Theory Of Everything - Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle

[Electr0nicMusicLab]

I understand the Hesenberg uncertainty priciple, but what affect would this have on our everyday lives by not being able to measure the position and the momentum of a particle at the same time?

[darkmaster01]

what if we asked the particle politely?

[Kyocera234]

it's always great fun to read and deeply think about quantum physics, using just your mind to visualize and observe and also interpret and shift scenarios around. I believe this is how many hypothesis start and eventually get placed on paper for others to decipher in their own minds. Your theory and ways of thinking are just as plausable as anyones and you surely don't require a Phd to be a great thinker.

[smidgenpa]

I'm certain the audio is so bad that I'm uncertain what he is saying. Next time try a room with better acoustics.

[farerse]

i dont trust decepticons.

[CACBCCCU]

All experimental results come through photons and if light waves have a noisy superliminal quantum medium responsible for propagating them, then it seems to me that intrinsic +/- symmetric uncertainties in energy, time of arrival, etc are a consequence. It could be said the energy uncertainty is transient quantum-media-induced blue/red shifting, for example, analogous to gravitational red/blue shifts but on a gravity-particle scale.

[CACBCCCU]

I think it there's a medium with superluminal carriers, say a medium of gravitons and maybe a medium for these gravitons to be embedded within, and if photons could be viewed as energy variations among these carriers/media, then maybe random and detector-driven variations in these carriers/media have something to do with quantum uncertainty, where random time uncertainty has random superluminality in its basis.

[CACBCCCU]

I get the impression that the medium for photons is gravitons, which are seemingly ultra-low low-energy (undetectable) but could have super-luminal aspects in order to carry photons as waves. A zero-point medium between gravitons would probably carry energy that is even weaker, but not necessarily faster than gravitons, I guess.

[jimmyshitbags]

im on a physics course, so i've done plenty of calculations involving the uncertainty principle, and i think i understand how it works.

what i don't know is, does this mean that there really is true randomness/probability at that scale, or is it just our understanding/interpretation of physics at that scale that introduces the randomness/probability? i never really liked the idea of chance tbh.

i dont know if this is a naive question or if ive asked it well, but i'd love an answer.

[nickharvey7]

In my video The Paradox of Schrodingers Cat an artist view Time has symmetry and geometry. Could the Uncertainty Principle be formed by the forward motion of time? If time was formed by the emission and absorption of light or EMR from atom too atom this would give us probability.

[coldfusion1111]

would be a great speaker if he just stood at a blackboard or maybe even sitting in a chair. Quality of the video presentation counts ..

[msingman]

why is he siting on a toilet? Is that a statement for his video?

I think intentions and attentions can explain away Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle.

[georro]

I have the theory of everything = god equation

[ILessHawk]

Lol.

Science almost explains everything.

I think you should interpret this as science explains religion

[ShallowThoughts]

Explains nothing. How did God do it? Why? How did "He" come into existence in the first place?

[georro]

what do you mean it explain nothing ? it explains everything .how did god become into existence ,well my answer to you is with a simple question ,how does logic become existent?there you are logic is god and vice versa

[ShallowThoughts]

Alright Georro. Let's say you want someone to explain to you how a car works. There's two people: a priest and a mechanic. The priest simply tells you "God makes the car run". The mechanic gets into details and tells you HOW the car WORKS.

Do you understand now why religion explains nothing?

[georro]

I don't care about religion I'm talking about logic

[ShallowThoughts]

What is logical about saying "God dun it" to every question? It does not enlighten. It propagates ignorance.

[Sanvarlan]

determine the wavelength/momentum (implying that the wave system has been spread out over infinite space, then a wave system of such a nature would have no specific position. It is basically that in order to define one property, you begin collapse the other related property and vice versa. That's the issue with the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle. As you become more accurate with one property, the other property begins to become disseminated. Not sure if this will help, but I tried.

~Tse-Mach

[Sanvarlan]

First you must think of these "particles" as more or less de-localised waves of energy rather than specific finite physical entities. When one measure's a particles "position", they would really be looking at clumping or increased density of waves in a certain region.

But to define that as the particle's position one can't define a specific wavelength/momentum because a definite wavelength/momentum can only be determined when a wave is spread out evenly across infinite space. And if one can

[Sanvarlan]

The previous poster ScottMcSanchez is correct. The speaker in this video is actually combining two separate theories. The Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle (HUP) and a phenomenon known as the "Observer's Effect". The HUP does state that one can't observe both the position and momentum of a particular simultaneously, but it is NOT a result of a deficit in our measuring instruments nor a generated effect from the process of measuring. Rather this is an intrinsic property of wave/particle systems.

