tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2202092988208583550.post2725107269506293998..comments2024-03-04T15:09:00.479-08:00Comments on The Scientific Worldview: The Uncertainty Principle and the Death of Classical MechanicsGlenn Borchardthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09394474754821945146noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2202092988208583550.post-10939989617178638362010-12-06T11:30:55.884-08:002010-12-06T11:30:55.884-08:00Bill:
Thanks for the comment. Let’s review our as...Bill:<br />Thanks for the comment. Let’s review our assumption of UNCERTAINTY: “It is impossible to know everything about anything, but it is possible to know more about anything.” This implies: 1) that it is impossible to build a tool of any sort that will have perfect precision. This is because both the tool and the microcosm being measured each consist of an infinite number of submicrocosms in motion. In addition, each is immersed in surroundings that have an infinite number of supermicrocosms in motion. None of these will be the same at any two moments. 2) The very act of measurement requires a collision, which changes both the tool and the microcosm being measured.<br /><br />None of these “limitations” is dependent on size. They are dependent instead, on the fact that the univironment is infinite and always in motion. The measuring tool can be larger or smaller than the microcosm to be measured. Of course, the smaller the tool and the more gentle its collision with the microcosm, the less will be the disturbance produced during the collision. Our tools have gradually improved to the point that we now measure what we believe to be subatomic microcosms. In this case, the ultimate limitation on our attempts “to know more about anything” will be financial, not physical.<br /><br />I sympathize a bit with your puzzlement and with the indeterministic interpretation upheld by the Copenhageners. All of the above might give one the idea there really is “an inherent element of chance in nature.” Nevertheless, all those infinitely small microcosms that we will never measure still collide with each other in the old-fashioned way. We still can assume that uncertainty is due either to observer ignorance or to chance. However, as Bohm (1957) taught us, it is better to assume that uncertainty is due to observer ignorance and that causality occurs within an infinite milieu rather than in the finite world of the positivist and classical mechanist.<br /><br /><br />Bohm, D., 1957, Causality and chance in modern physics: New York, Harper and Brothers, 170 p.Glenn Borchardthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09394474754821945146noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2202092988208583550.post-86527680969047113442010-12-05T07:06:04.928-08:002010-12-05T07:06:04.928-08:00Dr. Borchardt-
I have read two different interpret...Dr. Borchardt-<br />I have read two different interpretations of the Uncertainty Principle (as it relates to subatomic studies). One explanation is that it is due to our lack of precision (which implies that more precise tools could someday become available). The other explanation is that it is physically impossible to gain greater precision because any probe we could ever devise can’t be smaller than the object being probed (and therefore it will always disturb the object in the process of probing it). I had concluded that the Uncertainty Principle (as it relates to subatomic studies) actually referred to the latter explanation. Now I’m confused again. It seems to me that the Univironmental principle of Infinity means that there will always be smaller particles. This implies the possibility of probing deeper levels than we can now. I understand that we will never reach a finite or final precision (because it doesn’t exist), but wouldn’t Univironmental Theory predict that the current subatomic limit being attributed to the Uncertainty Principle could one day be broken (i.e. that the first explanation is the correct interpretation)?Bill Howellnoreply@blogger.com