0
$\begingroup$

Early on, it seems like Heisenberg's uncertainty principle was regarded as a principle of ignorance. That is, it says what's possible to measure or to know, rather than what actually is.

However, since its discovery, the uncertainty principle has predominately been interpreted as a principle of indeterminacy. That is, it's not just that we can't perfectly measure an electron's position, rather it's that the electron doesn't have an exact position.

Is the original epistemological interpretation still valid, or are there other reasons to believe that quantum properties are really indeterminate, i.t. not just unknowable?

Improve this question
$\endgroup$
5
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Possible duplicates: physics.stackexchange.com/q/24068/2451 , physics.stackexchange.com/q/54184/2451 , physics.stackexchange.com/q/114133/2451 and links therein. $\endgroup$
    – Qmechanic ♦
    Commented Dec 23, 2017 at 17:09
  • 5
    $\begingroup$ What's the scientific difference between indeterminate and unknowable? $\endgroup$
    – DanielSank
    Commented Dec 23, 2017 at 17:20
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ Violation of the Bell inequality strongly suggests that things are in fact indeterminate. $\endgroup$
    – noah
    Commented Dec 23, 2017 at 17:23
  • 4
    $\begingroup$ That is, it's not just that we can't perfectly measure an electron's position, rather it's that the electron doesn't have an exact position. You can measure an electron's position, and it is possible for an electron to have an exact position. The Heisenberg uncertainty principle places a bound on $\Delta x\Delta p$, not on $\Delta x$. $\endgroup$
    – user4552
    Commented Dec 23, 2017 at 17:53
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ The early development of quantum mechanics was quite hand-wavy, in the sense that a consistent, logical, and rigorous framework had yet to be worked out. The idea that the uncertainty principle corresponds to ignorance rather than to indeterminacy is a semi-classical notion which has since been corrected. $\endgroup$
    – J. Murray
    Commented Dec 23, 2017 at 17:58

1 Answer 1

Reset to default
-1
$\begingroup$

See the answer to your question is that they are indeterminable. For you see, to determine something you need to see it although we know (by its effects) that they are indeed present. So knowing that something is there is certain and determining it is not. It's our primitiveness that we can "see" something by when the electromagnetic waves in the visible region interact with it. Basically if photons interact. And also that quantum particles have range so small that their interactions with photons makes them vulnerable to detection. Now the point of matter is that what Heisenberg's uncertainty principle explains is that we cannot see it but yes, if in future we make for ourselves such devices which can produce sensation of viewing through other "virtual photons" we will definitely be able to figure out what's going on "in" there...!

Improve this answer
$\endgroup$
1
  • 5
    $\begingroup$ " if in future we make for ourselves such devices which can produce sensation of viewing through other "virtual photons" we will definitely be able to figure out what's going on "in" there...!" this is wrong. In physics models as we knowat present there is no way of finding a deterministic system that reproduces the wavefunctions and corresponding probabilities . the underlying framework of nature is probabilistic is a basic postulate and all experimental measurements validate it. $\endgroup$
    – anna v
    Commented Dec 23, 2017 at 18:46

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service and acknowledge you have read our privacy policy.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.