Heisenberg belirsizlik ilkesi günümüz teknolojisinde atom altı parçacıklara uygulamada yetersizdir. Özellikle foton gibi parçacıklarda ve nano parçacıklarda.

Dear Şükrü Aktaş

Thank you for your comment which according to the translator is "The Heisenberg uncertainty principle is inadequate in today's technology to apply to subatomic particles. Especially in particles such as photons and nanoparticles."

May I ask you to give an example of this inadequateness.

Örnek olarak güneşteki fotonlar saftır ve herhangi bir kurala bağlı değil. Hepsinin kendine özgü enerjisi var ve eşit. Gelişmiş üstün teknolojiye sahip lazerler gibi.

Dear Şükrü Aktaş

Your answer "For example, photons in the sun are pure and not bound by any rules. They all have their own unique energy and are equal. Such as lasers with advanced superior technology." is not based on any experiment and does not relate to uncertainty principle. It is a general statement which needs to be tested for any specific theory. For example, you need to show by experiment that a photon in the sun is different from a photon we observe in the lab.

Nükleer enerji depolama ve yapay güneş kaynağı üretme bilgilerine bakabilirsin.

Dear Christian Baumgarten

Thank you for your comments.

Dear Christian Baumgarten

Many thanks. However, the point is that at any exact point within the vacuum chamber, the standard deviation of the speed of particles is supposed to be a huge number (h divided by zero), which, as you confirmed, is not the case.

Dear Christian Baumgarten

As you know, the speed of particles in accelerators is usually given. I thought it would be more straightforward to analyse the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle (HUP) using this quantity, as momentum is simply 𝑚𝑣 (or 𝛾𝑚𝑣 for those who adhere to relativity). Here, 𝑚 is a constant, and 𝛾 is directly related to the speed. Thus, the standard deviation of speed and momentum are tightly related.

Let me simplify the scenario. According to quantum mechanics, we can measure the momentum of particles with arbitrary precision. We also know the exact position of particles when detected by the sensors in vacuum chambers. This means we have an apparatus that provides exact momentum at an exact position.

As I mentioned before, we once thought it was impossible to measure the distance between two celestial objects using a yardstick, but with the advancement of technology, we are now able to measure these distances accurately without yardstick. Similarly, Heisenberg only considered one method for measuring two conjugate quantities simultaneously. Now, we can accelerate a particle to an exact speed/momentum and detect it at a precise location.

Dear Christian Baumgarten

Sorry to draw you into a discussion about relativity. While I have identified several shortcomings in relativity, this forum is not focused on that subject, so I'll concentrate on the issue at hand.

In quantum mechanics, we are told that either position or momentum can be measured accurately, separately but not concurrently. This means we can measure momentum so that Δ𝑝=0. Accordingly, momentum can be measured exactly, including inside an accelerator.

At the same time, we know the exact position of sensors, so Δ𝑥=0. Am I wrong?

Thank you Christian Baumgarten

We know that quantum mechanics states that measuring momentum alone or position alone with arbitrary precision is possible. Though, it was a mistake on my part to say Δ𝑝 or Δ𝑥=0. I should have said they can approach zero.

Having said that, my argument is that in particle accelerators, both the position and momentum of particles can be concurrently known with arbitrary accuracy, despite Heisenberg's claim.

Dear Christian Baumgarten

Protons are subjected to oscillating electric fields when they pass through the radiofrequency (RF) cavities in the LHC, which provide the necessary forces to accelerate them. Magnetic fields are used to bend the direction of the proton beams. No additional photons/particles are involved in the acceleration or change of direction.

Particles are thus accelerated to a specific speed by electric fields, which goes beyond Heisenberg's thought experiment. Simply put, acceleration does not involve individual photons interacting with protons in the same way that X-ray or gamma-ray photons interact with particles for detection purposes. The speed/momentum of protons can be determined with arbitrarily high precision depending on technological advancements. The particles can also be observed at fixed positions. Therefore, we can practically measure the positions and momenta of particles concurrently with arbitrary precision.

