Certainty Gain by Uncertainty Power?

In summary: Those are the sorts of things where you can measure momentum and position very precisely. But down at the level of subatomic particles, you're not really measuring things that accurately.
  • #1
Antonio Lao
1,440
1
One form of the Uncertainty Principle is given by [itex] \Delta p \Delta q \geq h[/itex] where [itex] \Delta p [/itex] is the change in momentum and [itex] \Delta q [/itex] is the change in position and h is Planck's constant. If both side of the inequality is raise to the power n, does the new inequality expresses more certainty? Can we say that certainty is directly proportional to n? As n increases so is the certainty.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
The reverse can also be true, as n decreases, the uncertainty increases.
 
  • #3
Just trying to follow your thinking...


http://230nsc1.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/imgmod2/unccon.gif


This is a very significant physical result because it tells us that the energy of a system described by a harmonic oscillator potential cannot have zero energy. Physical systems such as atoms in a solid lattice or in polyatomic molecules in a gas cannot have zero energy even at absolute zero temperature. The energy of the ground vibrational state is often referred to as "zero point vibration". The zero point energy is sufficient to prevent liquid helium-4 from freezing at atmospheric pressure, no matter how low the temperature.



http://230nsc1.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/quantum/hosc4.html#c1


Is there another way to look at this? It made me think of something else here.


it turns out that within string theory ... there is actually an identification, we believe, between the very tiny and the very huge. So it turns out that if you, for instance, take a dimension - imagine its in a circle, imagine its really huge - and then you make it smaller and smaller and smaller, the equations tell us that if you make it smaller than a certain length (its about 10-33 centimeters, the so called 'Planck Length') ... its exactly identical, from the point of view of physical properties, as making the circle larger. So you're trying to squeeze it smaller, but actually in reality your efforts are being turned around by the theory and you're actually making the dimension larger. So in some sense, if you try to squeeze it all the way down to zero size, it would be the same as making it infinitely big. ... (CSPAN Archives Videotape #125054)
 
Last edited:
  • #4
The other form of the Uncertainty Principle is given by [itex] \Delta E \Delta t \geq h [/itex] where [itex] \Delta E [/itex] is the change in energy and [itex] \Delta t [/itex] is the change in time. So by the power of uncertainty, the square of energy is more deterministic than just plain energy.
 
  • #5
But what is the physical meaning of the square of [itex] \Delta t [/itex]? This seems to be a component of spacetime ([itex] dt^2[/itex]) of [itex] ds^2 = dx^2+dy^2+dz^2 - c^2dt^2[/itex]
 
Last edited:
  • #6
It is very important not to misunderstand Heisenberg's uncertainty principle. From a quick google search I see that this was possibly something even the great man himself was guilty of:

http://www.tardyon.de/heisen.htm

The most important bit from that page is:
Before going into Bohr's analysis of the uncertainty principle, two points should be made clear. First, the mathematical formalism expressing relationships encompassed by the "uncertainty principle" are straight forward deductive consequences of the quantum postulate. All too often, discussions of the principle begin with a series of thought experiments intended to demonstrate that observations which determine the value of one observable within a certain range require physical conditions which preclude determining its canonically conjugate observable within a range that would contradict the uncertainty principle.

It is then easy to get the mistaken impression that the principle expresses an empirical generalization derived from analyzing physical situations and that such a presumed empirical discovery is then injected as a postulate into the theoretical formalism. However, this is not the case. Heisenberg first developed his formalism for theoretical representation of the atomic system processes, and then showed that the consequence of his formalism was that the system could not be characterized by a state which was defined in terms of precise values for both canonically conjugate parameters.

The Heisenberg uncertainty principle is a very strong statement about the mathematical properties of wavefunctions which are a direct consequence of the QM postulates.

