294 reputation
218
bio website ericmenze.com
location Minneapolis, MN
age 29
visits member for 1 year, 11 months
seen 12 hours ago

I'm a Computer (Web) Programmer/Analyst based in Anchorage, AK and Minneapolis, MN. I use (among other things) ASP.NET, C# and SQL Server.

I build things. Bicycles, computers, websites, guitars, cars, motorcycles, sound sytems... lots of things.


Sep
6
comment Could the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle turn out to be false?
We can't prove Zeus doesn't exist, yet we don't accept his existence because of this. An idea shouldn't have to be 'debunked' to have a healthy amount of doubt in it, yet the wave formulation representing all particles, everywhere, at all times and locations seems to be presented 'beyond doubt' - so why is it stated with such certainty about unknowability and when challenged, the opposition gives in without so much as a mention?
Sep
6
comment Could the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle turn out to be false?
This was rather helpful, so I appreciate it. I'm still just having difficulty wrestling with unknowability in relation to this; for example if we ever found a way to arrest a particle completely; we'd know it's position and momentum (0) both at the same time, and while it violated HUP, it could just be said 'this particle cannot be represented by a wavefunction.' The reach of the HUP seems to include this though, with no provisions, and just be accepted so OBVIOUSLY you can't stop a particle. Would we just say the particle is classical in that instance?
Sep
6
comment Could the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle turn out to be false?
No, do you have one that you recommend?
Sep
6
comment Could the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle turn out to be false?
So just accept it as true until it's proven wrong? Sounds like the Flying Spaghetti Monster argument. And why does it need to be 100% right or completely wrong? Special relativity didn't 'prove Newton wrong,' it just improved the accuracy of the equations when measuring things Newton could not possibly have measured.
Sep
6
comment Could the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle turn out to be false?
It's a mathematical fact IF the particle can indeed be wholly represented by that specific function, right? So in the entanglement experiment, perhaps that function does not represent the state of TWO entangled particles? Maybe we have entanglement wrong, or maybe that function does not represent particles in certain conditions? Why are these possibilities not even discussed?
Sep
6
comment Could the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle turn out to be false?
Not really. Bombarding it with photons are distinct events; surrounding it by a machine that is sensitive to the gravitation inside of it would only exert the same gravity that any other matter around it would, and if done as stated in my hypothetical, would not alter the position or momentum in any way once the particle has settled inside the machine.
Sep
6
comment Could the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle turn out to be false?
Then why is there not a third option in the EPR Paradox as quoted above, in the entanglement setup, you just get to know the momentum of particle A and position of particle B, thereby beating the HUP? It's just taken off the table as an option, and I'm not sure why?
Sep
6
comment Could the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle turn out to be false?
I want to know what evidence there is to support this, even in the case of such a hypothetical machine.
Sep
6
comment Could the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle turn out to be false?
I think that's just the observer effect, described in another answer, and I can beat that by hypothesyzing a future race that has developed a gravitational particle-position-and-momentum sensor machine, which does not use photons or interact with the particle in any way that would change the position or momentum (a read only sensor). Even in this case, the HUP says they CANNOT be known simultaneously.
Sep
6
revised Could the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle turn out to be false?
Added an example from the EPR Paradox
Sep
6
comment Could the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle turn out to be false?
So how do we know that all particles have a non-commuting relationship, always and forever, under all conditions, even the ones we aren't able to measure or with technology or knowledge we don't yet possess?
Sep
6
comment Could the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle turn out to be false?
How about saying x and p are a pair of fourier transforms USUALLY, but not in certain circumstances such as {inside a black hole, at absolute zero, under certain entanglement experiments, in a zero rest energy universe, etc.} How do we know that because QM is right USUALLY or from what we can observe, that it is right ALWAYS and FOREVER?
Sep
6
awarded  Promoter
Sep
6
revised Could the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle turn out to be false?
Clarified my question
Aug
19
comment How does gravity escape a black hole?
Could you provide a link to the lecture?
Aug
17
comment What would be likely to completely stop a subatomic particle assuming it was possible?
I don't. One of the claims I don't make is that it is impossible that my grandfather was not a sperm in a lab tube. The claim of the uncertainty principle is that it is true with absolute certainty, everywhere, at all times and under all conditions; even ones we haven't observed (like a particle at absolute zero). It would be wise to doubt anyone that claims certainty about the birth of their grand grand fathers. Why is it not wise to doubt the uncertainty principle's claims to perfect adherence, everywhere at all times?
Aug
17
comment What would be likely to completely stop a subatomic particle assuming it was possible?
Then how do we know, beyond a doubt, that particles must adhere to the wavefunction that we say it has to, under all conditions everywhere, even when we have never seen a particle at absolute zero, nor observed matter inside a black hole, or lots of places in the universe? Where's the support for this claim? Why is it that we're comfortable saying things like 'spacetime breaks down inside a black hole' and not comfortable saying 'the uncertainty principle breaks down at absolute zero'?
Aug
17
comment What would be likely to completely stop a subatomic particle assuming it was possible?
And what is it that makes you so certain that this is not the world we live in in certain regions and certain conditions? What if QM is correct for non-absolute zero particles only? Is that so hard to imagine in our current universe? For that matter, what if the uncertainty principle were false, but everything else about QM still worked. Would it not be QM anymore? QM can't even exist without the HUP?
Aug
17
comment What would be likely to completely stop a subatomic particle assuming it was possible?
Why couldn't the position be measured? I get the momentum is now known (0), as so the particle can now be anywhere in the universe? WHAT IF we stopped it, and then (somehow) measured the position. The uncertainty principle would no longer hold for absolute zero, right?
Aug
16
comment What would be likely to completely stop a subatomic particle assuming it was possible?
What are delta(x) and delta(p)? Does this mean the position and momentum can both be known, in direct conflict with the uncertainty principle?