What relates to Δx is the electron of which the measurement is shorter than the resolving limit .Electron is in Δx range that it can not be seen.
What relates to ΔPx is the electron of which the measurement is longer than the resolving limit .Electron is not in Δx range that it can be seen.
Therefore , the electron which relate to Δx and ΔPx respectively is not the same .
What we can see is the electron which have determinate position .
Although quantum mechanics does not relate to the measurement of object. But on the Experiment On Heisenberg Gamma-Ray Microscope, the using of microscope must relate to the measurement of object, the measurement of the object which can be seen by microscope must be longer than the resolving limit(Δx) of microscope, thus it does not exist alleged uncertainty of position measuring of the electron(Δx).
Thereout gained , what we can see is the electron which has determinate position .
Δx = 0 root in no other than two observed result of microscope :visible OR invisible.There does not exist the third result which visible AND invisible. . visible namely Δx = 0 invisible namely Δx > 0.
Because, for the electron visible with microscope, measurement of the electron must be longer than the resolving limit. what we can see is the electron which has determinate position, Δx = 0, so that only the uncertainty of position measuring of particle to be zero, namely Δx = 0 can just measure the momentum of particle. On the Experiment On Heisenberg Gamma-Ray Microscope, now that Δx = 0, that simply measure the momentum of particle, moreover the momentum of particle can be measured accurately when separatenessly measured therefore we can gained ΔPx = 0.
Therefore ,

Reference book :
[1] Max Jammer. (1974) The philosophy of quantum mechanics (John wiley & sons , Inc New York ) Page 65
[2] Max Jammer. (1974) The philosophy of quantum mechanics (John wiley & sons , Inc New York ) Page 67
http://www.aip.org/history/heisenberg/p08b.htm
Author : Gong BingXin
Address : P.O.Box A111 YongFa XiaoQu XinHua HuaDu
GuangZhou 510800 P.R.China
E-mail : hdgbyi@public.guangzhou.gd.cn
Tel: 86—20---86856616

"GONG" wrote in message news:6426b834.0204270049.5e0c6e6@posting.google.com...

>	UNCERTAINTY PRINCIPLE IS UNTENABLE

Still spewing your unchanged crap?

GONG wrote:

>

UNCERTAINTY PRINCIPLE IS UNTENABLE By reanalysing the experiment on Heisenberg Gamma-Ray Microscope and one of ideal experiment from which uncertainty principle is derived , it is found that actually uncertainty principle can not be obtained from these two ideal experiments . And it is found that uncertainty principle is untenable. Key words : uncertainty principle; experiment on Heisenberg Gamma-Ray Microscope; ideal experiment Ideal Experiment 1 [1] Experiment on Heisenberg Gamma-Ray Microscope See: http://www.aip.org/history/heisenberg/p08b.htm Reanalysis For the electron visible with microscope , photon quantum should be scattered to inside 2ωangle . Uncertainty of position measuring Δx = L/(2sinω) (1) Δx is a very small distance between the points on the object plane which can just only be seen by micorscope . It is the resolving limit of microscope . Microscope can not see the object whose measurement is shorter than the resolving limit . Therefore, for the erectron visible with microscope, measurement of the electron must be longer than the resolving limit . But if the measurement of the electron is longer than Δx(the resolving limit) , electron will not be in Δx range . Δx can not be deemed to be the uncertainty of position measuring of the electron which can be seen by microscope yet. Δx can be deemed to be the uncertainty of position measuring of the electron which can not be seen by microscope only. What relates to Δx is the electron of which the measurement is shorter than the resolving limit .Electron is in Δx range that it can not be seen. What relates to ΔPx is the electron of which the measurement is longer than the resolving limit .Electron is not in Δx range that it can be seen. Therefore , the electron which relate to Δx and ΔPx respectively is not the same . What we can see is the electron which have determinate position . Although quantum mechanics does not relate to the measurement of object. But on the Experiment On Heisenberg Gamma-Ray Microscope, the using of microscope must relate to the measurement of object, the measurement of the object which can be seen by microscope must be longer than the resolving limit(Δx) of microscope, thus it does not exist alleged uncertainty of position measuring of the electron(Δx). Thereout gained , what we can see is the electron which has determinate position . Δx = 0 root in no other than two observed result of microscope :visible OR invisible.There does not exist the third result which visible AND invisible. . visible namely Δx = 0 invisible namely Δx > 0. Because, for the electron visible with microscope, measurement of the electron must be longer than the resolving limit. what we can see is the electron which has determinate position, Δx = 0, so that only the uncertainty of position measuring of particle to be zero, namely Δx = 0 can just measure the momentum of particle. On the Experiment On Heisenberg Gamma-Ray Microscope, now that Δx = 0, that simply measure the momentum of particle, moreover the momentum of particle can be measured accurately when separatenessly measured therefore we can gained ΔPx = 0. Therefore , ΔPx Δx =0. (6) Ideal experiment 2 [2] Experiment on single slit diffraction Supposing one “particle” moves in Y direction originally and then passes a slit with Δx width . So the indefinite quantity of the particle position in X direction is Δx (drawing 2) , and interference occurs at the back slit . According to Wave Optics , the angle where No.1 min of interference pattern is , can be calculated by following formula : sinα=L/2Δx (1) and L=h/p where h is Planck’s constant. (2) So uncertainty principle obtained ΔPx Δx ~ h (5) Reanalysis According to Newton first law , if the external force at the X direction does not affect “particle” ,the “particle” will keep the uniform straight line Motion State or Static State , and the motion at the Y direction unchangeable .Therefore , we can lead its position in the crevice form its starting point . The particle can have the confirmed position in the crevice , and the uncertainty of the position Δx =0 . According to Newton first law , if the external force at the X direction does not affect “particle”,and the original motion at the Y direction is unchangeable , the momentum of the “particle” at the X direction will be Px=0 , and the uncertainty of the momentum will be ΔPx =0. Get: ΔPx Δx =0. (6) It has not any experiment to negate NEWTON FIRST LAW, in spite of quantum mechanics or classical mechanics, NEWTON FIRST LAW can be the same with the microcosmic world. Under the above ideal experiment , it considered that slit width is exactly position uncertainty . But there is no reason for us to consider that the “particle” in experiment certainly have position uncertainty , and no reason for us to consider that the slit width is exactly position uncertainty Therefore, uncertainty principle ΔPxΔx ~ h (5) which is derived from the above experiment is unreasonable . Conclusion From the above reanalysis , it is realized that the ideal experiment demonstration for uncertainty principle is untenable . uncertainty principle is untenable.. Reference book : [1] Max Jammer. (1974) The philosophy of quantum mechanics (John wiley & sons , Inc New York ) Page 65 [2] Max Jammer. (1974) The philosophy of quantum mechanics (John wiley & sons , Inc New York ) Page 67 http://www.aip.org/history/heisenberg/p08b.htm

The position of the electron is absolute at any t_o, but not determinate, meaning that "we" cannot resolve its position precisely, by measurement, not to say that it doesn't have an exact position. This follows directly from a "correct" interpretation of uncertainty. Although you are correct from a purely hypothetical point of view. Given the newly formulated "exact" uncertainty, presently under discussion in this group, it can be stated as true that if, and only if, the position were precisely known at t_o, then it would be perfectly determinable at t_f. It's that bit "iff" that gets in the way, i.e. it is impossible to know the position at t_o. If you'll look back at your argument you gave the initial position as a premise, i.e. you assumed that it was known ;-)

--
Richard Perry
Electromagnetism: First Principles
(A correct variation of the Weber/Gauss synthesis, derived from what else? First Principles, i.e. from the empirical evidence.)
http://www.cswnet.com/~rper
htm. and pdf. versions

"Richard" schreef in bericht news:3CCAD09C.37F82E59@no_spam.com...

>	GONG wrote:

> >	UNCERTAINTY PRINCIPLE IS UNTENABLE

> >	http://www.aip.org/history/heisenberg/p08b.htm

>	The position of the electron is absolute at any t_o, but not determinate, meaning that "we" cannot resolve its position precisely, by measurement, not to say that it doesn't have an exact position.

hum

>	This follows directly from a "correct" interpretation of uncertainty.

It is the other way around. The physical reality does not follow from laws. An apple does not fall from a tree because Newton's Law. Laws are a description of the physical reality Newton's Law describes the physical reality.

>	Although you are correct from a purely hypothetical point of view.

hum

>	Given the newly formulated "exact" uncertainty, presently under discussion in this group, it can be stated as true that if, and only if, the position were precisely known at t_o, then it would be perfectly determinable at t_f.

What is your definition determinable ? Does that mean: calculate into the feature ? ie predict ? The problem in general with predictions is that you assume that future behaviour is "identical" as behaviour in the past. ie that the rules that describe the past are also valid (and the same) to describe the future. For astronomical related issues this is often not a problem. You can predict the position of a planet based on Newton's Law. For elementary particles this is a real problem. For a single photon this is a gargantuan problem. HUP does not solve this issue.

