Uncertainty

[CraigS]

Originally Posted by Ernest Wilson

It may be that the explanation of Quantum Mechanics might have been superseded and that "Uncertainty " is not a Principle.

I see no evidence that the explanation of QM might have been superseded.
The Uncertainty Principle is a tenet upon which QM Theory is built. If QM requires an explanation, then The Uncertainty Principle is a key part of that.

If you are questioning QM Theory you should research for evidence that QM Theory has been successfully re-inforced time, and time again as a productive tool. It is directly or indirectly responsible for producing technologies upon which we all depend. Your computer wouldn't be there if QM Theory couldn't be made to work by humanity. Your life may someday depend on QM theory, being interpreted by others, to save it.

Uncertainty may not be a principle you subscribe to, but hey … the universe doesn't care about anyone's beliefs.

Originally Posted by Ernest Wilson

However, a lucid explanation seems still to be wanting.

Wanting for what purpose ?

Originally Posted by Ernest Wilson

From the little I know, mathematics provides the key to predicting the results of "Wave"- "Particle" experiments. It is the interpretation of those results that invokes "Uncertainty", not the result of the experiments.

So what ?
What is your explanation of those experimental results ?

Cheers

[CraigS]

Ok … I've just watched the excellent BBC Doco referred to by Bert, (and presented by Jim Al-Khalili … of the awesome BBC Doco: "The Secret Life of Chaos").

It seems that my thinking, on this topic, fits into the same bin as cited by Al-Khalili … ie: the somewhat impolitely stated: "Shut up while you calculate" category.

For those who haven't seen the doco, what this means is that our interpretations of experimental results in Science, are far outweighed in value, by the translation of them into something useful which can serve humanity. This should not necessarily be to the exclusion of the interpretations, (or stories), we invent about what it all means, but these 'stories' should take a 'backseat' to the quest of making something useful of it all.

The ultimate 'truth' about what constitutes the real nature of the universe will, forever, be beyond our grasp (by definition). The 'dream' of disproving this however, seems irresistable for humans.

Gotta keep interpretations separate from the translations though … this is crucial and yet seemingly, very difficult for many on the internet thesedays.

Interesting that all of these views have been expressed, in some form or another, in this discussion, right here.

Thanks for the heads-up on the doco, Bert .. another 'nugget of BBC gold'.

Cheers

[Archy (George)]

Originally Posted by renormalised

I would suggest to you to forget about trying to figure out something you clearly don't have the capacity to understand. Several of us have tried to explain to you in simple terms what is meant by the Uncertainty Principle, why and how it's applied and a simple explanation of the underlying physics. It would be pointless of us to try and go any further if it appears, as it seems, that you still don't get it.

That documentary, which I have seen before, in no way invalidates anything about QM, least of all uncertainty.

If you have trouble with the nuts an bolts of it all, don't mess with the metaphysics of QM...you'll get totally lost and even more confused.

Don't you think your language is arrogant? Who are you to say to someone else "forget about trying to figure out something you clearly don't have the capacity to understand."

[renormalised (Carl)]

Originally Posted by Archy

Don't you think your language is arrogant? Who are you to say to someone else "forget about trying to figure out something you clearly don't have the capacity to understand."

No, it's matter of fact. If after trying to explain something in simple terms to someone, they still don't understand what you're trying to explain to them, then what is the point of going on with the subject. They obviously don't have the capacity to understand the science or the description of that science, so why would it be necessary for them to confuse themselves even more by trying to wade through it. Some people can do things and other things they can't. Some have an aptitude for science, some don't. Some are great pilots, others you would even step in an elevator with.

And who am I to say something like that....someone with several degrees, including a masters degree in astrophysics and 20 years experience as a geologist. As well as part time/casual teaching in geology and astronomy. Soon I'll be starting a PhD (with a bit of luck) in astrophysics and going onto full time research/teaching.

[Zaps]

It's uncommon to find somebody who "can't" understand science. Usually they just can't be bothered to understand it, or actively resist understanding. And many times those who congratulate themselves for their level and depth of understanding are often grossly overestimating their abilities.

[bojan]

Originally Posted by Zaps

It's uncommon to find somebody who "can't" understand science. Usually they just can't be bothered to understand it, or actively resist understanding. ......

I agree with this.
However, the role of the people who do understand science and are in position to provide correct explanations is to do it in acceptable form.. the number of attempts is not important, however frustrating it may be for some individuals.
But what is even more important is to understand that usually people who don't understand science are the ones who are paying scientists (or authorise payments in this or that form - politicians for example... or just ordinary taxpayers).
To drive those people even further away from proper understanding of science might prove to be a straight shot in the foot.

[CraigS]

Originally Posted by bojan

But what is even more important is to understand that usually people who don't understand science are the ones who are paying scientists (or authorise payments in this or that form - politicians for example... or just ordinary taxpayers).

A symbiotic relationship. It works both ways. Those authorising payments understand the value science brings .. even if they don't understand the science.

