Uncertainty Principle
Phil McDonald
1.) Since the uncertainty principle applies only to the simultaneous
MEASUREMENT of a particle's (e.g. electron) position and momentum, then why
should the uncertainty principle enter into any quantum mechanical
calculations that do not involve experimental measurements?
2.) If I'm not mistaken, the Uncertainty Principle arises purely out of "the
act of observation modifies the system" concerns. This is correct, no?
Wouldn't the Uncertainty Principle disappear ***IF*** (unthinkable, I know)
I could somehow concoct an experiment that could measure an electron's
position and momentum without disturbing the electron's actual position and
momentum?
Sam Wormley
>
> I have two questions regarding Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle:
>
> 1.) Since the uncertainty principle applies only to the simultaneous
> MEASUREMENT of a particle's (e.g. electron) position and momentum, then why
> should the uncertainty principle enter into any quantum mechanical
> calculations that do not involve experimental measurements?
Ref: http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/uncer.html
There is
likewise a minimum for the product of the
uncertainties of the energy and time.
delta-E * delta-t > h-bar/2
The uncertainty principle holds for other cononically conjugated quantities,
the product of which have the dimension of action. For example for the angle
theta and angular momentum, l,
delta-theta * delta-l > h-bar/2
>
> 2.) If I'm not mistaken, the Uncertainty Principle arises purely out of "the
> act of observation modifies the system" concerns. This is correct, no?
> Wouldn't the Uncertainty Principle disappear ***IF*** (unthinkable, I know)
> I could somehow concoct an experiment that could measure an electron's
> position and momentum without disturbing the electron's actual position and
> momentum?
Uncertainty Principle
http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/UncertaintyPrinciple.html
Fermion Degeneracy Pressure
http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/FermionDegeneracyPressure.html
Virtual Particle
http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/VirtualParticle.html
The Uncertainty Principle does not result from our lack of technology, but
is a fundamental property of the universe.
me...@cars3.uchicago.edu
>I have two questions regarding Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle:
>
>1.) Since the uncertainty principle applies only to the simultaneous
>MEASUREMENT of a particle's (e.g. electron) position and momentum, then why
>should the uncertainty principle enter into any quantum mechanical
>calculations that do not involve experimental measurements?
>
>2.) If I'm not mistaken, the Uncertainty Principle arises purely out of "the
>act of observation modifies the system" concerns. This is correct, no?
No.
Mati Meron | "When you argue with a fool,
me...@cars.uchicago.edu | chances are he is doing just the same"
greysky
"Phil McDonald" <phi...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:bacah5$tnq$1...@slb0.atl.mindspring.net...
> I have two questions regarding Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle:
>
> 1.) Since the uncertainty principle applies only to the simultaneous
> MEASUREMENT of a particle's (e.g. electron) position and momentum, then
why
> should the uncertainty principle enter into any quantum mechanical
> calculations that do not involve experimental measurements?
It doesn't apply to measurement... who ever told you that? A quantum
ensemble doesn't not act differently when we aren't looking at it. When we
do look at it, however, we change the state of the system, and it is
accordingly reflected in what we observe. We become part of the system we
observe, so it isn't the same system anymore.
>
> 2.) If I'm not mistaken, the Uncertainty Principle arises purely out of
"the
> act of observation modifies the system" concerns. This is correct, no?
> Wouldn't the Uncertainty Principle disappear ***IF*** (unthinkable, I
know)
> I could somehow concoct an experiment that could measure an electron's
> position and momentum without disturbing the electron's actual position
and
> momentum?
>
>
You are mistaken, but don't feel bad about it. The HUP is simply a statement
regarding how a quantum system behaves with respect to its own variables...
the uncertainty is there whether we observe or not.
Greysky
www.allocations.cc
Learn how to build a FTL radio.
Tom Potter
"Sam Wormley" <swor...@mchsi.com> wrote in message
news:3EC9B561...@mchsi.com...
> Phil McDonald wrote:
> >
> > I have two questions regarding Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle:
> >
> > 1.) Since the uncertainty principle applies only to the simultaneous
> > MEASUREMENT of a particle's (e.g. electron) position and momentum, then
why
> > should the uncertainty principle enter into any quantum mechanical
> > calculations that do not involve experimental measurements?
>
> Ref: http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/uncer.html
> There is
> likewise a minimum for the product of the
> uncertainties of the energy and time.
> delta-E * delta-t > h-bar/2
>
> The uncertainty principle holds for other cononically conjugated
quantities,
> the product of which have the dimension of action. For example for the
angle
> theta and angular momentum, l,
> delta-theta * delta-l > h-bar/2
The Uncertainty Principle holds
anytime you attempt to quantize a two dimensional property
with one measurement.
For example, try to quantize an area with one measurement.
"Potter's Uncertainty Principle #1"
states that there will be an uncertainty in the
value of a N-dimensional property,
if you make less than N measurements.
"Potter's Uncertainty Principle #2",
involves the uncertainty in the measurement of
an N-dimensional property
which occurs in integer amounts.
--
Tom Potter http://home.earthlink.net/~tdp
David Macmanus
> Ref: http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/uncer.html
> There is
> likewise a minimum for the product of the
> uncertainties of the energy and time.
> delta-E * delta-t > h-bar/2
> The Uncertainty Principle does not result from our lack of technology, but
> is a fundamental property of the universe.
