Nice animation at the end, although I didn't quite understand it without an explicit representation of the measurement pointer, which is part of the system! So long as the measurement system is conceptually located in the world (the environment), you will have a measurement "problem".
Wunderbar, ein ungetrübtes Vergnügen für Menschen, die sich für die Realität interessieren und nicht für das Beobachten von Beobachtern. Wonderful, an undisturbed pleasure for people who are interested in reality - and not in observing observers.
It takes awhile to measure speed, but position is instantaneous. Just as time and frequency can't be known at the same time due to Fourier analysis, you can't measure speed and position at the same time due to speed being the time derivative of position. Heisenberg uncertainty has nothing to do with QM, even though many physicists believe it does! It's just the way measuring any derivative works. It can only be measured instantaneously in the limit as delta approaches zero. So there has to be a minimum delta in the physical world, and it is the very small value, Planck's constant.
What the heck are you talking about? Heisenberg uncertainty Principle recalls common sens that though you may measure the speed of a car with a radar, by "pushing" it with inertial massless photons, that "bounses" on the car at different locations, without disturbing much of the car speed due to the extremely small inertia of the photons, such accurate approximation DOESN'T hold anymore when the measure objects is measured with a "similar" one. It "has nothing to do with QM" in the sens that if one has only cars to throw at cars to measure its speed, the accuracy might get highly problematic. The problem is that QM is precisely the generic word used to recall that not all physical situations can be so advantageous as the microscopic measurement of a macroscopic car. In particular for all measurements on "microscopic" systems, of the "size" of the optimal interacting system used to perform the measurement, measuring speed AND position simultaneously gets increasingly highly unprecise. As a rocket targeting a tank, leaves only some hopes to recall more or less its position at the "moment" of impact. But can hardly question again later on the "same" tank to inquire his speed, since there is no more "same" tank as before the first "inquiry". QM is the word used to recall when there is no more "radar to car" situation, but only "rocket to tank" ones. Wether its actualy with tanks and rockets, or photon to photon. But that's only the tip of the iceberg since there is no hope to pretend any electron orbital trajectory in an Atom, for the very reason that accelerating charges radiates EM waves, and that consequently such chimeric classical Rutherford atom would last less than 10 to the power minus 14 seconds... And so on...with crucial experiments that destroy one after the other the naïve macroscopic view of Reality, that DOESN'T behave like tennis and golf...
@@Igdrazil I can't follow your explanation or question because it shows a deep lack of understanding of physics. If there is a question, please ask it clearly. If there is a statement of fact, please make it clear. Otherwise, thank you for your participation. I do understand that the basic concepts of physics can be difficult to understand without the proper mathematical and physical background.
@@david203 Well a guy who accuses Werner Heisenberg (one of the main founder of QM and the best disciple of Niels Bohr), of being a nerd, is most likely to be a lost case mythomane. Which obviously explains why you screw up in your rigid mind what his deep undetermination Principle actually means. You didn’t even understood the basic of it that I recalled. Moreover your bs « explanation » is a double non sens. First measuring a position is NOT instantaneous, for the time it takes for a radar wave for instance to at least travel, interact and come back. Each of the three not at all being instantaneous. Secondly, measuring a speed takes no more than the previous, up to adjustable frequency, that can be, not only tuned, but also taken into account in comparison with position measurements. Thirdly, there is not yet any experiment that gets close to Planck constant scale, in space nor time, nor energy nor action. So you’re just talking a lot of sterile bullshit for nothing. In summery, Heisenberg underdetermination Principle has little to do with « derivative », and a lot with PHYSICAL INTERACTIONS AND MATHEMATICAL NON COMMUTATIVITY. The mathematical FACT for instance that SO(n) has a non commutative Lie Algebra of « angular momenta » generators (except for n=2), has little to do with « derivatives », but all, at the end of the day, with STRUCTURE CONSTANTS. And such pattern is general for almost all discrete or Lie Groups of Physics. So you’re on top of all, besides sufficient, ignorant and arrogant, quite funny in your ridiculous condescending attitude. Even pathetic. And you’re thus most likely more of a clown than a competent physicist.