In this case, we have no acknowledgement of any value so far generated by value-laden answers .. only:

i) judgements about the scientific process ie: "Uncertainty" is not a Principle and;
ii) vague judgements based on expectation ie: "a lucid explanation seems still to be wanting".

I remain open-minded, but I'm starting to get a distinct whiff of anti-science sentiment.

Cheers

[xelasnave]

This has been an excellent thread. It is so exciting to see these discussions and I am sure they are of great benefit to so many who follow the stuff herein.

It is interesting to note that the term and concept of a photon is not yet 100 years old and we are particularly fortunate to be within a generation or two of so many of the developments of physics in general.

Although we think of a photon as a single unit I have no doubt that its makeup will be found to be of a complexity we currently can not entertain as possible.

We talk about a photon as being a wave and a particle when we should be saying that a photon can be observed and in so doing it exhibits characterists of a wave and or a particle... yet I suspect a photon is neither a wave or a particle in the sence we use to describe it... thankfully our observations nevertheless tell us something but it would be prudent to refrain from the arrogance of an assumption that the subject is closed and we know all we will ever know about a photons behaviour or indeed the behaviour of the whole particle family.

It is interesting that in a particle form the uncertainty principle is observed.. I am sure it was Suskin who said similar behaviour would be observed in a bowling ball but on a smaller scale... scale appears to effect behaviour but not the principle.

Anyways great thread.
It is a priveldge to be able to read everyones thoughts and understandings.

alex
n

[bojan]

Originally Posted by CraigS

Those authorising payments understand the value science brings .. even if they don't understand the science.

NASA is just one of the first in a series of collateral victims of people who don't understand science but control money ("is this 'science' something you can eat?").. others will follow, unfortunately.
At the same time we have introduction of "Creationism" in some of the primary schools in US (or is this still on the drawing board? - in the name of "free choice".. probably some pople are thinking of the same here in Oz), setting the stage for more things to come when the affected generations come of age.

[CraigS]

Originally Posted by bojan

NASA is just one of the first in a series of collateral victims of people who don't understand science but control money ("is this science something you can eat?").. others will follow, unfortunately.

On the latest NASA/JWST appropriations bill, Phil Plait says …

as I understand it, the bill will get out of the subcommittee today and probably go to the full Appropriations Committee next Wednesday {yesterday, Oz time}. The Senate will create its own version, and then the two bills will have to be reconciled before going to the President to sign. Canceling JWST may just be saber-rattling, but either way contacting your Rep is a good idea. We have a long way to go here; this is just the opening salvo.

.. It ain't over yet !
NASA has had it pretty good for a long while. Everyone has to tighten their belts at some time … its part of growing up !

At the same time we have introduction of "Creationism" in some of the primary schools in US (or is this still on the drawing board? - in the name of "free choice".. probably some pople are thinking of the same here in Oz), setting the stage for more things to come when the affected generations come of age.

I'll admit that I haven't kept up with this issue but from memory, each time this issue has come up in the US, it has been rejected. (I may stand corrected on this, however). It came up here, in NSW, many years ago and was (obviously) rejected, also.
Whilst I'm not saying that science 'undervaluers' don't exist, it appears that key decision making bodies still uphold its value, and decide in favour of real science.
I understand and agree with your overall point, however … if we, in IIS, are a community who really care about fostering and propagating an understanding of science, then we should be cautious about the strategies and tactics we employ in achieving that goal.

Cheers

[bojan]

Originally Posted by CraigS

… if we, in IIS, are a community who really care about fostering and propagating an understanding of science, then we should be cautious about the strategies and tactics we employ in achieving that goal.

Cheers

[renormalised (Carl)]

Originally Posted by Zaps

It's uncommon to find somebody who "can't" understand science. Usually they just can't be bothered to understand it, or actively resist understanding. And many times those who congratulate themselves for their level and depth of understanding are often grossly overestimating their abilities.

Well I can tell you now, there's a lot I still don't understand, but I get by with what I know and that's enough for me.

[renormalised (Carl)]

Originally Posted by CraigS

.. It ain't over yet !
NASA has had it pretty good for a long while. Everyone has to tighten their belts at some time … its part of growing up !

You've got to be kidding me, Craig, if you think that. NASA gets the crumbs of the annual budget in the US.....they receive, on average, $18.5 billion a year. Less than 0.5% of the budget. They waste more money in a week in Afghanistan than they spend on the space program. That's for starters. They get barely enough to keep what programs they have running at any one time, alive. You only have to look at the number of canned projects over the years to see just how well off they are. Now, they (the pollies) are thinking of cutting the NASA budget even more. The whole process of governance in the US is screwed up...and not just in the case of NASA. Other agencies like education and health are just as bad. If the Republicans get back in, it'll be dire.

