# Thread: Is the Uncertainty Principle only an scale problem?

1. The only thing that I have very clear is that for this small scales (10^ī35 to 10^-10 meters) the things and effects (and dominant laws) are very different that those we can see at Ours scale (10^-10 to 10^20 meters).

And that only maths theories and fuctions can give us an theoretical idea of this world !!!!
Last edited by dapifo; 2012-Jul-30 at 10:57 PM.

2. Established Member
Join Date
Mar 2010
Location
United Kingdom
Posts
3,125
Originally Posted by dapifo
The only thing that I have very clear is that for this small scales (10^ī35 to 10^-10 meters) the things and effects (and dominant laws) are very different that those we can see at Ours scale (10^-10 to 10^20 meters).
Well, not really. The macroscopic laws emerge from the underlying smaller laws. They are not different, just ensemble averages or low energy residual effects. Rather like gas acts as a collection of particles at small enough scales but averaging the particle behaviour gives a set of behaviours that can be modelled using a fluid approximation at larger scales. The particle laws are still valid, still more fundamental, but are more effort to calculate so we tend to use the simpler model. The laws don't change, but the ways we solve problems using them may.

3. Order of Kilopi
Join Date
Sep 2004
Posts
5,475
Originally Posted by dapifo
The only thing that I have very clear is that for this small scales (10^ī35 to 10^-10 meters) the things and effects (and dominant laws) are very different that those we can see at Ours scale (10^-10 to 10^20 meters).

And that only maths theories and fuctions can give us an theoretical idea of this world !!!!
Incorrect. The same laws apply at all scales. The effects that you call very different at meter scale are only the large number statistical approximations of the laws that apply at the nanometer scale. That is alot of 'only' but it is well proven that the same rules apply.

Also, 'only maths theories and fuctions can give us an theoretical idea of this world' applies just as well to the 'ours scale' as it does to the quantum scale. It isnt 'You have a PhD so POOF! what you say must be true!' All theory has an experiment done to show that it works. Sometimes it is a pretty complex chain of experiment-theory-experiment to go from what you see to what the experiment is, but sometimes it is just a couple guys with a ruby that ends up making a massive industry.

4. Order of Kilopi
Join Date
Sep 2004
Posts
5,475
Originally Posted by dapifo
OK...thanks..I have a lot of things to read....

But I donīt agree with "Experimental results always precede theory . . ."... aloso could be the other way
It works both ways wether you like it or not. Photoelectric effect is a good example of experiment leading to theory, and lasers are a good example of theory leading to an experiment.

5. Donīt you have the feeling that the Universe around us is easily understood for those scales closest to us (10 ^-10 to 10^+10 meters)?: Classical Mechanics, Euclidean Geometry, Determinism, ...

But that it becomes more complicated as we move away from these scales?. And in a different way as we move towards negative or positive scales?:

-Negatives scales: Quantum Mechanics, Dirac-Newmann Geometry, Uncertainty Principle, ...
-Positive scales: General Relativity, Riemann Geometry, Space-Time Curvature, ...

It seams like we are in an virtual Universe and its limits are broadcast or difused !!!... Like if they were the limits of a software program ("The Thirteenth Floor" film, 1999).

Please, have a look to the following slide, and give to me your opinion:

Laws (Ing).pdf

6. Established Member
Join Date
Mar 2010
Location
United Kingdom
Posts
3,125
My opinion: same idea you keep presenting and having refuted redone as a slide

The laws are not different, you just don't really understand them and seem to be unwilling to listen to people's explanations.

7. Your initial assumption that these different theories only apply at vastly different scales is wrong.

Relativity has to be taken into account when describing the universe or making measurements on Earth.

Quantum theory is required to fully describe everything from transistors to supermassive black holes.

QED (our most accurately tested theory. ever.) combines relativity and quantum mechanics.

So, once again, this idea just doesn't make any sense. It appears to be based on some fundamental misunderstandings of the relevant science. Maybe you need to spend a bit more time asking questions in the Q&A section of the forum.

8. Originally Posted by dapifo
Uncertainty Principle has been always for me an strange and unintelligible concept... and always I though that was only a problem of measuring instruments...because we try to mesure them (location and momentum) precisely with inappropriate instruments larger than required).
This is incorrect, as has been pointed out by others. Here's why:

1. If it were correct, then it should not be possible to know the values of commuting observables precisely (position and spin, for example) either. But there is no limit there! The Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle (HUP) applies only to *non-commuting* observables.

