I know, experiments have proved that a particle simply doesn't have a precise position prior the measurament. (what Jordan was saying in the '30s)