[hankaaron1961]

I can explain the Theory of Everything, but I don't have enough sense to know that I should record in an open echoy room.

[billfunky9]

well explained, bit quiet though.

[ScottMcSanchez]

Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle was not derived due to photons interference with particles. It was actually derived due to Forrier transforms on a Gaussian wave packet and matrix properties used in the final inequality. These equations have absolutely nothing to do with photons being reflected off of a particle's body. In fact, the observation accounted for is ideally perfect.

[dylanlives]

So, this video is worthless, right?

[mwhite2]

Very well explained thank you.

[SuperNerd1973]

"I often say that when you can measure what you are speaking about, and express it in numbers, you know something about it; but when you cannot measure it, when you cannot express it in numbers, your knowledge is of a meagre and unsatisfactory kind; it may be the beginning of knowledge, but you have scarcely in your thoughts advanced to the state of Science, whatever the matter may be."

- Lord Kelvin

[Pseudoyin]

"As far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality, they are not certain; and as far as they are certain, they do not refer to reality'' Einstein

[PhilosopherFresh]

nice

[descendantofmankind]

How did you get so many people to look at your video?

[HiGlossWebDesign]

He shows up in Google when you search Heisenburg Theory ;p

[starrynightuk]

To be fair, the uncertainty is there whether you're looking at it or not. Roughly, the product of the 'spread' in position and the 'spread' in momentum of a particle must be greater than of order Planck's constant.

[tmp6X6X6X]

PS.: The "P versus NP" article is also incorrect :)

"This problem is about efficiency" - wrong. It's about complexity of algorithms.

"problems of class NP require an infinite amount of time to solve" - wrong. NP means that no polynomial time algorithm is known for that problem but this DOESN'T MEAN that the problem cannot be solved in finite amount of time.

These are the first two sentences (!!!) of the article. Two wrong claims out of two. So you should think about what I said earlier. :)

[tmp6X6X6X]

BTW by curiousity I picked two topics by random, Russel's Paradox and Relativity. Now I'm 100% certain that you don't have a clue about these things. But taking a look wasn't necessary, I knew this only by reading the first page of your site as I told you. So I wasn't surprised. Please, leave science to scientists and listen to what they say. :) Greetings from Hungary

[tmp6X6X6X]

(1) Nature cannot be explained with essays! Everyday language lacks rigorousity and abstraction that mathematics provides. 300+ years ago Galileo Galilei knew this and its obvious for everybody who works in some field of science. Without math your work is just a bunch of empty words, a "nice try", a sure failure of explanation and no man of science will take his time to read it. You'll receive positive feedback only from laymen who look for easy (mis)understanding.

[tmp6X6X6X]

(2) The theories which describe our universe most correctly are based on very abstract mathematics (almost certainly) impossible to be understood by masses. As only few can run as fast as the olimpic champion, only few can understand those abstract notions. I take my time to warn you because I was in your shoes (!) and I understand that you don't have bad intentions. But this road leads only to self-deceit and the unwanted (I hope) deceit of others. ;)

[protheory]

QUOTE: The purpose of this theory of everything is to show exactly how simple our universe really is and to make the study of "everything" accessible to the masses :)

[protheory]

QUOTE: Pro theory is a literal theory of everything. Nothing more and nothing less, a theory that explains and answers literally every single thing in the universe.

Seems impossible?

Need a degree in physics and mathematics to understand it?

The answer is no. You won't find any high minded requirements on this site or anywhere within my TOE. Pro theory does exactly what it's supposed to do, it explains everything in a way that both seasoned professionals and amateurs can understand equally.

[tmp6X6X6X]

Modern science is based on advanced mathematics. Understanding it requires A LOT of work. You claim the complete opposite on the first page of your website and that's totally wrong so I won't waste my time examining your theory in detail. And I suggest others to do the same unless they wish to decive themselves.

I'm not saying that you have bad intentions, but if you really want to understand how nature works, than take this warning as from your best friend: you are going the wrong way! :)

[protheory]

While I can understand your point about learning taking a long time this isn't what I contextually said was it. I said you don't need a degree in physics or math to understand my TOE, Pro theory, and the essays on my site. I stand by that. Also, to be fair if you're not even willing to waste your time reading or understanding my TOE then what can I do? If you read the essays you'd see that my statement is true, my theory is simple, and my intentions are positive. Peace :)

[carlmelanson1]

@protheory I think you need to look into the Koide Formula and see if you can explain it to me. It's complicated!!!! You claiming that nature is "simple" does not make it so. You're ideals are insane. It takes a lot of studying and time. I know this. I'm writing a book called "The Principle of Equilibrium." The universe is so complicated in fact that it could take me several years to complete the theory. It's not simple by any means. Your claims are arrogant and misguided.

