Expanding the Uncertainty Principle
Browse articles:
Auto Beauty Business Culture Dieting DIY Events Fashion Finance Food Freelancing Gardening Health Hobbies Home Internet Jobs Law Local Media Men's Health Mobile Nutrition Parenting Pets Pregnancy Products Psychology Real Estate Relationships Science Seniors Sports Technology Travel Wellness Women's Health
Browse companies:
Automotive Crafts, Hobbies & Gifts Department Stores Electronics & Wearables Fashion Food & Drink Health & Beauty Home & Garden Online Services & Software Sports & Outdoors Subscription Boxes Toys, Kids & Baby Travel & Events

Expanding the Uncertainty Principle

The idea has light, cohesion and generates energy. It emerges out from the realm of non locality, evolves and assumes entanglement; then as postulated by Bohr is presented with reasonable experimental inaccuracy. This is the Heisenberg-Bohr overlapping formulation of the Uncertainty Principle.

First let me say I am neither a mathematician nor a physicist but a philosopher and only in the broadest sense of the word. So this article is a laymen’s attempt at suggesting the notions and the terminologies surrounding the arguments defining the Uncertainty Principle have yet to be decided. The topic’s most ardent contributors are Heisenberg who’s stances states the inability of any current experimental system to determine simultaneously both position and momentum of a particle and Bohr who counters with a belief, yes it can be done but the observer conducting the measurements given the current nature of classical physics introduces inaccuracies which can be adjusted with the use of Quantum Mechanics.

Heisenberg’s case to a great extent can best be described as a thought-experiment while Bohr’s approach is empirical, the latter a natural byproduct of the former. If this seems a tad ambiguous I apologize. As you read onward as mentioned there will be the limitations of my command of quantum mechanics to deal with and to no lesser extent the inability to formulate the exactness of certain imagery or terms due to my lack of command and the inadequacies of language.

Simply put my perspective on the topic can be summed up in the following statement. The position of a particle can not be determined while measuring its momentum and when determining momentum, position can not be ascertain or at least only to a certain degree of accuracy according to Bohr.

Then at lease in Bohr’s case the uncertainty principle must also apply to speed, energy, mass and a host of other measured variables. This is reinforced by the notions of probability and the role it plays in resolving experiments using quantum solutions and just as credible, a critique pointing out the limitations of current experimental apparatus.

This leads one to speculate the possibility of future advances in the area of tool making may resolve some of the controversy. However, even as the notion and the conception of new tools come into play all will still be governed on how well the experimental system is design in helping determine the accuracy of measurements. Irregardless there will always be a lack of perfection and it is at this point where the creation part of the measurement will render its consequence.

For example, there is a phase when a cause is postulated, at that instant, the birth of the idea when it is formulated the momentum of thought is unknown, scattered and ambiguous as postulated by Heisenberg. In the same instant there is a point of luminosity. The idea has light, cohesion and generates energy. It emerges out from the realm of non locality, evolves and assumes entanglement; then as postulated by Bohr is presented with reasonable experimental inaccuracy. This is the Heisenberg-Bohr overlapping formulation of the Uncertainty Principle.

In one case the belief is the inability to assign a mathematical value to the phenomenon, immeasurable and in the other the quantum sigma in the form of a statistical error is appropriate. Yet in both cases the “true” outcome not withstanding the idea is unpredictable. The position held going forward, in the future is observably different than one perceived in the present or the pass.

This seems to me conspicuously close to any notion of uncertainty as one can get. It remains to be seen but the only thing we lack is a mathematic tool that can consistently and quantitatively measure an idea in its natural physical state. This is not to say such a device will never be available.

So then, the big question becomes will we ever be able to measure an idea or at lease place fuzzy physical quantities to the structure of what we have come to know as a thought. It follows if and when the momentum of an idea can be measured the exactness of such measurements will be subject to time and locality.

The experimental design will be an attempt to frame the occurrence of such a measured event as a moment of perceptibility, intuition, a point bordering on the realm of creativity not what we know but what we can imagine. This is a period where a formulated consequence has intelligibility and the contents will be note worthy and meaningful. Inevitably the mind will eventually resolve the argument by creating another phenomenon, a thought measurement or a tool to determine the physical reality with exactness.

Need an answer?
Get insightful answers from community-recommended
experts
in Philosophy on Knoji.
Would you recommend this author as an expert in Philosophy?
You have 0 recommendations remaining to grant today.
Comments (0)
ARTICLE DETAILS
RELATED ARTICLES
RELATED CATEGORIES
ARTICLE KEYWORDS
RECENT SEARCHES ON KNOJI SHOPPING