Yes, absolutely. But I would like to ask another question based around
this *misconception* that the HUP is all about measurement. There is a
famous experiment often quoted in the physics books describing the gamma
ray microscope. As I understand it this is all to do with demonstrating
that by measuring the particle's position we disturb its momentum. So
anybody reading such treatments will be duped into thinking that
experimental measuring is at the root of the HUP. But ofcourse we know
it isn't because we can actually derive the HUP on the back of an
envelope. But my question is this - are there somehow two uncertainty
principles in the sense that the inherent uncertainty is *added to* by
the experimental unceretainty. If not, I wonder what the point of the
gama ray microscope experiment is.
Thanks,
David.
--
Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG
Frodo Morris
> In article <bacah5$tnq$1...@slb0.atl.mindspring.net>, "Phil McDonald" <phi...@mindspring.com> writes:
>
>>I have two questions regarding Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle:
>>
>>1.) Since the uncertainty principle applies only to the simultaneous
>>MEASUREMENT of a particle's (e.g. electron) position and momentum, then why
>>should the uncertainty principle enter into any quantum mechanical
>>calculations that do not involve experimental measurements?
>>
>
> It applies regardless of measurement.
>
>
>>2.) If I'm not mistaken, the Uncertainty Principle arises purely out of "the
>>act of observation modifies the system" concerns. This is correct, no?
>
>
> No.
>
a particularly boring lecture on the Breit-Wigner that there's a
Noether's principle relation between x and p, and a Heisenberg relation
between x and p. There's a Noether's principle relation between t and
E, and a Heisenberg relation between t and E. Simiklarly between angle
and angular momentum.
Is this a general result, that if there is a symmetry->conservation
relation between two variables then they'll obey an uncertainty relation
in the qunatum realm? I was wondering because this could suggest a
relation between the field of the guage tranformation[*] and charge,
such that \Delta f*\Delta q=\hbar.
[*]If the scalar potential is U and the vector potential is A, then the
field f I'm talking about is the one that transforms to U' and A':
U'=U+(df/dt)
A'=A+grad(f).
--
FM
Gregory L. Hansen
All wave mechanics have uncertainty relations, including sound waves and
water waves and so on. Usually it appears when you decompose a waveform
into frequency components. When a pulse has a shorter time period, it's
more spread out in frequency space. Set up a microphone, amplifier,
bandpass filter, and measuring device, and this could be demonstrated.
The measurement only picks out things that were already there.
Quantum mechanics is just another wave mechanics, so it also has
uncertainty relations. Why doesn't an electron radiate all its energy and
fall into the nucleus? If it were confined to the nucleus its range of
position would be so small that its momentum would be high enough to shoot
it out. The stability of atoms is an uncertainty principle thing.
The uncertainty principle is derived, not fundamental. It reflects the
wave mechanics.
--
"Is that plutonium on your gums?"
"Shut up and kiss me!"
-- Marge and Homer Simpson
David Macmanus
news:badfak$rpp$1...@hood.uits.indiana.edu
> The uncertainty principle is derived, not fundamental. It reflects the
> wave mechanics.
Please could you explain the distinction here?
Gregory L. Hansen
David Macmanus <macm...@tripos.com> wrote:
>"Gregory L. Hansen" <glha...@steel.ucs.indiana.edu> wrote in message
>news:badfak$rpp$1...@hood.uits.indiana.edu
>
>> The uncertainty principle is derived, not fundamental. It reflects the
>> wave mechanics.
>
>Please could you explain the distinction here?
>Thanks,
>David.
It's not a postulate. It's also usually not very useful, it gives a rule
of thumb without giving enough machinery to calculate diffraction patterns
or energy levels or other things.
The uncertainty is minimal for a Gaussian wave packet. Find the standard
deviation of position, transform to momentum space and find the standard
deviation of momentum. Because the momentum depends on the wavelength,
and a wavepacket is built up from a series of wavelengths, the two
measures are not independent. In quantum mechanics it's more
generalizeable in that any two variables whose commutator is not zero has
an uncertainty relation; I don't know if that's true for corresponding
Poisson brackets in classical wave mechanics.
David Macmanus
> >> The uncertainty principle is derived, not fundamental. It reflects the
> >> wave mechanics.
> It's not a postulate.
Hmm, I'm not a physiciist (in case you hadn't guessed!). What is the
difference between things which are, and are not postulates? For
example, the Schroedinger wave equation is a postulate, whereas the HUP
is not. Well, we can *sort of* derive the SWE, as we can the HUP. So
what is the crucial difference here?
Pmb
"David Macmanus" <macm...@tripos.com> wrote in message
news:5af3b59b08ccc4c4cea...@mygate.mailgate.org...
> "Gregory L. Hansen" <glha...@steel.ucs.indiana.edu> wrote in message
> news:badhac$rpp$7...@hood.uits.indiana.edu
>
> > >> The uncertainty principle is derived, not fundamental. It reflects
the
> > >> wave mechanics.
>
> > It's not a postulate.
>
> Hmm, I'm not a physiciist (in case you hadn't guessed!). What is the
> difference between things which are, and are not postulates? For
> example, the Schroedinger wave equation is a postulate, whereas the HUP
> is not.
The Heisenberg Uncertainty Relation can be dervided from the postulates and
his therefore not a postulate (and hence the term 'principle' is a misnomer)
Pmb
Gregory L. Hansen
A theory is its postulates, plus associated vocabulary and calculational
techniques. But what really makes the theory are the postulates, the
basic statements that kick the football, leading to everything else the
theory encompasses. All predictions and conclusions of the theory are
deduced step by step starting with the postulates. They are the "givens".
If you can't reach a conclusion by starting with the postulates, then it's
not a prediction of the theory.