The uncertainty relation is a strict lower bound of the product of observables [itex]\Delta p[/itex] and [itex]\Delta x[/itex] which are defined by

[itex]
\Delta A = \sqrt{\langle A^2 \rangle - \langle A \rangle ^2}
[/itex]

where [itex] \langle A\rangle[/itex] is the expectation value of the observable A.

[itex]
\langle A \rangle = \langle \phi | A | \phi \rangle
[/itex]

So you must think very carefully before interpreting it.

Matt
 
  • #7
Matt,

Why is macroscopic phenomena much more deterministic than its microscopic counterparts? Both momentum and position (energy and time) can be accurately detected as in the predictions of planetary orbits.
 
  • #8
Antonio Lao said:
Why is macroscopic phenomena much more deterministic than its microscopic counterparts? Both momentum and position (energy and time) can be accurately detected as in the predictions of planetary orbits.

It's a question of accuracy. The sort of scales where you really notice the Heisenberg uncertainty principle are very much smaller than anything considered when predicting planetary orbits. Thanks to quantum coherence (or rather the lack of) we see very little quantum 'weirdness' at macroscopic scales.

And then again, sometimes you do. I have seen a very handwavy argument saying that the Heisenberg principle can be used to understand why materials have a refractive index larger than 1. Of course I don't really believe it as it is a very poor argument, but it does indicate how these odd effects manifest themselves into our macroscopic world. In fact, the reason glass is transparent at all (at certain frequencies) is purely quantum mecanical.

Matt
 
  • #9
baffledMatt,

The uncertainty is removed by the mere act of taking the power of it. The products of conjugate variables is more certain than just the conjugate variables by themselves. In statistics, the square of the variance can make a lot of sense for finding the mean and standard deviation of all measurements.

Fermat's theorem and the Pythagorean theorem works great for square of numbers. The power of square of something cannot be taken lightly. It must be taken vigorously and aggressively. The power of area principle as in the theory of surfaces is what makes mathematics such a useful knowledge for understanding many physical realities.
 
  • #10
Matrices are a way of defining what a surface is and is based on the power of two (dimensions) from the area priniple.
 
  • #11
Antonio Lao said:
The products of conjugate variables is more certain

Sorry, could you define what you mean by this? And also explain exactly how this removes the uncertainty, because I'm not sure I follow.

In statistics, the square of the variance can make a lot of sense for finding the mean and standard deviation of all measurements.

Well, the square root of the variance is the standard deviation so I would imagine calculating it is very useful indeed. I'm not sure how it gives you the mean though.

The power of area principle as in the theory of surfaces is what makes mathematics such a useful knowledge for understanding many physical realities.

Now this I definitely was unaware of. Do you have any simple examples, or know of any good (simple!) references?

Matrices are a way of defining what a surface is and is based on the power of two (dimensions) from the area priniple.

This too.

BTW, those last two comments are not meant as criticisms. I am genuinly interested.

Matt
 
  • #12
I have to postpone because of previously scheduled engagement. I'll get back to you.
 
  • #13
Watching from the sidelines and learning:)
 
  • #14
once more antonio, you aren't looking at it in any meaningful sense. so what if raising some number to some power makes it smaller. what on Earth does that have to fdo with anything meaningul.

the uncertainty principle is a simple consequance of certain analytic properties of integrals, nothing more important than that.
 
  • #15
Gentlemen,

I am still looking for the subtle connection between integral and the area principle (sum of products of a function and an infinitesimal). If I can find this link then it can clearly show you the power of 2.

The area principle is the product of two quantities, say, A and B. A and B can be functions, numbers, complex number, hypercomplex numbers.
 
  • #16
baffledMatt,

baffledMatt said:
I'm not sure how it gives you the mean though.

Which come first, the chicken or the egg? the variance or the mean?

The variance [itex] \sigma^2[/itex] is given by the expectation of the square of the difference between a random variable X and the mean [itex]\mu[/itex].

