Possible the HUP describes the fact that we are not able to probe beyond a small size scale into the quantum world because the relative long light waves just diffract over the particles giving a fuzzy sensor reading and measurements and when we finally try to probe these with shorter wavelength high energy photons the measurement totally disturbs the quantum state of these particles not giving us back their actual states and therefore making the measurements partially obsolete. Therefore, we can know the position of the particle at the instant of measurement but not also the momentum and vice versa. The HUP and measurement problem are ultimately entangled together.
However, maybe, if we could invent less intrusive or even better non-intrusive, indirect observation methods at high energies of probing and measuring then the HUP would be partially lifted or even nullified.
My question's center theme is, hypothetically with the HUP gone, what will we then observe in the quantum system under observation? Will this then rendered and become classical?
I personally believe that it is a matter of scale and for a hypothetical observer as small as these particles everything would look deterministic and obeying good classical physics and mechanics. Therefore the HUP should be not absolute for the quantum world but a relative apparent effect depending on the frame of reference and scale. This is just speculative but still an intriguing possibility beyond the SM of physics.
Maybe after all, nature is actually only deterministic and classical independent size scale and frame of reference and HUP is only an apparent effect due our macroscopic frame of reference relative to our quantum world and size scale? Maybe if a human observer could reduce his/her size and frame of reference to the size of sub-atomic particles then he/she would observe a total classical reality of the quantum world where particles would appear like planets or stars obeying the classical laws of motion and classical mechanics?
Maybe HUP is not absolute but relative and does not apply for subatomic sized observers?
Does HUP quantitatively diminish with the observer or measurement tool size?
What are your thoughts and analysis of the above hypothesis?
Still, even Steven Weinberg became lately distant and expressed his skepticism publicly about the "Measurement Problem"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3nnLbRaxtCE .
The question comes to be at the end, is HUP a physical property of elementary particles or a physical property of the measurement method and tools used (the measurement problem) ?
I believe that it is the later but with enormous implications to current quantum theory because that would mean that Quantum theory is not a physical theory representing reality but just a very successful effective theory predicting physical phenomena results. But maybe that is the truth and we should accept it that QM is just a tool of predicting physical outcomes but not describing the actual quantum world mechanics and physical processes nature uses. After all quantum world could be actually deterministic and not probabilistic and only our methods are but may I add very successful that is.
What is the relation in physics between the uncertainty principle and the measurement problem?
Both are referring to the same probabilistic effect of the quantum world and both are entangled with each other. The HUP describes the effect and the “measurement problem” asks whether this is deterministic or apparent probabilistic or vice versa.
There is not definitive answer yet on the MP and therefore to the question, is the quantum world actually probabilistic or deterministic in nature?
Dear https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Emmanouil-Markoulakis,
Regarding your statement " What is the relation in physics between the uncertainty principle and the measurement problem? "
You (and others) cannot to reach HUP because of еру observer consciousness and a finite number of variables in International system of units (SI). It is explained in [Presentation New approach: the amount of information for calculating the ...
] - Finite Information quantity (FIQ) -based approach
The FIQ-based method leads to the realization of the existence of two limits of physical knowledge:
1. The act of measurement changes the observed reality. At least at the subatomic level. Classical physics assumed that the measurement accuracy was theoretically unlimited. But Heisenberg showed that since you can never measure more than one property of a particle with great certainty, you can only work with probability and mathematical formulations. This uncertainty is usually thought to be unimportant in large-scale astronomical observations, however.
2. The act of formulating a model by a conscious observer of the phenomenon under study imposes an additional limit on the accuracy of the actual measurement, and also acts as the principle of finiteness, which defines the limits of application of various formulas or physical laws.
Hello Emmanouil:
You have excellent physics paradox!! It maybe a question of noise versus signal aspects.
Measurement problem hence maybe closely related to our ability to characterize noise per se. Often times, we can measure signal/noise ratio. I think there is a relation between signal/noise ratio and size factor. If we are able to configure that we may very well be able to resolve measurement paradox to a reasonable level. Time is statistical probabilistic switching between synergistically eventfully!! Hence quantum world that has Minkowski's spacetime aspects possibly switch between probabilistic versus deterministic depending on whether there is quantum entanglement versus quantum decoherence. Typically, it maybe faster than femtosecond switching that many laser pulses are able to perform. Also, time maybe also reversible at the quantum level due to quantum tunneling processes.