[CraigS]

Originally Posted by renormalised

You've got to be kidding me, Craig, if you think that. NASA gets the crumbs of the annual budget in the US.....they receive, on average, $18.5 billion a year. Less than 0.5% of the budget. They waste more money in a week in Afghanistan than they spend on the space program. That's for starters. They get barely enough to keep what programs they have running at any one time, alive. You only have to look at the number of canned projects over the years to see just how well off they are. Now, they (the pollies) are thinking of cutting the NASA budget even more. The whole process of governance in the US is screwed up...and not just in the case of NASA. Other agencies like education and health are just as bad. If the Republicans get back in, it'll be dire.

Well, this is now way off track. However, the point of our recent temporary divergence from the original Uncertainty Principle topic, has been focused on expressing concern about judging others' capacities for acquiring an understanding of non-intuitive science topics.

There is still something hanging in the air about this, which is yet to reach closure.

Whilst I also have opinions about US governance, I find it completely presumptuous to assume that I could ever put myself into the position of the entire US Government and come to the conclusion of it being 'screwed up'. This conclusion also bears a distinct resemblance to the current topic at hand.

I also find it irrelevant to Science Forum discussions, as are my own opinions about NASA's belt tightening capacities.

Cheers

[renormalised (Carl)]

Originally Posted by CraigS

Well, this is now way off track. However, the point of our recent temporary divergence from the original Uncertainty Principle topic, has been focused on expressing concern about judging others' capacities for acquiring an understanding of non-intuitive science topics.

There is still something hanging in the air about this, which is yet to reach closure.

Whilst I also have opinions about US governance, I find it completely presumptuous to assume that I could ever put myself into the position of the entire US Government and come to the conclusion of it being 'screwed up'. This conclusion also bears a distinct resemblance to the current topic at hand.

I also find it irrelevant to Science Forum discussions, as are my own opinions about NASA's belt tightening capacities.

Cheers

Well, this has everything to do with the Uncertainty Principle....people get taxed and the money goes to the government. Now, if you observe that money, you can find two characteristics of that money....How much and where it goes. Now, if you can observe exactly how much it's worth, you'll find that you can't really tell where it might be going because it might go to any number of things. Conversely, if you know where it's going precisely, you may not know how much is going where because it's hard to tell how much there really was to deal out in the first place!!

Uncertainty Principle at work

Throw in political whim and bias, and that makes things even worse.

[xelasnave]

Thinking such as we find with the uncertainty principle was probably a bit hard to take if you consider where learning had come from... The Platonic desire for purity would have been the norm so any of these ideas that suggested humans may not be in control would have been met I suspect with caution and a general rejection ... it never sits well with humans that things are not ordered and the thinking around uncertainty perhaps suggested a lack of order that was not welcome in the mathematical or even the philisophical construct.
I think the order no doubt exists but our ability to observe as great as we have taken it still will not reveal the complex detail of the quantum world.
However close enough is often good enough otherwise we would throw out calculus and although probability is the game we can narrow expectations to fit within probable outcomes ...
alex

[CraigS]

I can't help but feel the synergies between Chaos Theory (which addresses the appearance of both order and chaotic behaviours from complex systems) and the indeterminism of QM/QFT/QED.

Someday, perhaps someone might find more than just synergies !

Cheers

[Archy (George)]

Originally Posted by renormalised

No, it's matter of fact. If after trying to explain something in simple terms to someone, they still don't understand what you're trying to explain to them, then what is the point of going on with the subject. They obviously don't have the capacity to understand the science or the description of that science, so why would it be necessary for them to confuse themselves even more by trying to wade through it. Some people can do things and other things they can't. Some have an aptitude for science, some don't. Some are great pilots, others you would even step in an elevator with.

And who am I to say something like that....someone with several degrees, including a masters degree in astrophysics and 20 years experience as a geologist. As well as part time/casual teaching in geology and astronomy. Soon I'll be starting a PhD (with a bit of luck) in astrophysics and going onto full time research/teaching.

Another explanation might be that you have been unable to make your explanation understandable. No matter how many degrees you have, I don't see that you have the right to put someone down in the way you have unless you are prepared to be seen as arrogant.

[xelasnave]

Craig I will surprise you...math can predict anything...we simply can not do the math that nature can ..nature has its order and it works to mathematical precission but for us to observe it can show us only a little .... even though we have a grasp the math of nature is probably hidden to us... even if we take the universe as finite ( and in the sence of an observ able Universe finite is still so big that to a human it is practically infinite) ...er finite that is we can only ever give small descriptions of our observations... we measure, and relate and get a glimpse ..but to think we get more is perhaps getting carried away with what little knowledge we have.

But to take the time to consider the universe with whatever knowlegde you have accumulated and make some sence of it is a wonderful endeavour... it is so exciting to see all the men who think about such things ..both now and in the past.

One day we will have a theory of everything...I have one that works for me but I mean one that all scientists are content with and such that the smallest of mysteries are understood by us...

Studying physics (and I have been studying) is just so rewarding and it is great so many now follow the call.

alex

[CraigS]

Y'know Alex, I think this ranks as one of the best conversations I've ever had with you.
Lay back and have a few more drinks .. (if that's what's brought this on )

Cheers

PS: Then again .. you did say you've been studying .. Physics .. and Maths ?