The postulates of quantum mechanics, as described by Shankar, are
1. The state of the particle is represented by a vector |psi(t)> in a
Hilbert space.
2. The independent variables x and p of classical mechanics are
represented by Hermitian operators X and P with the following matrix
elements in the eigenbasis of X,
<x|X|x> = x delta(x-x')
<x|P|x> = -i hbar delta(x-x')
3. If the particle is in a state |spi>, measurement of the variable
corresponding to A will yield one of the eigenvalues a with probability
P(a)~|<a|psi>|^2. the state of the system will change from |psi> to |a>
as a result of the measurement.
4. The state vector |psi(t)> obeys the Schroedinger equation
i hbar d/dt |psi(t)> = H |psi(t)>
where H(X,P) = h(x->X,p->P) is the quantum Hamiltonian operator and h is
the Hamiltonian for the corresponding classical problem.
Sam Wormley
>
>
> The Heisenberg Uncertainty Relation can be dervided from the postulates and
> his therefore not a postulate (and hence the term 'principle' is a misnomer)
>
and those postulates are?
me...@cars3.uchicago.edu
>"Sam Wormley" <swor...@mchsi.com> wrote in message
>news:3EC9B561...@mchsi.com
>
>
>> Ref: http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/uncer.html
>> There is
>> likewise a minimum for the product of the
>> uncertainties of the energy and time.
>> delta-E * delta-t > h-bar/2
>
>> The Uncertainty Principle does not result from our lack of technology, but
>> is a fundamental property of the universe.
>
>Yes, absolutely. But I would like to ask another question based around
>this *misconception* that the HUP is all about measurement. There is a
>famous experiment often quoted in the physics books describing the gamma
>ray microscope.
Yes, coming from the early explanation by Heisenberg which was quickly
withdrawn as erroneous and not to the point, but it persists in
science popularizations.
> As I understand it this is all to do with demonstrating
>that by measuring the particle's position we disturb its momentum. So
>anybody reading such treatments will be duped into thinking that
>experimental measuring is at the root of the HUP. But ofcourse we know
>it isn't because we can actually derive the HUP on the back of an
>envelope. But my question is this - are there somehow two uncertainty
>principles in the sense that the inherent uncertainty is *added to* by
>the experimental unceretainty.
Two different things. And, not "two principles". There is the
"uncertainty principle" which sets an irreducible limit at the spreads
of values physical parameters may have. Then there is the experimental
uncertainty which is a matter of technique and instrumentation, not
any "principle". The second can, in theory be asymptotically reduced
to zero. The first, cannot.
> If not, I wonder what the point of the
>gama ray microscope experiment is.
No point, it is a matter of historical confusion.
me...@cars3.uchicago.edu
>me...@cars3.uchicago.edu wrote:
>> In article <bacah5$tnq$1...@slb0.atl.mindspring.net>, "Phil McDonald" <phi...@mindspring.com> writes:
>>
>>>I have two questions regarding Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle:
>>>
>>>1.) Since the uncertainty principle applies only to the simultaneous
>>>MEASUREMENT of a particle's (e.g. electron) position and momentum, then why
>>>should the uncertainty principle enter into any quantum mechanical
>>>calculations that do not involve experimental measurements?
>>>
>>
>> It applies regardless of measurement.
>>
>>
>>>2.) If I'm not mistaken, the Uncertainty Principle arises purely out of "the
>>>act of observation modifies the system" concerns. This is correct, no?
>>
>>
>> No.
>>
>With only a slight amount of apropos-ness, I noticed this morning during
>a particularly boring lecture on the Breit-Wigner that there's a
>Noether's principle relation between x and p, and a Heisenberg relation
>between x and p. There's a Noether's principle relation between t and
>E, and a Heisenberg relation between t and E. Simiklarly between angle
>and angular momentum.
>
>Is this a general result, that if there is a symmetry->conservation
>relation between two variables then they'll obey an uncertainty relation
>in the qunatum realm?
Yep, you got it. Let me just fill in some blanks. Noether's theorem
establishes symmetry <-> conservation relationship between conjugated
variables (x and p are conjugated). Now, the Poisson bracket of
conjugated variables is non-zero (1, to be exact). In the transition
to QM, Poisson bracket goes over to commutator (multiplied by i*hbar
or something like this). So, conjugated variables have a non-zero
commutator which gives you an uncertainy relation. It all ties
together.
> I was wondering because this could suggest a
>relation between the field of the guage tranformation[*] and charge,
>such that \Delta f*\Delta q=\hbar.
>
As I recall, the answer is "yes".
Frodo Morris
--
FM
Tom Potter
<me...@cars3.uchicago.edu> wrote in message
news:IGvya.56$L4.1...@news.uchicago.edu...
>
> Two different things. And, not "two principles". There is the
> "uncertainty principle" which sets an irreducible limit at the spreads
> of values physical parameters may have. Then there is the experimental
> uncertainty which is a matter of technique and instrumentation, not
> any "principle". The second can, in theory be asymptotically reduced
> to zero. The first, cannot.
Just curious,
what force, principle, factor, etc.
is operative when a quantum entity
(Like charge, spin, baryon number, etc.)
makes the jump to "zero"
from some continuous function?
And conversely,
what force, principle, factor, etc.
is operative when a quantum entity
(Like charge, spin, baryon number, etc.)
makes the jump from "zero"
to some continuous function
real, quantum, or otherwise?
Is there a discrete exponential function?
It seems to me that physics is NOT
the double slit experiment,
but IS the transition from
integer (Zero, one, two, N )
to continuous.