>	It's that bit "iff" that gets in the way, i.e. it is impossible to know the position at t_o. If you'll look back at your argument you gave the initial position as a premise, i.e. you assumed that it was known ;-)

The above mentioned url discusses the uncertainty relationship: Dpx ~ h / Dx or Dpx *Dx ~ h. Which describes the minimum uncertainty in the measured position, Dx, of the electron along the x axis and the uncertainty in its momentum, Dpx, in the x direction.

IMO it is better to say calculated momentum Dpx. What the uncertainty relation ship does not describe (or better what the thought experiment with the microscope does not reveal) is: what is the position approximate of the electron and or what is the momemtum approximate of the electron.

The thought experiment assumes that the electron is practically at rest below the microscope ie prior knowledge.

It is very interesting to compare the thought experiment with the microscope with Compton scattering experiment. The target of both is an electron at rest. Both use photons which reflect (are scattered) Compton scattering gives an exact formula of Delta(Wavelength) as a function of (reflection angle). (IMO this formula can never demonstrated using a single photon.) The url ignores this issue. In fact it claims that Delta(wavelength) is zero. The url ignores (in fact HUP based on microscope) that how smaller Dx is how more difficult it is to detect a photon. ie to perform the experiment.

For more detail see: Heisenberg: Physics and Philosophy page 25 and 33.

Nick.
https://www.nicvroom.be/

Nicolaas Vroom wrote:

>	"Richard" schreef in bericht news:3CCAD09C.37F82E59@no_spam.com...

> >	GONG wrote:

> > >

UNCERTAINTY PRINCIPLE IS UNTENABLE

>

> > >

http://www.aip.org/history/heisenberg/p08b.htm

> >	The position of the electron is absolute at any t_o, but not determinate, meaning that "we" cannot resolve its position precisely, by measurement, not to say that it doesn't have an exact position.

>

hum

> >	This follows directly from a "correct" interpretation of uncertainty.

>	It is the other way around. The physical reality does not follow from laws. An apple does not fall from a tree because Newton's Law. Laws are a description of the physical reality Newton's Law describes the physical reality.

> >	Although you are correct from a purely hypothetical point of view.

>

hum

> >	Given the newly formulated "exact" uncertainty, presently under discussion in this group, it can be stated as true that if, and only if, the position were precisely known at t_o, then it would be perfectly determinable at t_f.

>

What is your definition determinable ? Does that mean: calculate into the feature ? ie predict ? The problem in general with predictions is that you assume that future behaviour is "identical" as behaviour in the past. ie that the rules that describe the past are also valid (and the same) to describe the future. For astronomical related issues this is often not a problem. You can predict the position of a planet based on Newton's Law. For elementary particles this is a real problem. For a single photon this is a gargantuan problem. HUP does not solve this issue.

> >	It's that bit "iff" that gets in the way, i.e. it is impossible to know the position at t_o. If you'll look back at your argument you gave the initial position as a premise, i.e. you assumed that it was known ;-)

>

The above mentioned url discusses the uncertainty relationship: Dpx ~ h / Dx or Dpx *Dx ~ h. Which describes the minimum uncertainty in the measured position, Dx, of the electron along the x axis and the uncertainty in its momentum, Dpx, in the x direction. IMO it is better to say calculated momentum Dpx. What the uncertainty relation ship does not describe (or better what the thought experiment with the microscope does not reveal) is: what is the position approximate of the electron and or what is the momemtum approximate of the electron. The thought experiment assumes that the electron is practically at rest below the microscope ie prior knowledge. It is very interesting to compare the thought experiment with the microscope with Compton scattering experiment. The target of both is an electron at rest. Both use photons which reflect (are scattered) Compton scattering gives an exact formula of Delta(Wavelength) as a function of (reflection angle). (IMO this formula can never demonstrated using a single photon.) The url ignores this issue. In fact it claims that Delta(wavelength) is zero. The url ignores (in fact HUP based on microscope) that how smaller Dx is how more difficult it is to detect a photon. ie to perform the experiment. For more detail see: Heisenberg: Physics and Philosophy page 25 and 33.

That's all well and good, but the electron is a particle, and the photon is a wave of electrons, I wouldn't expect the photon's position to be determinable, it's not a "thing".

--
Richard Perry
Electromagnetism: First Principles
(A correct variation of the Weber/Gauss synthesis, derived from what else? First Principles, i.e. from the empirical evidence.)
http://www.cswnet.com/~rper
htm. and pdf. versions

Back to my home page Contents of This Document