Nice animation at the end, although I didn't quite understand it without an explicit representation of the measurement pointer, which is part of the system! So long as the measurement system is conceptually located in the world (the environment), you will have a measurement "problem".
Wunderbar, ein ungetrübtes Vergnügen für Menschen, die sich für die Realität interessieren und nicht für das Beobachten von Beobachtern. Wonderful, an undisturbed pleasure for people who are interested in reality - and not in observing observers.
It takes awhile to measure speed, but position is instantaneous. Just as time and frequency can't be known at the same time due to Fourier analysis, you can't measure speed and position at the same time due to speed being the time derivative of position. Heisenberg uncertainty has nothing to do with QM, even though many physicists believe it does! It's just the way measuring any derivative works. It can only be measured instantaneously in the limit as delta approaches zero. So there has to be a minimum delta in the physical world, and it is the very small value, Planck's constant.
What the heck are you talking about? Heisenberg uncertainty Principle recalls common sens that though you may measure the speed of a car with a radar, by "pushing" it with inertial massless photons, that "bounses" on the car at different locations, without disturbing much of the car speed due to the extremely small inertia of the photons, such accurate approximation DOESN'T hold anymore when the measure objects is measured with a "similar" one.
It "has nothing to do with QM" in the sens that if one has only cars to throw at cars to measure its speed, the accuracy might get highly problematic.
The problem is that QM is precisely the generic word used to recall that not all physical situations can be so advantageous as the microscopic measurement of a macroscopic car. In particular for all measurements on "microscopic" systems, of the "size" of the optimal interacting system used to perform the measurement, measuring speed AND position simultaneously gets increasingly highly unprecise.
As a rocket targeting a tank, leaves only some hopes to recall more or less its position at the "moment" of impact. But can hardly question again later on the "same" tank to inquire his speed, since there is no more "same" tank as before the first "inquiry".
QM is the word used to recall when there is no more "radar to car" situation, but only "rocket to tank" ones. Wether its actualy with tanks and rockets, or photon to photon.
But that's only the tip of the iceberg since there is no hope to pretend any electron orbital trajectory in an Atom, for the very reason that accelerating charges radiates EM waves, and that consequently such chimeric classical Rutherford atom would last less than 10 to the power minus 14 seconds...
And so on...with crucial experiments that destroy one after the other the naïve macroscopic view of Reality, that DOESN'T behave like tennis and golf...
@@Igdrazil I can't follow your explanation or question because it shows a deep lack of understanding of physics. If there is a question, please ask it clearly. If there is a statement of fact, please make it clear. Otherwise, thank you for your participation. I do understand that the basic concepts of physics can be difficult to understand without the proper mathematical and physical background.
@@david203 Well a guy who accuses Werner Heisenberg (one of the main founder of QM and the best disciple of Niels Bohr), of being a nerd, is most likely to be a lost case mythomane. Which obviously explains why you screw up in your rigid mind what his deep undetermination Principle actually means. You didn’t even understood the basic of it that I recalled. Moreover your bs « explanation » is a double non sens. First measuring a position is NOT instantaneous, for the time it takes for a radar wave for instance to at least travel, interact and come back. Each of the three not at all being instantaneous. Secondly, measuring a speed takes no more than the previous, up to adjustable frequency, that can be, not only tuned, but also taken into account in comparison with position measurements. Thirdly, there is not yet any experiment that gets close to Planck constant scale, in space nor time, nor energy nor action. So you’re just talking a lot of sterile bullshit for nothing. In summery, Heisenberg underdetermination Principle has little to do with « derivative », and a lot with PHYSICAL INTERACTIONS AND MATHEMATICAL NON COMMUTATIVITY. The mathematical FACT for instance that SO(n) has a non commutative Lie Algebra of « angular momenta » generators (except for n=2), has little to do with « derivatives », but all, at the end of the day, with STRUCTURE CONSTANTS. And such pattern is general for almost all discrete or Lie Groups of Physics. So you’re on top of all, besides sufficient, ignorant and arrogant, quite funny in your ridiculous condescending attitude. Even pathetic. And you’re thus most likely more of a clown than a competent physicist.