2. The EPR argument hypothesized that you could "beat" the HUP using entangled particle pairs - measure the position precisely on one, measure the momentum precisely on the other. But experiments do not bear that hypothesis out. See Bell's Theorem. Basically, measuring momentum on one throws the other into an symmetric momentum eigenstate immediately. However, subsequent measurements of position will NOT yield symmetric values. So you didn't beat the HUP after all.

9. Originally Posted by Shaula
My opinion: same idea you keep presenting and having refuted redone as a slide

The laws are not different, you just don't really understand them and seem to be unwilling to listen to people's explanations.
Originally Posted by Strange
Your initial assumption that these different theories only apply at vastly different scales is wrong.

Relativity has to be taken into account when describing the universe or making measurements on Earth.

Quantum theory is required to fully describe everything from transistors to supermassive black holes.

QED (our most accurately tested theory. ever.) combines relativity and quantum mechanics.

So, once again, this idea just doesn't make any sense. It appears to be based on some fundamental misunderstandings of the relevant science. Maybe you need to spend a bit more time asking questions in the Q&A section of the forum.
I donīt say that laws are different...I mean that the general models (laws, math, basic physics, concepts, ...) are differnt in a general way....but it is clear that they have some relationship and links between them....

And I think that it is very clear !!!!!... You cannot deny it....

Also is very strange and confusing that at the scales limits....the models need very complex math to try to make consistents the models...

10. Originally Posted by dapifo
Also is very strange and confusing that at the scales limits....the models need very complex math to try to make consistents the models...
That has nothing to do with the scales. The universe is complex; it requires complex math to describe it (at any scale). Get over it.

11. Originally Posted by Strange
That has nothing to do with the scales. The universe is complex; it requires complex math to describe it (at any scale). Get over it.
Yes...at any scales... except Ours Scale that it is very easy of understand !!!!,, Newton, Euclides,....

12. Established Member
Join Date
Mar 2010
Location
United Kingdom
Posts
3,125
Yes...at any scales... except Ours Scale that it is very easy of understand !!!!,, Newton, Euclides,....
Show, using only Euclidean and Newtonian techniques, that the precession of Mercury's perihelion is consistent with your 'simple' physics.

The point I am trying to make is that at ALL scales there are simplifications you can make, easier to calculate theories. You seem to be taking this fact and reading too much into it.

13. dapifo that is more than enough showing off your lack of understanding of physics.
People are giving you very good answers to what you asked, however as they do not seem to fit in your preconceptions about how (in this case) the uncertainty principle should work, you just reject any reply that is given to you.
One more time and you will be infracted and thrown into ATM where you can prove "except Ours Scale that is easy to understand !!!!"

14. Originally Posted by dapifo
Donīt you have the feeling that the Universe around us is easily understood for those scales closest to us (10 ^-10 to 10^+10 meters)?: Classical Mechanics, Euclidean Geometry, Determinism, ...

But that it becomes more complicated as we move away from these scales?. And in a different way as we move towards negative or positive scales?:
We evolved brains to survive at the 10-3-103 meter scale, it shouldn't really be a surprise that's the bit that's easiest to understand.

15. Why we need different math and geometry models (Neumann, Dirac,...) to understand QM?

16. We don't really need them, but they're a way to present the problems simpler by mapping them over into a space that fit them better.

It's a common technique in physics of all kinds, not just QM.

17. Originally Posted by HenrikOlsen
We don't really need them, but they're a way to present the problems simpler by mapping them over into a space that fit them better.

It's a common technique in physics of all kinds, not just QM.
If Riemannian geometry is just a generalization of Euclidean geometry ...and Hilbert space is a generalization ofe Euclidian sapace concept...Then, there must be an General Maths model / Geometric Model for Euclid, Riemann and Hilbert together... (??)

18. Originally Posted by dapifo
If Riemannian geometry is just a generalization of Euclidean geometry ...and Hilbert space is a generalization ofe Euclidian sapace concept...Then, there must be an General Maths model / Geometric Model for Euclid, Riemann and Hilbert together... (??)
Not necessarily, Riemann and Hilbert geometries are defined by different sets of properties which must be true. Both sets or properties happen to hold for Euclidean geometry but there are no reason to expect a general Riemann space to also have the necessary properties to be a Hilbert space and vice versa..
This is why they can both be seen as generalizations, but they're generalized in different directions and expecting the existence of a unified model may not make sense.