( Big bang, God, "collapse of the wave function",
"Something mysterious happens, etc.)
Richard Herring
<t...@hotsheet.com> writes
>
><me...@cars3.uchicago.edu> wrote in message
>news:IGvya.56$L4.1...@news.uchicago.edu...
>>
>> Two different things. And, not "two principles". There is the
>> "uncertainty principle" which sets an irreducible limit at the spreads
>> of values physical parameters may have. Then there is the experimental
>> uncertainty which is a matter of technique and instrumentation, not
>> any "principle". The second can, in theory be asymptotically reduced
>> to zero. The first, cannot.
>
>Just curious,
>what force, principle, factor, etc.
>is operative when a quantum entity
>(Like charge, spin, baryon number, etc.)
>makes the jump to "zero"
>from some continuous function?
I wasn't aware that any of those quantities could take a continuous
value. Pray enlighten us.
--
Richard Herring
Pmb
"Anthony Cerrato" <tcer...@optonline.net> wrote in
> My nit to pick with HUP is if it is a "principle" (which I have always
considered to mean an immutable "law" of the universe) why
> is it continually violated on a routine basis (e.g., in neutron star or BH
formation?)
Can you explain these examples of violations or provide an online referance?
I'm not familiar with these violations
Pmb
Anthony Cerrato
Gregory L. Hansen <glha...@steel.ucs.indiana.edu> wrote in message news:badp3d$v4u$1...@hood.uits.indiana.edu...
My nit to pick with HUP is if it is a "principle" (which I have always considered to mean an immutable "law" of the universe) why
is it continually violated on a routine basis (e.g., in neutron star or BH formation?) Which of the "postulates" are violated here,
(4?) and why? How is this violation of a "principle" interpreted in the real world--are there _no_ inviolable principles/laws in the
universe? Perhaps not, since, as another example, many of the "so-called" symmetry principles we learned about in college (I'm
pretty old :)) appear to have been violated over the years. Very disconcerting--if one is a hardfast reductionist--it seems that
anything goes in physics and the universe if you wait long enough. :) ...tonyC
Tom Potter
"Richard Herring" <junk@[127.0.0.1]> wrote in message
news:L44Hm6Xk...@baesystems.com...
The "continuous function"
I had in mind was the exponential function,
but it could be any function that
"can, in theory be asymptotically reduced to zero."
Are you suggesting that the exponential function is discrete,
or that it is not used in quantum mechanics?
Richard Herring
I'm suggesting that, contrary to your implication, charge, spin and
baryon number only take discrete values.
--
Richard Herring
Gregory L. Hansen
Anthony Cerrato <tcer...@optonline.net> wrote:
>
>Gregory L. Hansen <glha...@steel.ucs.indiana.edu> wrote in message
>news:badp3d$v4u$1...@hood.uits.indiana.edu...
>> In article <5af3b59b08ccc4c4cea...@mygate.mailgate.org>,
>> David Macmanus <macm...@tripos.com> wrote:
>> >"Gregory L. Hansen" <glha...@steel.ucs.indiana.edu> wrote in message
>> >news:badhac$rpp$7...@hood.uits.indiana.edu
>
>My nit to pick with HUP is if it is a "principle" (which I have always
>considered to mean an immutable "law" of the universe) why
>is it continually violated on a routine basis (e.g., in neutron star or
>BH formation?) Which of the "postulates" are violated here,
What makes you think it's ever violated?
Tom Potter
"Richard Herring" <junk@[127.0.0.1]> wrote in message
Perhaps you need to work on your reading comprehension,
and distorting posts in the newsgroups, and in your mind.
For starts, I repost my original post below.
================
Just curious,
what force, principle, factor, etc.
is operative when a quantum entity
(Like charge, spin, baryon number, etc.)
makes the jump to "zero"
from some continuous function?
And conversely,
what force, principle, factor, etc.
is operative when a quantum entity
(Like charge, spin, baryon number, etc.)
makes the jump from "zero"
to some continuous function
real, quantum, or otherwise?
Is there a discrete exponential function?
It seems to me that physics is NOT
the double slit experiment,
but IS the transition from
integer (Zero, one, two, N )
to continuous.
( Big bang, God, "collapse of the wave function",
"Something mysterious happens, etc.)
=================
I think I made it very clear that I was addressing
Meron's statement:
"The second can, in theory be asymptotically reduced to zero"
and was questioning how a good theory can reconcile
the discrete, as proposed in quantum theory,
and the continuous, as expressed in non-discrete calculus,
and in such functions as the exponential function.
I would appreciate it, if you would explain how you
managed to interpret this as someone implied that
"charge, spin and baryon number <did not> take discrete values."
I suggest that the question I posed:
"Is there a discrete exponential function?"
made it very clear that the issue was,
how do you rational modeling the discrete world
using non-discrete calculus and continuous functions
such as the exponential function.
I repeat for your benefit.
"how do you model the discrete world
using non-discrete calculus and continuous functions
such as the exponential function?"
Note that your assertion:
"I'm suggesting that, contrary to your implication, charge, spin and
baryon number only take discrete values."
is wrong, completely off base, and misses the whole target.
As I mentioned, you need to work on your reading comprehension,
as it seems to be severely distorted by your compulsion to
find fault with posts.
This is a serious problem that should be addressed
as it causes you to miss the points
that posters make in their posts.
Sam Wormley
>
> "Richard Herring" <junk@[127.0.0.1]> wrote in message
> >
> > baryon number only take discrete values.
>
> Perhaps you need to work on your reading comprehension,
> and distorting posts in the newsgroups, and in your mind.
