[CraigS]

Thanks Steven;
I don't necessarily see that any of these 'violate' the Uncertainty principle. I don't think any of them do, as they all seem to make use of indirect measurements.
The observation I'm querying here is that the Uncertainty Principle was for many years, an absolute in QM. These researches don't seem to accept it as such, and in fact are using it as a challenge to push measurement technologies beyond any perceived limits.
If this is an accurate observation, then I'm left wondering what purpose does the Uncertainty principle serve in doing this research ?

Originally Posted by sjastro

They not measuring a shape. What they are trying to do is measure an electron's dipole moment. The more distorted the shape, the greater the dipole moment. If an electron is perfectly spherical the electron dipole moment is zero.

Yep .. fair enough .. the Scientific American article says that an electron actually drags a cloud of virtual particles around. As the electron whizzes around, it drags this particle cloud, which ultimately results in an imbalance of the dipole magnetic moment. (It seems the cloud is considered to be part of the 'electron'). If they find this cloud is deformed, then they say …

The discovery would show that time is fundamentally asymmetrical, and could prompt an overhaul of the 'standard model' of particle physics.

… so, there are a few caveats in there, and until they can uncover the asymmetry, all is good, but my point is that the absoluteness of the Uncertainty principle is clearly not serving as a deterrent factor for these researchers. So what role is it serving in this case ?

Originally Posted by sjastro

Hmmm if the size of the crystal is greater than it's Compton wavelength, then the measurements are entirely predictable and not quantum mechanical.

They seem to be careful in pointing out that the vibrations they're measuring are at the atomic level and are independent of the crystal lattice (??)

Originally Posted by sjastro

Interestingly enough the reasercher's themselves are not claiming to violate the uncertainty principle.

Yep and that point should be made very clear, also.

Originally Posted by sjastro

What the experiment does challenge is the Copenhagen interpretation of QM, where a wavefunction collapses when a measurement is performed.

Hmmm … so there's 'interpretation' of QM coming into this ? Does this mean that the Uncertainty principle is also an interpretation of something ? I'm not challenging the Uncertainty principle here .. I'm really just challenging my understanding of it and other such principles in QM, as well as the role it plays in guiding research.

There's nothing 'wrong' with QM … there's only (as always) something wrong with my understanding.

Cheers