You mean Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principal?
You have no idea what this principle is based off of. When you observe a quanta, it is forcibly affected. Even photons affect these particles, which means at any given money or any reason, these particles can and will RANDOMLY change velocity and/or direction of movement. This principle basically says when you measure the velocity of a quark, you will get the distance as well as velocity, however those variables will change. The only way to properly measure te particles velocity is in a particle accelerator with zero human interference, and even then scientists still must use thought-experiments rather than physical due to imprecise calculational output from said experiments.
---------- Post added at 05:14 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:11 PM ----------
EDIT: I found what you are referring to and it is simply theoretical based on the inability to prove such calculations have any affect from the entropic nature of quanta.
---------- Post added at 05:16 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:14 PM ----------
Also, that "law" is based off if predetermine calculable climates, you need a specific wave length, as well as the observable Hermian operator which is not observable in this context, the entire law is based around a controlled environment where the multiverse definitely is not controlled in any way shape or form.
Not really, the uncertainty principle finds a range points in which a particle could be. You are mixing it up with the observer effect. Remember the equation?
it compares the standard deviations of of the position and the momentum of a body with planck's constant, which can give incredibly accurate results sometimes. Even gravitational wave interferometers work off of this estimation. The only downside being that if you know where the particle is, you probably don't know its momentum. And no, it doesn't only work in conditioned environments, all you need is enough similarly interacting particles to get your standard deviation.
All of the maths behind this is an approximation, borns rule uses a continous random variable normalization to estimate the location of a particle. It uses the spin of a particle to find its wavefunction, not wavelength...
But yes, if you're trying to tell me that my quoting of the uncertainty principal is wrongful because it is an inaccurate way to determine whether particles angular momentum and randomization are linked or not, you should probably stop quoting from the observer effect, it is 100 times worse for making approximations and failing to come to actual answers! Observer effect is like someone took a piss on uncertainty principle, stripped it of all its statistical value and gave it a new name. Give me some maths to look at so I can understand your point clearer.
Besides, we are going very far off the point.
At the end of the day, neither of us are right. Theoretically, your ideas make more sense. But I doubt you can put any mathematical proof to those claims. Mine has fairly considerable proof, but is missing some key aspects. Isn't physics fun.
Last edited by ~Spark; 12-10-2012 at 04:53 PM.
[MPGH]Lehsyrus (12-10-2012)
Actually I had entirely forgotten about Born's rule when you mentioned "Uncertainty Principle".
The only issue between us both is that this is all still theoretical physics. I personally do not like Born's rule as it puts a limit on Quantum Mechanics (in a sense), where in some cases it is useful, however in a non-regulated situation the amount of random variables is far too great to make a complete calculation to the possible outcome.
Good chat.
~Spark (12-10-2012)
I honestly fell in love with Quantum Mechanics on an acid trip. Actually, that seems to be how I became interested in learning at all. I was watching a documentary on it with my friend who was in college (I was only fifteen) who was majoring in Physics. His homework was based around theoretical Physics so we decided to drop some acid and check it out, needless to say it was a mind-altering experience.
[MPGH]Lehsyrus (12-11-2012)
666HiddenMaster666 (12-11-2012)
Yea, there is always that 'what if'. But normally it always just comes back to Science.