[tex] \sigma^2=E(X- \mu )^2 = E(X^2) - \mu^2[/tex]

[tex] \mu^2= E(X^2) - \sigma^2[/tex]

Here,again, we can notice the power of two doing its miracle!
 
Last edited:
  • #17
matt grime,

matt grime said:
once more antonio, you aren't looking at it in any meaningful sense. so what if raising some number to some power makes it smaller. what on Earth does that have to fdo with anything meaningul.

I am searching for the physical meaning. When I find it, I'll let you know. If you can convince me that this is a lost cause, I will stopped my search.
 
  • #18
Antonio Lao said:
Which come first, the chicken or the egg? the variance or the mean?
The variance [itex] \sigma^2[/itex] is given by the expectation of the square of the difference between a random variable X and the mean [itex]\mu[/itex].

[tex] \sigma^2=E(X- \mu )^2 = E(X^2) - \mu^2[/tex]

[tex] \mu^2= E(X^2) - \sigma^2[/tex]

Ok, fair point.

Here,again, we can notice the power of two doing its miracle!

To quote the Dude:
"Well, that's just, like, your opinion man".
What you have described could also be interpreted as the fact that we can rearrange the equations for cumulants of a distribution ([itex]\sigma^2[/itex] is the second cumulant). However, far be it from me to begrudge you an admiration of the power two - as to some extent I agree with you - so I won't labour the point.

Matt
 
  • #19
baffledMatt,

Maybe what follow are not good ways for me in trying to convince myself or other about the power of two but just to show you what I'm doing by the use of some algebraic expressions.

[tex] x^2 - 1^2 = (x - 1)(x + 1) [/tex]

[tex] x^2 + 1^2 = 2 [/tex]
 
  • #20
Is this relevant?

You could choose physical units such that h>1. Then raising it to a power greater than one would result in a larger number rather than a smaller number.
 
  • #21
Squaring a function is basically a type of integration, finding the area of a function, etc.

derivative[e^x] = e^x

antiderivative[e^x] = e^x + C

If C = 0, then derivative[e^x] = integral/antiderivative[e^x]

So is it possible to express the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle in terms of infinitely differentiable functions, and could it tell us anything ?
 
  • #22
Antonio Lao said:
Maybe what follow are not good ways for me in trying to convince myself or other about the power of two but just to show you what I'm doing by the use of some algebraic expressions.

[tex] x^2 - 1^2 = (x - 1)(x + 1) [/tex]

[tex] x^2 + 1^2 = 2 [/tex]


Interesting...

Which is more fundamental? Product or sum?

A + B = C is really a product.

A + B = [A^(1/2)+i*B^(1/2)]*[A^(1/2)-i*B^(1/2)] = C
 
  • #23
Antonio Lao said:
matt grime,



I am searching for the physical meaning. When I find it, I'll let you know. If you can convince me that this is a lost cause, I will stopped my search.

but you are evidently an uneducated crank, if you can even begin to explain what the hell iti s you mean to understand you'll be half way to gettin an answer
 
  • #24
matt grime,

Crank or not, I want to understand the true physical meaning of mass and electric charge. Can you convince me this is a lost cause?
 
  • #25
Janitor,

I really don't think physical constants of nature (e.g. Planck's constant) can be chosen at will. You knew there are a lot of these constants according to the Anthropic Cosmological Principle.

If you change one, you have to change them all!
 
Last edited:
  • #26
Is

[itex] x^2 - 1^2 \equiv 1^2 - x^2 [/itex]?

for all value of x between neg and pos infinity.
 
  • #27
Antonio Lao said:
Is

[itex] x^2 - 1^2 \equiv 1^2 - x^2 [/itex]?

for all value of x between neg and pos infinity.

as one is minus the other, they are only equivalent mod 2, though presumably you are working in the reals, when they are definitely not equivalent as letting x be any other number than +/-1 shows.

earlier you also wrote X^2+1=2, ie x=+/-1 again.
 