We will have to think further to configure physical mathematics of the processes to get a handle on this situational protocol.
Great to have discussions to advance nature physics!! Thank you.
Sincerely,
Rajan Iyer
ENGINEERINGINC INTERNATIONAL OPERATIONAL TEKNET EARTH GLOBAL
Yes of course there is quantum noise in the measurements. However they say that they can resolve the signal out of the noise.
Emmanouil Markoulakis
Great introduction. How does physics proceed?
I suggest the way forward is to develop models assuming determinism. Whether the universe is or isn't deterministic is outside our current abilities and knowledge.
Further, models should start with the observations of our scale (classical), assume fractal (self-similar), and modify the classical physics to explain the universe (cosmology, classical and quantum scales). I think a greater understanding of cause-effect relations is necessary. Indeed, physics should be cause-effect, followed by cause(the previous effect)-new effect. So, fundamental universe cause-effect-effect-effect-etc. Some parts of math don't work such as division by zero, sgrt(-1), application of Fourier Equation, etc. Algebraic manipulation of parameters also should be forbidden as the physics is then lost.
That's actually the core of my research philosophy that everything in nature independent size scale and frame of reference operates under the same laws of physics and make a clear distinction between apparent physics and actual.
I don't believe that quantum physics is any different than macroscopic classical physics only our interpretation is and the degree of ignorance. Therefore I believe any quantum phenomena can be explained classically. There are no two kinds of physics, only one.
RG is a wonderful platform for different crazy ideas which is far from reality :-)
I second that, If anyone claims that apart of predicting numerical values quantum theory SM describes accurately the actual physical processes leading to these results, must also claim that he has solved definitively the "measurement problem" in QM.
A complete theory cannot have many interpretations.
Complete theories are Newtonian physics, GR and SR.
Quantum theory SM is not a complete theory yet, therefore a new branch was developed called beyond the SM.
As if the ideas outlined here in are crazy or not, the same impression had the majority of the scientists at the early 1900 when the quantum theory was introduced by Bohr and others.
Any complete theory about physical phenomena and nature describes both apparent phenomena and actual.
The problem with QT today is that it takes possible apparent phenomena as being actual and real.
As we describe the microscopic wold of molecule systems with thermodynamics and continue to refine our methods and tools at the end in the future all these apparent quantum weirdness might be explained by a good classical version of quantum thermodynamics. For the time being we have to keep up with the probabilistic smearing effect of quantum effective theory.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5D9HkoHScdY some of the greatest minds in physics today express their skepticism.
Bell decided to pull on the very string that Einstein first hooked on. In 1964, he demonstrated that any attempt to supplement standard quantum formalism with a system based on "hidden variables" results in a theory that inevitably makes predictions that are inconsistent with those of standard quantum mechanics. He summarized this inconsistency in the exclusion theorem and numerical inequality, which became known as Bell's inequality.
These limitations arise if we assume that particles are physically separable (the so-called "Einstein separable" or "locally real") and then try to establish a causal relationship between their properties. The standard formalism is more generous and less rigorous: it doesn't care how we think reality should be organized, and it predicts outcomes that violate Bell's inequality. Bell's theorem says: "If [the hidden variable] expansion is local, it is not consistent with quantum mechanics, and if it is consistent with quantum mechanics, it will not be local."
Bell's experiment was very clever indeed however it does not give an answer of why there is the propabalistic nature of the quantum and the apparent non-locality?
Apparent propability arises always from hidden variables. You can not have ever a coherent stable system from propability. It is unstable. Therefore propability is the measure of ignorance.
Bell's experiemnt examined the hidden variables of ordinary matter particles but it never examined the possible hidden variables of the quantum vavuum all around us.
It is funny how we examined a few trees but missed to see the whole forest.
We examined a few fish but newer saw the water we are all in.
Also a related discussion here:
https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/617286/what-is-the-definitive-evidence-we-have-that-quantum-theorys-probabilistic-natu
Would you ever find yourself short of a question that answers itself, use this one as an example.
Quantum Mechanics Isn’t Weird, We’re Just Too Big | Qiskit Seminar Series with Phillip Ball
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q1O11kP6x1k
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Physical Sciences
- Materials Science
- Materials Chemistry
- Polymer Chemistry