الثلاثاء، يوليو 27، 2010

Uncertainty or Inseparability? O.o.o


Inseparability


In the course of the development of the current paradigm of our knowledge of Physics, we came to define separate concepts such as matter, location and so on and properties associated with such concepts such as mass, displacement and velocity so that we can measure size and movement and so on. I propose that because there is no such thing as "Matter", these concepts have introduced a source of uncertainty.

First, we thought that bodies were made of a compact solid "matter". Then we discovered that the seemingly smooth matter was formed of zillions of atoms. Then we discovered that the atoms themselves were almost "empty"! Having a Nucleus which is "orbited" by a number of small electrons. Then we discovered that the electrons cannot really be pin-pointed. They can only exist in a cross-section of probability.

The essence of the Uncertainty Principle is that we cannot precisely measure position and momentum of a "particle". The more precisely we seem to measure one property, the less precisely the other can be measured.


Einstein rejected the Uncertainty Principle and said "God does not play with dice". Scientists shook their heads in sorrow. Einstein, in their opinions, had himself helped develop the Uncertainty principle through his earlier work, how could he "now" reject the Uncertainty Principle? The Uncertainty principle, however, showed itself to hold. No one could get rid of such uncertainty.


The more I think about it, I realize that Einstein was wrong but also right. Einstein was wrong when he clang to the concept of "Matter" and "Mass" although his equations showed that "Matter" was an illusion and Mass was not an absolute property. Einstein was right to reject the uncertainty principle, saying that "God", meaning the "Order" of Physics which glory Einstein had a long glimpse at, does not work with such uncertainties. Only Man, because of our limited perceptions, has to introduce such uncertainties.


Einstein's famous equation:


E = m * c2


Should in fact have been expressed as:


m = E / c2


Because mass is not a "real" or absolute property, but rather a derived one to describe a special form of concentrated energy known to us as "matter" or the "Mass" which expresses the concentration of that "matter", so that we can deal with this energy concentration which seem to hold together and move together at low speeds.



But if we are prepared to let go of the concept of "matter", or "mass", and accept the fact that there is no "matter", that "matter" is a matter of illusion, and is merely a special concentrated form of energy, then, Uncertainty principle may no longer be needed, because energy has a vibrational quality and unlike particles, therefore, cannot be pin-pointed, but its existence can be seen as to "smear" a certain spectrum over the space dimensions.


The Uncertainty principle tells us that we cannot precisely measure position and momentum of a "particle". The more precisely we seem to measure one property, the less precisely the other can be measured. But what if we do not have any "Particles"? What if there are no "Particles"? What if all we have is "energy"? This silly concept of the particle-wave duality is helpful in studying or modeling certain phenomena. Sometimes it is helpful to study the electron as a wave and sometimes it is helpful to study the photon as a particle. But that is it. We must know that this is valid for the purpose of understanding, modeling and approximation. But an electron or a photon is neither a wave nor a particle. It is a packet of energy.


To me, the findings of the Uncertainty Principle, though enormously valuable, indicate the need for a new paradigm, where such pairs of properties which we cannot measure precisely are inseparable. Throughout the current paradigm of Physics, we came to separate such "properties", but it seems that they occur as ONE, as a packet. Therefore, when we try to measure a split-fraction of the "occurrence" we are faced with the challenges of uncertainty. But when we look at the electron as "a packet of energy" and stop demanding that it behaves like a particle or even like a wave, then, there will be no more uncertainty required. We will need no more "fudge factor"!




Also see Wikipedia , Excerpts below:


In quantum mechanics, the Heisenberg uncertainty principle states by precise inequalities that certain pairs of physical properties, like position and momentum, cannot simultaneously be known to arbitrary precision. That is, the more precisely one property is measured, the less precisely the other can be measured. In other words, the more you know the position of a particle, the less you can know about its velocity, and the more you know about the velocity of a particle, the less you can know about its instantaneous position.


According to Heisenberg its meaning is that it is impossible to determine simultaneously both the position and velocity of an electron or any other particle with any great degree of accuracy or certainty. Moreover, his principle is not a statement about the limitations of a researcher's ability to measure particular quantities of a system, but it is a statement about the nature of the system itself as described by the equations of quantum mechanics.


In quantum physics, a particle is described by a wave packet, which gives rise to this phenomenon. Consider the measurement of the position of a particle. It could be anywhere the particle's wave packet has non-zero amplitude, meaning the position is uncertain – it could be almost anywhere along the wave packet. To obtain an accurate reading of position, this wave packet must be 'compressed' as much as possible, meaning it must be made up of increasing numbers of sine waves added together. The momentum of the particle is proportional to the wavelength of one of these waves, but it could be any of them. So a more precise position measurement–by adding together more waves–means the momentum measurement becomes less precise (and vice versa).

The only kind of wave with a definite position is concentrated at one point, and such a wave has an indefinite wavelength (and therefore an indefinite momentum). Conversely, the only kind of wave with a definite wavelength is an infinite regular periodic oscillation over all space, which has no definite position. So in quantum mechanics, there can be no states that describe a particle with both a definite position and a definite momentum. The more precise the position, the less precise the momentum.

‏ليست هناك تعليقات:

My Page on Facebook

Wael Nawara on Facebook