  • #28
matt grime said:
they are only equivalent mod 2

Thanks. Could you explain further the above?
 
  • #29
Hello Antonio.

You seemed to be saying that squaring h leads to something smaller, if I understood you. In units of joule-seconds, h=6.626 x 10^-34.

In units of femtojoule-femtoseconds (femto being 10^-15), h=6.626 x 10^-4.

If I knew Greek (?) better, I could tell you what the prefix is for 10^-18. Since I don't know what it is, allow me to call it a 'gomer.' Then in units of gomerjoule-gomerseconds, h=626. Obviously if you square 626, you get a larger number, 391,876, where now you are in units of (gomerjoule-gomerseconds) squared.

My apologies if this has nothing to do with your line of thought.
 
  • #30
Janitor,

I am looking for the physical meaning of [itex] h^2[/itex]. We agree that the number is smaller but can it means also that the uncertainty is lesser? If h is raised to the fractional power then the result is a bigger number than h.

Oh another thing, how would you make a dimensionless number such as the fine structure constant ([itex] \frac {1}{137}[/itex]) bigger or smaller?

Maybe what you did above is called rescaling. I think, there are things in physics that are not scalable. I can not give an example at the moment.
 
Last edited:
  • #31
We agree that the number is smaller but can it means also that the uncertainty is lesser? - Antonio

Actually, my point is that the number is only smaller if you choose units in which h<1. But there is nothing profound about choice of units, is there? Units in which h>1 are just as acceptable.
 
  • #32
If your choice of unit is the same as a scale factor then there is big different. Given an area A and a scale factor s, the new area is given by [itex] s^2A[/itex]. If s is smaller (s < 1) the new area is smaller. Bigger s (s > 1), bigger area.

The unit of h is actually angular momentum. So by squaring h we are actually gettting something square of angular momentum. What I want to know is what's the physical meaning of square of angular momentum? Somebody, maybe it was Russell, said that product is the same as addition (integration) if some logarithmic (exponential) function is involved like [itex] e^x[/itex].
 
Last edited:
  • #33
Antonio,

I don't have any useful thoughts at the moment on the issue of "how would you make a dimensionless number such as the fine structure constant bigger or smaller?" or "what's the physical meaning of square of angular momentum?"

To keep hammering away at my point, how would you critique this discussion between Peter and Paul?

Peter: "The mass of the Earth is really huge. It is 6 x 10^24 kg. When you square that, you get an even bigger number."

Paul: "On the contrary, the mass of the Earth is small. It is only 7 x 10^-7 in units of solar mass. When you square that, you get an even tinier number."

It seems to me that Peter and Paul are both misguided in thinking that the mass of the Earth can be fundamentally classified as either "big" or as "small."
 
  • #34
Janitor,

You got a good point. Yours looks like reasoning behind the relativity of number among fractions and whole numbers.

A physical law with this kind of relativeness is the Law of Universal Gravitation.

[tex] F = G \frac{m_1 m_2}{R^2} [/tex]

and Coulomb law

[tex] F = K \frac{q_1 q_2}{R^2}[/tex]

This gravity force is effective, I think, whenever there is disparity in the mass (m1 >>> m2 , vice versa) or charge.

When m1=m2 such as the structure of a positronium, I cannot understand how the forces of gravity and electricity keep the electron and postiron apart (without crushing into each other)? What is it that keeps them apart? What force?
__________

The other is relativeness of viewing distances. The moon appears the size of my fist when I extend toward it because the fist is much nearer to me than the moon.
 