>
Tom Potter--Richard [correctly] notes that charge, spin and baryon number
only take discrete values. That went over your head!
Tom Potter
It is obvious that my post went over your head.
Everyone knows that
"spin and baryon number only take discrete values."
and I state this several times in my physics tutorial.
I suggest that you and Richard should work on you reading comprehension,
and quit distorting posts in the newsgroups, and in your mind.
Note that Richard's assertion:
"I'm suggesting that, contrary to your implication, charge, spin and
baryon number only take discrete values."
is wrong, completely off base, and misses the whole target.
As I mentioned, you and Richard
need to work on your reading comprehension,
as it seems to be severely distorted by your compulsion to
find fault with posts.
This is a serious problem that should be addressed
as it causes you to miss the points
that posters make in their posts.
Now, if you can comprehend what I have posted, I repeat:
"how do you model the discrete world
using non-discrete calculus and continuous functions
such as the exponential function?"
--
Tom Potter http://home.earthlink.net/~tdp
Richard Herring
P. K. B.
>For starts, I repost my original post below.
Why waste the space? It still says the same thing.
>================
>
>Just curious,
>what force, principle, factor, etc.
>is operative when a quantum entity
>(Like charge, spin, baryon number, etc.)
>makes the jump to "zero"
>from some continuous function?
Charge, spin and baryon number never have a "continuous function" value
to jump from.
>
>And conversely,
>what force, principle, factor, etc.
>is operative when a quantum entity
>(Like charge, spin, baryon number, etc.)
>makes the jump from "zero"
>to some continuous function
>real, quantum, or otherwise?
Charge, spin and baryon number never jump to a "continuous function"
value.
>
>Is there a discrete exponential function?
It seems to me that when you say "exponential function" you have
something different in mind from what the rest of the world means by
that phrase.
>
>It seems to me that physics is NOT
>the double slit experiment,
>but IS the transition from
>integer (Zero, one, two, N )
>to continuous.
>
>( Big bang, God, "collapse of the wave function",
>"Something mysterious happens, etc.)
>=================
>
>I think I made it very clear that I was addressing
>Meron's statement:
>"The second can, in theory be asymptotically reduced to zero"
>
>and was questioning how a good theory can reconcile
>the discrete, as proposed in quantum theory,
>and the continuous, as expressed in non-discrete calculus,
>and in such functions as the exponential function.
>
>I would appreciate it, if you would explain how you
> managed to interpret this as someone implied that
>"charge, spin and baryon number <did not> take discrete values."
Well, mostly from the fact that "someone" posted the following:
>is operative when a quantum entity
>(Like charge, spin, baryon number, etc.)
>makes the jump to "zero"
>from some continuous function?
and:
>is operative when a quantum entity
>(Like charge, spin, baryon number, etc.)
>makes the jump from "zero"
>to some continuous function
HTH. HAND.
>
>I suggest that the question I posed:
>"Is there a discrete exponential function?"
>
>made it very clear that the issue was,
>how do you rational modeling the discrete world
>using non-discrete calculus and continuous functions
>such as the exponential function.
>
>I repeat for your benefit.
>"how do you model the discrete world
>using non-discrete calculus and continuous functions
>such as the exponential function?"
QM 101. Go read a textbook.
>
>Note that your assertion:
>"I'm suggesting that, contrary to your implication, charge, spin and
>baryon number only take discrete values."
>is wrong, completely off base, and misses the whole target.
Except that it's not wrong, directly addresses "someone"'s own words and
points out a fundamental misconception evident in "someone"'s thinking.
I'd say that was three out of three.
>
>As I mentioned, you need to work on your reading comprehension,
>as it seems to be severely distorted by your compulsion to
>find fault with posts.
>
>This is a serious problem that should be addressed
>as it causes you to miss the points
>that posters make in their posts.
Potter. Mirror. Mirror. Potter.
--
Richard Herring
greysky
"Anthony Cerrato" <tcer...@optonline.net> wrote in message
news:b3Kya.21398$OB5.7...@news4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net...
>
> My nit to pick with HUP is if it is a "principle" (which I have always
considered to mean an immutable "law" of the universe) why
> is it continually violated on a routine basis (e.g., in neutron star or BH
formation?)
>
It is not so much that HUP is 'violated', but that it provides a minimum
time limit under which mass - energy relations may not work. For example:
virtual particles. It is perfectly reasonable that Marilyn Monroe may
materialize, naked and horney, right in front of you. As long as she
disappears before the universe notices such an event, have some fast fun...
The problem with the "goes away" hypothesis is that it does little to
explain the relationship between imaginary and real work functions.... the
universe treats imaginary work exactly the same as it does real work, and
that is a real problem. The fact that imaginary work can cause a real
displacement is a big mystery to many by - the - book types.
Greysky
www.allocations.cc
Tom Potter
> In message <bahg16$t4sq5$1...@ID-188019.news.dfncis.de>, Tom Potter> >news:sWFu9JnS...@baesystems.com...
> >and distorting posts in the newsgroups, and in your mind.
>
> P. K. B.
>
> >For starts, I repost my original post below.
>
> Why waste the space? It still says the same thing.
>
> >================
> >
> >what force, principle, factor, etc.
> >is operative when a quantum entity
> >(Like charge, spin, baryon number, etc.)
> >makes the jump to "zero"
> >from some continuous function?
>
> to jump from.
> >
> >And conversely,
> >is operative when a quantum entity
> >(Like charge, spin, baryon number, etc.)
> >to some continuous function
> >real, quantum, or otherwise?