[protheory]

@carlmelanson1 I've never heard of the Koide Formula before. I could look it up to not lose face but I'm not in this for the ego. Being rude and calling me names is unnecessary and uncalled for (in my opinion). If your theory is truly a TOE why don't you make some videos about it? Notify Claymath and others? If your calculations work so well please show the world now by posting it fully on my forum at fprotheoryDOTcom. If you have a website or blog please feel free to link to it from my site

[carlmelanson1]

@protheory It's a book, I'm looking for a publisher, like a normal person. I don't have a camera. If I did I would use it to debunk your bogus "findings" I went to your website and laughed out loud. All you keep saying is that you have a TOE, I don't make that claim. You do not actually present any "findings" whatsoever, you just repeat that you have a TOE, over and over again. Unlike you, I compare my theory to what we already know, and it matches every time, which means I must be close. lol

[protheory]

@carlmelanson1 Get a camera from a friend, library, hire one, publish your work on my website for free. So many options to get yourself out there and yet still no book, only your say so. Good luck with trying to get your ideas published and I look forward to your attempts at debunking my theory. I haven't yet had the chance to laugh out loud at your theory, if it exists, but I'll take a look if and when it's published.

[carlmelanson1]

@protheory I'll wink at you when I get my Nobel Prize lol. GOod luck with your TOE, which is apparently already perfect without even hinting at the possibility for Quantum Gravity. lol

[protheory]

@carlmelanson1 I've circumvented quantum-gravity by explaining gravity as per Pro theory but anyway... I would truly be honored to know a Nobel Prize winner, perhaps I'll take you for a drink with my Claymath winnings lol

[tmp6X6X6X]

I found this on the website: "Need a degree in physics and mathematics to understand it? The answer is no." LOL

The only thing you prove with this is your lack of knowledge about how science works. Physics with just metaphores and without mathematics is self-deceit. Understanding things requires mental effort! A LOT! :D

ZERO stars from me. It's a crap! :D

[protheory]

tmp6X6X6X back atcha, your comment shows in turn how little you understand of my theory and what it does. Thanks for your feedback anyway, it's all good at the end of the day :D

[protheory]

robkim55, sorry about the low sound, it's my old video camera I'm afraid. I'm still saving up for a Hollywood editing suite lol

[robkim55]

Very good but the voice is not working for me. I will check with my computer.

[Squash890]

Clearly, we just need to find unobtrusive methods of observation.

Light doesn't work. Bouncing the photon off of the electron will change the position and momentum of the electron. That's no good, because we're trying to find the position and momentum of the electron.

What about sound? Would an electron create a measureable change in air pressure?

[rabidsiberianhamster]

put it this way, it seems to me that diffraction is a result of the uncertainty principle. if you focus a laser onto a small, known hole and onto a screen. Then you should know how fast the light is travelling as it hits the screen (it never changes) but because of the uncertainty principle you cannot predict the light's location. Thus the light is not where you would expect but spread out, diffraction.

[goodsnservices]

Especially at quantum scales, small changes in energy have large effects. So obviously if you bounce a high energy particle off of another, you're going to get a change in either momentum or direction or both, and you can't tell before hand what the exact effect will be. The only thing certain is that you can't measure it with precision.

[goodsnservices]

This is why I never liked Shroedinger, his "woo-woo" approach to a very straight-forward problem, making it into something supernatural and anthropocentric. It isn't the "observer" that affects the experiment, it's the method of measurement that is intrusive.

[260245]

I would like to hear an explanation for the Uncertainty Principle that goes beyond the problems of accurately measuring position and momentum. I've heard there are deeper implications but I've yet to understand why the problems aren't just experimental.

Meanwhile, you could have given the presentation a bit more vitality and clarity. It also looks like it was videoed in a washroom!!

[goodsnservices]

The only dice players are us. Because it is impossible to measure both position and momentum exactly (both needed to predict where a particle will be in future), all we can do is guess. The best tool we have for guessing is statistics, i.e., probability equations. Shroedinger was a fuzzy-headed fool in my opinion.