  • #35
re mod 2

Antonio Lao said:
Thanks. Could you explain further the above?


you wish fo A to be equivalent to -A, presuming you mean in some arithmetical sense, that implies 2A=0, thus you are in a field of characeristic 2, or similar
 
<h2>1. What is "Certainty Gain by Uncertainty Power?"</h2><p>"Certainty Gain by Uncertainty Power" refers to the concept of gaining more certainty or confidence in a scientific conclusion or theory by actively seeking out and addressing uncertainties or unknown factors. This approach involves acknowledging and analyzing potential uncertainties and using them to refine and strengthen the overall conclusion.</p><h2>2. Why is it important to consider uncertainties in scientific research?</h2><p>Considering uncertainties in scientific research is important because it allows for a more comprehensive and accurate understanding of a particular phenomenon or theory. Ignoring uncertainties can lead to biased or incomplete conclusions, while actively addressing them can lead to more robust and reliable findings.</p><h2>3. How can scientists incorporate "Certainty Gain by Uncertainty Power" in their research?</h2><p>Scientists can incorporate "Certainty Gain by Uncertainty Power" in their research by actively seeking out and addressing potential uncertainties through methods such as sensitivity analysis, uncertainty quantification, and model validation. This can involve conducting additional experiments, gathering more data, or adjusting models to better account for uncertainties.</p><h2>4. What are some potential challenges in implementing "Certainty Gain by Uncertainty Power"?</h2><p>Some potential challenges in implementing "Certainty Gain by Uncertainty Power" include the time and resources required to address uncertainties, the complexity of some uncertainties, and the potential for conflicting or inconclusive results. Additionally, there may be resistance to incorporating uncertainties in research if it goes against established beliefs or theories.</p><h2>5. How can "Certainty Gain by Uncertainty Power" benefit the scientific community?</h2><p>"Certainty Gain by Uncertainty Power" can benefit the scientific community by promoting more rigorous and transparent research practices, leading to more reliable and robust scientific conclusions. It can also help identify areas where further research is needed and potentially lead to new discoveries or advancements in various fields of study.</p>

1. What is "Certainty Gain by Uncertainty Power?"

"Certainty Gain by Uncertainty Power" refers to the concept of gaining more certainty or confidence in a scientific conclusion or theory by actively seeking out and addressing uncertainties or unknown factors. This approach involves acknowledging and analyzing potential uncertainties and using them to refine and strengthen the overall conclusion.

2. Why is it important to consider uncertainties in scientific research?

Considering uncertainties in scientific research is important because it allows for a more comprehensive and accurate understanding of a particular phenomenon or theory. Ignoring uncertainties can lead to biased or incomplete conclusions, while actively addressing them can lead to more robust and reliable findings.

3. How can scientists incorporate "Certainty Gain by Uncertainty Power" in their research?

Scientists can incorporate "Certainty Gain by Uncertainty Power" in their research by actively seeking out and addressing potential uncertainties through methods such as sensitivity analysis, uncertainty quantification, and model validation. This can involve conducting additional experiments, gathering more data, or adjusting models to better account for uncertainties.

4. What are some potential challenges in implementing "Certainty Gain by Uncertainty Power"?

Some potential challenges in implementing "Certainty Gain by Uncertainty Power" include the time and resources required to address uncertainties, the complexity of some uncertainties, and the potential for conflicting or inconclusive results. Additionally, there may be resistance to incorporating uncertainties in research if it goes against established beliefs or theories.

5. How can "Certainty Gain by Uncertainty Power" benefit the scientific community?

"Certainty Gain by Uncertainty Power" can benefit the scientific community by promoting more rigorous and transparent research practices, leading to more reliable and robust scientific conclusions. It can also help identify areas where further research is needed and potentially lead to new discoveries or advancements in various fields of study.

Similar threads

Replies
10
Views
1K
  • Quantum Physics
Replies
20
Views
3K
Replies
6
Views
1K
  • Quantum Physics
Replies
1
Views
786
Replies
2
Views
1K
Replies
6
Views
215
  • Quantum Interpretations and Foundations
2
Replies
37
Views
3K
Replies
9
Views
2K
Replies
3
Views
446
  • Quantum Physics
Replies
4
Views
735
Back
Top