>
> value.
> >
>
> something different in mind from what the rest of the world means by
> that phrase.
> >
> >the double slit experiment,
> >but IS the transition from
> >integer (Zero, one, two, N )
> >to continuous.
> >
> >( Big bang, God, "collapse of the wave function",
> >"Something mysterious happens, etc.)
> >
> >I think I made it very clear that I was addressing
> >Meron's statement:
> >"The second can, in theory be asymptotically reduced to zero"
> >
> >and was questioning how a good theory can reconcile
> >the discrete, as proposed in quantum theory,
> >and the continuous, as expressed in non-discrete calculus,
> >and in such functions as the exponential function.
> >
> >I would appreciate it, if you would explain how you
> > managed to interpret this as someone implied that
> >"charge, spin and baryon number <did not> take discrete values."
>
> Well, mostly from the fact that "someone" posted the following:
>
> >(Like charge, spin, baryon number, etc.)
> >makes the jump to "zero"
> >from some continuous function?
>
>
> >is operative when a quantum entity
> >(Like charge, spin, baryon number, etc.)
> >to some continuous function
>
>
> >I suggest that the question I posed:
> >
> >how do you rational modeling the discrete world
> >using non-discrete calculus and continuous functions
> >such as the exponential function.
> >
> >I repeat for your benefit.
> >"how do you model the discrete world
> >using non-discrete calculus and continuous functions
> >such as the exponential function?"
>
> QM 101. Go read a textbook.
> >
> >Note that your assertion:
> >baryon number only take discrete values."
>
> Except that it's not wrong, directly addresses "someone"'s own words and
> points out a fundamental misconception evident in "someone"'s thinking.
> I'd say that was three out of three.
> >
> >As I mentioned, you need to work on your reading comprehension,
> >as it seems to be severely distorted by your compulsion to
> >find fault with posts.
> >
> >This is a serious problem that should be addressed
> >as it causes you to miss the points
> >that posters make in their posts.
>
> Potter. Mirror. Mirror. Potter.
As can be seen Richard Herring persists in his usual practice
of lying, distorting, obfuscating, and trying to divert the
focus of an article.
I repeat for the fourth time:
1. Meron made the statement:
"The second can, in theory be asymptotically reduced to zero."
2. I responded:
"Just curious, what force, principle, factor, etc.
is operative when a quantum entity
(Like charge, spin, baryon number, etc.)
makes the jump to "zero"
from some continuous function?"
Note that I acknowledge that "zero", charge, spin, etc.
ARE quantum (Integer) entities,
and wonder how a "continuous function"
(One that would "asymptotically reduced to zero.")
can handle this transition.
3. Richard Herring responds:
"I wasn't aware that any of those quantities
could take a continuous value. Pray enlighten us."
Note that no where did I assert that
"any of those quantities <had> a continuous value."
As can be seen Richard Herring completey missed,
(Or ignored) the core issue, and tries to twist my
statement about a "continuous function" into "continuous value".
Hopefully, Richard Herring will do a Google search on
Dirac, "pair creation", discrete, continous, "exponential function", etc.
and address the question in a rational, intelligent way,
rather than trying to lie about and distort a post.
I welcome any input from rational, intelligent folks
about how non-discrete methods can be used to
handle discrete situations (Zero, 1, 2, 3, etc.)
WITHOUT introducing an UNCERTAINTY.
I am not interested in lying, distorting, obfuscating,
and ego tripping, although I will respond to
these posts in order to expose the fallacies
in these diversions.
Richard Herring
>As can be seen Richard Herring persists in his usual practice
>of lying, distorting, obfuscating, and trying to divert the
>focus of an article.
>
>I repeat for the fourth time:
>
>1. Meron made the statement:
>"The second can, in theory be asymptotically reduced to zero."
He's talking about measurement errors as opposed to
uncertainty-principle uncertainties.
>
>2. I responded:
>"Just curious, what force, principle, factor, etc.
>is operative when a quantum entity
>(Like charge, spin, baryon number, etc.)
>makes the jump to "zero"
>from some continuous function?"
>
>Note that I acknowledge that "zero", charge, spin, etc.
>ARE quantum (Integer) entities,
>and wonder how a "continuous function"
>(One that would "asymptotically reduced to zero.")
>can handle this transition.
Then you're totally missing the point.
>
>3. Richard Herring responds:
>"I wasn't aware that any of those quantities
>could take a continuous value. Pray enlighten us."
>
>Note that no where did I assert that
>"any of those quantities <had> a continuous value."
Just that it "makes a jump to/from some continuous function." I fail to
see the difference.
>
>As can be seen Richard Herring completey missed,
>(Or ignored) the core issue, and tries to twist my
>statement about a "continuous function" into "continuous value".
Perhaps Potter will explain what he means here by "continuous function",
if not "something which has a continuous range of values."
>
>Hopefully, Richard Herring will do a Google search on
>Dirac, "pair creation", discrete, continous, "exponential function", etc.
("continUous" would give more hits.)
That seems a huge range of topics to cover for a simple problem. I'd
recommend that Potter try a more focused search. Try "hydrogen atom" and
refine with things like "separation of variables", "Bessel functions"
and "spherical harmonics". If that doesn't yield a few clues about the
practical application of quantum mechanics, nothing will.
>and address the question in a rational, intelligent way,
>rather than trying to lie about and distort a post.
>
>I welcome any input from rational, intelligent folks
>about how non-discrete methods can be used to
>handle discrete situations (Zero, 1, 2, 3, etc.)