[MCtheMD]

It's not so much to do with inaccuracy of measurement, but more to do with the fact that the spacial extension of a wave and the extension of the wavelength (by Fourier transform) is not arbitrarily small, but is in fact set at the limit of being greater than or equal to h-bar/2. Give that we're using probability distributions (pd), you can see The narrower the pd is in position, the wider it is in momentum, and vice versa (I nabbed that last sentence from Wiki... :-D )

but I'm no physicist....

[whoashite]

You need a microphone, better editing, and more preparation.

[neallasta]

when Einstein said God does not play dice,

Bohr replied do not teach God what to do. and Bohr wins.

[Crapulency]

When you said "Bohr replied do not teach God what to do. and Bohr wins", I thought that you have sided with someone who has made an elementary school boy error with his logic, a means of communication that has taken humanity its lifetime to establish and you to get wrong in a second. THe people with whom you share the world (including Einstein) win. You and Bohr lose.

Its called a straw man.

[MCtheMD]

I think 'neallasta' refers to the 'Three breakfasts', which I learnt about not long out of elementary school ;)

Sapere Aude,

MC.

[protheory]

Hello GenesisSingularity, thanks for your comment. I know the character limit on these videos is a bit short and so I've set up a new forum for real discussion. I'm more than happy to answer all of your questions on here if you like

fprotheoryDOTcom

Kind regards.

Pro.

[GenesisSingularity]

The uncertainty principle is not about the inaccuracy of instrumentation or experimental methods. It is about small but important mis steps in physics as a whole and a human limitation in cognitive perception regarding a system. It would take more than the character count to explain this further. But understand this the gurus and savants of physics dictate what the worldview concerning physics is and eventhough it might seem so at the time, they are not always right. --ie Polomey's Solar System

[TheMaster620]

The uncertainty principle is not a statement about the inaccuracy of measurement instruments, nor a reflection on the quality of experimental methods; it arises from the wave properties inherent in the quantum mechanical description of nature. Even with perfect instruments and technique, the uncertainty is inherent in the nature of things. - Hyperphysics

[protheory]

Hello RealmEternal. The shorter wavelengths are more accurate as they're faster and more likely to be able to keep up with the particle and its movement, but are more likely to disturb the particle's position as they contain more energy (quanta). The shorter wavelengths are less accurate but as they tend to contain less energy they are thought to disturb the position of the particle less. It's like a Catch 22.

[RealmEternal]

I cannot visualize how a shorter wavelength of light could increase the accuracy in which we can measure the position of a particle

[protheory]

Could you please explain this in more detail? It sounds like an interesting idea to me but I know that these comments are very limited. I have a forum in the About This Video bit top right or you could message me or write a lot of comments so everybody can read them.

[TLHS]

What if we could accurately predict the vector and velocity of the particle at any given time?

The answer is yes we can. if we can understand that mass is many such particles combined. now combining them into the correct form and applying a mechanism to consistently motivate the combined particle mass.

[ycalm]

i don't think that this is possible-terms like "vector" and "velocity" are not very good language to use when talking about very microscopic particles. The point of the H.U.P. is that we can't know what the "vector" and the "velocity" of the particle are because they do not even exist-this is because the particle is more like an mass/energy wave/particle thing; that is, at least according to the experimentally confirmed theory.

[protheory]

Hello, it's called the uncertainty principle because the outcome of our observations are uncertain. We're not able to define both the position and momentum of a particle at a given singular point in time. It's really as simple as it sounds.

[olmusiclover]

Precisely. And so what? Position and momentum are mutually exclusive, aren't they? Quoting you ..."both...at a given singular point in time..."

To ascribe momentum to a particle, isn't it necessary to allow it to move at a minimum of the Planck distance, for the Planck unit of time, as the HUP equation implies? Conversely, position is a "fix"...some precise place and no other and to state it one must "stop the clock."

[goodsnservices]

To measure exact position, you'd need a particle with zero momentum, at absolute rest. That's impossible, isn't it. Therefore, there is no "fixed" position. Position and momentum are not mutually exclusive -- as the accuracy of measurement of one goes up, the other must go down. You could, therefore have two fuzzy measurements just fine according to Heisenberg's equation.

[zachbb]

i still dont get it.. and whys it called the uncertainty principle

[protheory]

You're welcome mkarnicki :)

[mkarnicki]

thanks for explaining!

[protheory]

Decepticons have the best logo for t-shirts but I'm an Autobot at heart ;)

[kraeckelium]

MEGATRON!

[bodxp]

somehow I couldnt hear well enough to understand what was being said. maybe decepticons just talk like that :)

[zachbb]

its his accent..