Drexel dragonThe Math ForumDonate to the Math Forum

Search All of the Math Forum:

Views expressed in these public forums are not endorsed by Drexel University or The Math Forum.

Math Forum » Discussions » sci.math.* » sci.math

Topic: Physicists prove Heisenberg's intuition correct
Replies: 5   Last Post: Nov 6, 2013 3:02 PM

Advanced Search

Back to Topic List Back to Topic List Jump to Tree View Jump to Tree View   Messages: [ Previous | Next ]
Tom Potter

Posts: 497
Registered: 8/9/06
Re: Physicists prove Heisenberg's intuition correct
Posted: Oct 24, 2013 12:02 AM
  Click to see the message monospaced in plain text Plain Text   Click to reply to this topic Reply

"Sam Wormley" <swormley1@gmail.com> wrote in message
> Physicists prove Heisenberg's intuition correct
>> http://phys.org/news/2013-10-physicists-heisenberg-intuition.html
>> An international team of scientists has provided proof of a key
>> feature of quantum physics - Heisenberg's error-disturbance relation
>> - more than 80 years after it was first suggested.

>> One of the basic concepts in the world of quantum mechanics is that
>> it is impossible to observe physical objects without affecting them
>> in a significant way; there can be no measurement without
>> disturbance.

>> In a paper in 1927, Werner Heisenberg, one of the architects of the
>> fundamental theories of modern physics, claimed that this fact could
>> be expressed as an uncertainty relation, describing a reciprocal
>> relation between the accuracy in position and the disturbance in
>> momentum. However, he did not supply any evidence for the theory
>> which was largely based on intuition.

>> Now Professor Paul Busch of the University of York, UK, Professor
>> Pekka Lahti of the University of Turku, Finland and Professor
>> Reinhard Werner of Leibniz Universität Hannover, Germany have finally
>> provided a precise formulation and proof of the error-disturbance
>> relation in an article published today in the journal Physical Review
>> Letters.

If the "heat death" of the universe is a fact,
this indicates that fundamental quanta is angular displacement,
and that ALL systems have internal "friction"
that diminishes the angular displacement input.

Bohr stated:

"Planck's constant enters only in the rules of commutation
pq - qp = i^(h/ (2 * pi))

holding for any set of conjugate
variables q and p."

1. A physical system has an input, an output,
and stores action by exchanging it between a static and a dynamic field.

If a system is LOSSY,
some of the angular displacement transferred through the system
is converted to heat and radiated EVENTUALLY to space.

2. Isolated and non-lossy systems
just sit there doing their thing.
[ Exchanging action between a static and a dynamic field.]

3. When a system interacts with another system,
the SOURCE [ Cause ] system gives up units of angular displacement,
and the SINK [ Effect ] system absorbs the units of angular displacement.

4. Physicists attempt to account for all of the angular displacement
from complex systems to the universal "heat sink" [space].

5. The "Uncertainty Principle"
come into play because
an observing a system can add or subtract one or more units
of angular displacement from a system being observed.

6. If the SINK system is non-lossy
[ A black hole, an infinite Q circuit, etc.]
it just absorbs the angular displacement.

7. The fundamental unit of angular displacement
is best modeled using "i", the square root of minus one,

The bottom line is that
the universe strives for x, y and z symmetry,

and from the two-dimensional electro-magnetic viewpoint,
as envisioned by Bohr and Heisenberg,
universal forces are striving for a perfect circle,
[ p's and q's with Planck's Constant uncertainty.]

and that engineers and scientist use complex conjugation
to model how a particular circle exists
with relationship to the heat sink that it is slave to.

Obviously the universal heat sink
is the ultimate heat sink,
and the universe strives for x, y and z symmetry, [Perfect spheres]
rather than just x and y. [ Perfect circles.]

The universe is hard at work,
making high places low,
and low places high.
[ Cut and fill]

If you want to get with the system,

if you are "high" follow LaoTzu,
and if you are "low" follow Timothy Leary.

Tom Potter


Point your RSS reader here for a feed of the latest messages in this topic.

[Privacy Policy] [Terms of Use]

© The Math Forum 1994-2015. All Rights Reserved.