>WITHOUT introducing an UNCERTAINTY.
>
>I am not interested in lying, distorting, obfuscating,
>and ego tripping, although I will respond to
>these posts in order to expose the fallacies
>in these diversions.
ROFL. Have you looked in a mirror recently? You may observe that the
length of your nose is making "jumps to some continuous function".
PS If you really want to know, the way that non-discrete methods yield
discrete solutions is through something we call ei-gen-val-ues and
ei-gen-state-s.
--
Richard Herring
Tom Potter
"Richard Herring" <junk@[127.0.0.1]> wrote in message
1. As can be seen from my post,
I was NOT addressing the
"measurement errors as opposed to uncertainty-principle uncertainties"
in Meron's post. I was addressing the question of what the interface is
between the discrete and the continuous.
2. Note that "Richard Herring" makes the statement:
"Then you're totally missing the point.",
when it was I, who raised the "point", that he "missed".
In other words, he "totally miss<ed> the point" of my post,
and then says I missed the point. Strange thinking.
3. Also note, that although I explicitly stated that
zero, and charge, spin, baryon number were discrete,
that "Richard Herring" continues to assert that I said
that these were not discrete.
4. As "Richard Herring" states:
"Try "hydrogen atom" and refine with things like
"separation of variables", "Bessel functions" > and "spherical harmonics"."
and "ei-gen-val-ues and ei-gen-state-s",
hold the answer to my question which I repeat for the fifth time:
"about how non-discrete methods can be used to
handle discrete situations (Zero, 1, 2, 3, etc.)
WITHOUT introducing an UNCERTAINTY."
hopefully "Richard Herring" will simply answer the question
in a direct way, rather than post a batch of buzz words,
that he may or may not comprehend.
In other words, Richard,
don't nit pick and try to look for an angle to ego trip on.
Just answer the question, IF you can.
If you can't stay home.
Richard Herring
>
>"Richard Herring" <junk@[127.0.0.1]> wrote in message
>news:QWBh9EDE...@baesystems.com...
>> In message <bak95h$lgam$1...@ID-188019.news.dfncis.de>, Tom Potter
>> <t...@hotsheet.com> writes
>> >Richard Herring <junk@[127.0.0.1]> wrote in message
>> >news:<YyJj0yAn...@baesystems.com>...
>> >> In message <bahg16$t4sq5$1...@ID-188019.news.dfncis.de>, Tom Potter
>> >> <t...@hotsheet.com> writes
[big snip. It's all on Google, for anyone who cares.]
>> >2. I responded:
>> >"Just curious, what force, principle, factor, etc.
>> >is operative when a quantum entity
>> >(Like charge, spin, baryon number, etc.)
>> >makes the jump to "zero"
>> >from some continuous function?"
>> >
>> >Note that I acknowledge that "zero", charge, spin, etc.
>> >ARE quantum (Integer) entities,
>> >and wonder how a "continuous function"
>> >(One that would "asymptotically reduced to zero.")
>> >can handle this transition.
>>
>> Then you're totally missing the point.
>> >
>> >3. Richard Herring responds:
>> >"I wasn't aware that any of those quantities
>> >could take a continuous value. Pray enlighten us."
>> >
>> >Note that no where did I assert that
>> >"any of those quantities <had> a continuous value."
>>
>> Just that it "makes a jump to/from some continuous function." I fail to
>> see the difference.
>> >
>> >As can be seen Richard Herring completey missed,
>> >(Or ignored) the core issue, and tries to twist my
>> >statement about a "continuous function" into "continuous value".
>>
>> Perhaps Potter will explain what he means here by "continuous function",
>> if not "something which has a continuous range of values."
No answer?
[...]
>1. As can be seen from my post,
>I was NOT addressing the
>"measurement errors as opposed to uncertainty-principle uncertainties"
>in Meron's post. I was addressing the question of what the interface is
>between the discrete and the continuous.
>
>2. Note that "Richard Herring" makes the statement:
Again with the scare quotes? It's my name.
>"Then you're totally missing the point.",
>when it was I, who raised the "point", that he "missed".
>In other words, he "totally miss<ed> the point" of my post,
>and then says I missed the point. Strange thinking.
>
>3. Also note, that although I explicitly stated that
>zero, and charge, spin, baryon number were discrete,
>that "Richard Herring" continues to assert that I said
>that these were not discrete.
That would be because you posted:
>> >is operative when a quantum entity
>> >(Like charge, spin, baryon number, etc.)
>> >makes the jump to "zero"
>> >from some continuous function?"
If you can find some other way to parse it, tell us how.
>
>4. As "Richard Herring" states:
>"Try "hydrogen atom" and refine with things like
>"separation of variables", "Bessel functions" > and "spherical harmonics"."
>and "ei-gen-val-ues and ei-gen-state-s",
>hold the answer to my question which I repeat for the fifth time:
>"about how non-discrete methods can be used to
>handle discrete situations (Zero, 1, 2, 3, etc.)
>WITHOUT introducing an UNCERTAINTY."
>hopefully "Richard Herring" will simply answer the question
>in a direct way, rather than post a batch of buzz words,
>that he may or may not comprehend.
We don't answer homework questions here. Hints are all you get.
>
>In other words, Richard,
>don't nit pick and try to look for an angle to ego trip on.
The answer is there, if you had the wit to see it.
>Just answer the question, IF you can.
Because you tell me to? If you think I'm under any kind of obligation to
answer your questions, or those of anyone else, you have a very strange
idea of reality.
>
>If you can't stay home.
that sentence no main clause.
JSNTTP.