19. Different tools for different jobs.

20. Originally Posted by Strange
Different tools for different jobs.
...And different scales?....

21. Originally Posted by HenrikOlsen
We evolved brains to survive at the 10-3-103 meter scale, it shouldn't really be a surprise that's the bit that's easiest to understand.
I agree wiyh you...our brain envolced to understand Our Scale (10^-6 to 10^+6 meters)... as much we move away of them...more dificult we have to understand everything....if we only consider the parameters that our brain understand !!!!.... we have to change our way of seeing and understanding the things...we have to think in another way....if not, we will not be able to underatand All The Universe !!!

22. Order of Kilopi
Join Date
Sep 2004
Posts
5,475
Originally Posted by dapifo
I agree wiyh you...our brain envolced to understand Our Scale (10^-6 to 10^+6 meters)... as much we move away of them...more dificult we have to understand everything....if we only consider the parameters that our brain understand !!!!.... we have to change our way of seeing and understanding the things...we have to think in another way....if not, we will not be able to underatand All The Universe !!!
so?

You dont seem to understand that the same theories apply at all scales. The fact that we are set up to see a small range of the possible scales dosent change that.

Also, it may be that you do not understand it, but that does not mean that others do not understand.

23. Established Member
Join Date
Mar 2010
Location
United Kingdom
Posts
3,125
we have to change our way of seeing and understanding the things
Not really. We have the tools and the methodology to ask questions outside the scales our brains are most familiar with. We do this regularly.

Do you consider your question answered? We seem to have moved to to another round of unsupported assertions based on a lack of knowledge of physics. If you have any more questions ask away, I am happy to take part in useful discussions. If you just want to keep saying that everything changes at different scales then I am out.

24. Originally Posted by dapifo
we have to think in another way....if not, we will not be able to underatand All The Universe !!!
We have developed another way, its called mathematics. This allows us to understand things that happen at scales beyond our understanding and that require more then 3 dimensions to describe.

The trouble is, all the things you say we should be doing are being done. You just don't understand them.

25. Ok...thank...Iīve learn a lot with your explanations.

I hope that my questions have give you also some idea or reflexion about.

Just last cosideration: Some times it seam like if you confuse scales with a far away position: It is not the same a scale of 10^+20 meters than a location of 10^+20 meters far away of us...

26. Originally Posted by dapifo
Ok...thank...Iīve learn a lot with your explanations.

I hope that my questions have give you also some idea or reflexion about.

Just last cosideration: Some times it seam like if you confuse scales with a far away position: It is not the same a scale of 10^+20 meters than a location of 10^+20 meters far away of us...
Are you saying we don't understand the difference between something with a diameter of 10^20 m and something that is 10^20 m away from us? That doesn't make a lot of sense.

For example....that weak or strong field iare governig also in the scales of 10^+20 meters... because they are important for black holes (???)... or in the Big-Bang !!!

OK...black holes are very far away (or not so much).....but they donīt have a diameter of 10^+20 meters !!!!

The influence of weak or strong fields for scales of 10^+20 meters is very few and almost nule ....isnīt it?

Some times is confusing...and is easy to do this mistake of confunde a diameter of 10^20 m and something that is 10^20 m away from us

28. I really don't think anyone confuses the two.

29. Nobody is making that confusion, except for you dapifo, which is probably caused by your lack of knowledge of physics and english not being your mother tongue.

30. Originally Posted by primummobile
I really don't think anyone confuses the two.
Originally Posted by tusenfem
Nobody is making that confusion, except for you dapifo, which is probably caused by your lack of knowledge of physics and english not being your mother tongue.
OK...just an example...http://cosmoquest.org/forum/showthre...40#post2049840

But do you agree with me that?:

- The influence of weak or strong fields for scales of 10^+20 meters is very few and almost nule ....isnīt it?
- And that the influence of Gravity field for scales of 10^-20 meters is also very few and almost nule ....isnīt it?

It seems that you donīt want to accept what is an evidence !!!
Last edited by dapifo; 2012-Aug-07 at 08:48 PM.

#### Posting Permissions

• You may not post new threads
• You may not post replies
• You may not post attachments
• You may not edit your posts
•