This conversation is closed.

The Uncertainty Principle can be tested

I'm only 16 but I have a new found love for quantum physics, but I a paradox has come amid of my thoughts. In Aaron O'Connell's video, he shows a visible representation of an object in motion yet stationary which is a fundamental idea of quantum theory, but with today's technology, can the Uncertainty Principle actually be proven wrong and tested using O'Connell's revolutionary experiment?

  • thumb
    Jul 9 2012: i don't know, but if anything he does was a candidate to disprove the UP, it would create much bigger turmoil in scientific circles. so i'm going with a no, it is not in contradiction with qm.

    however, i didn't come to say don't know. rather, i recommend you a video series, which is probably high above your current math knowledge, but might still worth looking at, if not for other reason, then to understand what stuff you need to catch up on.

    it is quite long, but you have the entire summer :)
    • Jul 9 2012: Thank you very much for your input! I've already watched a lecture on classical mechanics before and I can't wait for these lectures. I actually understand a majority of it, I took ap calculus abcd as a sophomore so I was a little ahead of the curve.
  • thumb
    Jul 8 2012: If an electron is massless how can it be measured?
    • Jul 8 2012: The mass of an electron is 1/1863 of w corresponding proton
      • thumb
        Jul 9 2012: Heisenberg thought that (9.109 X 10 to the minus 31 Kg) was too little mass to be observable/detectable, which is indistinguishable from massless.
        • Jul 9 2012: But still it's not massless,in the 21st century in sure we have a better understanding and a wider application with the minuscule atomic particles, like the use I cell phones! But inn still young and have a whole life ahead of me!
      • thumb
        Jul 9 2012: Agreed. The mass of an electron is non-zero. I guess our inability to measure/observe/detect such a small mass is the reason for the Uncertainty Principle.
        • Jul 9 2012: But from it's conception by Heisenberg our technological advances have been remarkable, it only takes time before what we thought was impossible to become another footnote in our textbook!
      • thumb
        Jul 9 2012: I agree with Mr. Pinter that It is interesting to ponder the results of falsifying the UP. I think it would necessitate major reconstruction of the Standard Model.
        • Jul 9 2012: That's what I have been trying to figure out, if Aaron O'Connell has his data table publishe, we could theorize the application of detectors within the vacuum of the quantum machin, you should look at his published paper quantum ground state and single-phonon control of a mechanical resonator, it is incredible
      • thumb
        Jul 9 2012: I am a sciolist, not a scientist. I delve into these theories only as far as my interest and intellect dictates. Thank you for the suggested reading. As an old man to a young man may I suggest you task yourself to select a specific area of academic interest and orchestrate your life to move in that direction. College will be here before you know it!
  • Jul 7 2012: I observed that a physicist has traits in common with other fields. I remember when in graduate school
    I was discovering I was made to do something else -I suggested that a friend who had failed his
    qualifier twice - Why not move to mathematics. Go to college and find what you really like.
    However, honestly, this has been tested and discussed a great deal sinde the '30's. Also, other
    fields need quants, too. Watch E.O. Wilson on Ted. Also, read Anthony Flew. Then again maybe you're completely right.