--
Richard Herring
Anthony Cerrato
Anthony Cerrato <tcer...@optonline.net> wrote in message news:b3Kya.21398$OB5.7...@news4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net...
>
> > In article <5af3b59b08ccc4c4cea...@mygate.mailgate.org>,
> > David Macmanus <macm...@tripos.com> wrote:
> > >"Gregory L. Hansen" <glha...@steel.ucs.indiana.edu> wrote in message
> > >news:badhac$rpp$7...@hood.uits.indiana.edu
[snip]
> > The postulates of quantum mechanics, as described by Shankar, are
> >
> > 1. The state of the particle is represented by a vector |psi(t)> in a
> > Hilbert space.
> >
> > 2. The independent variables x and p of classical mechanics are
> > represented by Hermitian operators X and P with the following matrix
> > elements in the eigenbasis of X,
> >
> > <x|X|x> = x delta(x-x')
> >
> > <x|P|x> = -i hbar delta(x-x')
> >
> > 3. If the particle is in a state |spi>, measurement of the variable
> > corresponding to A will yield one of the eigenvalues a with probability
> > P(a)~|<a|psi>|^2. the state of the system will change from |psi> to |a>
> > as a result of the measurement.
> >
> > 4. The state vector |psi(t)> obeys the Schroedinger equation
> >
> > i hbar d/dt |psi(t)> = H |psi(t)>
> >
> > where H(X,P) = h(x->X,p->P) is the quantum Hamiltonian operator and h is
> > the Hamiltonian for the corresponding classical problem.
> >
>
> My nit to pick with HUP is if it is a "principle" (which I have always considered to mean an immutable "law" of the universe) why
> is it continually violated on a routine basis (e.g., in neutron star or BH formation?) Which of the "postulates" are violated
here,
> (4?) and why? How is this violation of a "principle" interpreted in the real world--are there _no_ inviolable principles/laws in
the
> universe? Perhaps not, since, as another example, many of the "so-called" symmetry principles we learned about in college (I'm
> pretty old :)) appear to have been violated over the years. Very disconcerting--if one is a hardfast reductionist--it seems that
> anything goes in physics and the universe if you wait long enough. :) ...tonyC
Anthony Cerrato: clearly your note was written after not sleeping for 2-3 nights and days--I suspect your rant was actually
directed, not to the HUP, but rather, to the _Pauli Exclusion_Principle--and was more in jest than serious, being directed to the
pop sci (and many text book) descriptions/ explanations of the PEP (that changes in particles states must occur for PEP to be
violated [how and why, never being clearly explained.]) In future, I'm sure you'll be more focused when posting to ngs and please
get some sleep! ...tonyC (aka, AnthonyCerrato) PS-->
PS--trying to make a joke outa my goof and really must apologize for wasting time for those who read my post. After some sleep
though :), I started to think about the HUP some more (forget PEP) and I do have one question or comment about BHs--it seems to me
that HUP IS in some sense violated if formation of (massive sized) BH singularities are allowed to occur...maybe it is a semantic/
definitional problem, but:
If space-time goes to zero, clearly HUP demands that any (fermionic) mass within must have infinite momentum (I understand the
singularity is formed in essentially zero time relative to the BH) -- i.e. ALL BHs must explode on formation (not just mini-BHs) I
know the model is complicated by the fact that the BH is in a different time reference frame than a distant observer and so forth...
but it can't be that the explanation lies in saying the large black hole DOES explode in a sense, but on an observer's cosmic
timescale (when Hawking radiation reduces it to a mini-BH which does have significant energy radiation)--Does it explain this? But,
if so, then Hawking's view that a massive BH has negligible energy radiation in the observers ref. frame is violated, no? Where am I
going wrong here? Or, is the answer simply that all fermionic matter is converted to bosonic mass-energy on, or long before,
singularity formation, and zero space can accommodate an INFINITE number of bosons (I thought there was _some_ finite limit though
to number of superimposable bosons...and does the current standard model of physics allow/demand fermions are converted to bosons at
high enuf energy, which I have seen bandyed-about but never justified? And isn't there a conservation law at work with the number of
bosons/fermions?) I am indeed now very confused as to whether or not singularities CAN exist at all in the real universe--I suspect,
perhaps not. ...tonyC
Tom Potter
"Richard Herring" <junk@[127.0.0.1]> wrote in message
I repeat the logical flow with the hope that "Richard Herring"
will be able to "parse it".
He states:
"Then you're totally missing the point.",
when it was I, who raised the "point", that he "missed" (Did not pares
correctly.).
In other words, he "totally miss<ed> the point" of my post,
and then says I missed the point. Strange thinking.
Note, that although I explicitly stated that
zero, and charge, spin, baryon number were discrete,
that "Richard Herring" continues to assert that I said
that these were not discrete, and why?
Because he insists on trying to rationalize his
misparsing of my statement,
OR
he insists on trying to justify his childish and immoral
attempt to demean someone using some point that had
no bearing on the gestalt of the post.
I wonder what motivated "Richard Herring"
to make such a childish attempt to demean someone,
and why he grasps for straws, and persists in
trying to salvage his effort????
I wonder why "Richard Herring" doesn't simply
address the content of posts in a rational, mature, civilized, intelligent
way,
as providing positive, useful, intelligent input to the forum,
would stroke his ego, if that is problem.
Don't go away mad, Dick.
Just go away.
Richard Herring
Still no answer?
[snip]
>Don't go away mad, Dick.
>Just go away.
I must have missed where we made Potter the moderator of this group.
--
Richard Herring