In summary, Heisenberg only considered one method of measurement in his thought experiment. Accelerators now provide scientists with a method to measure momentum and position simultaneously, beyond Heisenberg’s constraints.

Thank you for your advice Christian Baumgarten

In that case, you agree that Heisenberg was not correct in introducing his principle due to the infancy of quantum mechanics. Do you also agree that the concept of virtual particles, which is one of many offshoots of the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle (HUP), is not correct as well? Please see

https://www.researchgate.net/post/Where_are_all_the_virtual_particles?

Dear Christian Baumgarten

I agree that the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle (HUP) has a clear mathematical foundation, much like the steady-state model of our universe once did. Interestingly, the steady-state model's idea of continuously creating new material out of nothing was later incorporated into inflationary cosmology to address certain issues in the Big Bang theory.

However, I do not believe that the HUP's mathematical foundation is entirely correct. Similar to Quantum Field Theory (QFT), the mathematics used in HUP aims to eliminate infinities and paradoxes that arise during calculations. We often impose specific characteristics on the world to make our mathematics work. For example, a special kind of wave function was introduced to comply with HUP, which you believe should not be taken too seriously.

We should not have double standards in science. We accept the HUP, force our mathematics to comply with it, and build multiple theories, such as Hawking radiation, on top of it. Yet, when there is criticism, we advise not to be bothered about it.

Dear Christian Baumgarten

Let me ask a few questions to clarify what is accepted in the context of the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle (HUP).

Dear Ziaedin Shafiei,

Referring to my recent paper on the Fine Structure Constant, I noted on page 6 “… The new velocity component can be considered either, as an additional dimension to Physics-in-4-Dimensions (Pi4D, i.e. classical physics), or more appropriately, as an important “missing” parameter of Pi4D whose inclusion then simplifies some relationships of Pi4D leading to … a more unified theory of Physics-in-5-Dimensions (Pi5D)”.

And from my Book Physics in 5 Dimensions, I note on page 122, “… and rearranged gives the general Uncertainty Principle expression dE dt = dp dx … (which) result is unexpected and surprising because it suggests that the uncertainty element of the principle may be associated with the differences between the values of momentum and energy as defined in Pi4D and Pi5D!”

So, it appears to me that the definitions used for “velocity” hold the key to the values of momentum and energy and correspondingly to understanding the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle.

From the perspective of Pi5D, the physical change relative to Pi4D is that the mass of a body in Pi5D does not vary with velocity and is always equivalent to the “rest mass” of Pi4D. The variable mass then exclusively belongs to Einstein’s Relativity Theories, and you can easily switch between Pi4D and Pi5D in order to inspect and understand the differences. From my perspective, both Pi4D and Pi5D are correct given their respective definitions of velocity, momentum and energy.

Alan Dennis Clark

Dear Christian Baumgarten

• Is it possible to measure a single quantity such as position, momentum, or energy with perfect accuracy (i.e., Δx = 0, where x is the measured quantity)?
• Are these accuracies time-dependent?

Dear Christian Baumgarten

I do not want to divert the discussion but this is what you said.

• "I did not say that Heisenberg's considerations are "baseless"."
• "you should not bother too much about Heisenberg's paper."
• "The HUP is "correct" as it has a clear and correct mathematical content. The wordings are not that important after all. The "concept" of virtual particles was introduced (as far as I know) as a way to speak of correction terms in QED. Maybe one should not overstretch it, since even the concept of a "real" particle is not unquestionable and self-evident..."

We are told that Heisenberg's initial idea was not well thought out, but its replacement is not based on any experiment or clear theory. Instead, it is a mathematically workable wave function created to fully comply with Heisenberg's initial idea, which we believe should not be taken too seriously. This is why my first question concerns the theoretical or experimental basis of the HUP.

I apologize if you still think my interpretation of your comments is not correct.

Dear Alan Dennis Clark

Thank you for sharing your thoughts and book on RG. I hope to be able to read it soon.