Could Heisenberg's uncertainty principle disappear if scientists discover another method to measure the position and momentum of particles without using a photon?
I somehow lasted this long on Quora without taking the bait on one of the Heisenberg uncertainty principle questions, and this will be the first and last time. Also, I encourage someone to ruthlessly merge the 500 identical questions on this topic.The Heisenberg uncertainty principle has nothing to do with measurement (which is another topic which is mis-characterized in pop science). It is just math. Dry, boring math (which is NOT to say that math is boring, but clearly the people who ask these questions think it is). In quantum mechanics, 'observables' such as momentum and position are formulated as matrices. Unlike numbers, matrix multiplication is not necessarily commutative. AB does not always equal BA. The Heisenberg uncertainty principle, which applies to other sets of conjugate variables beyond just position and momentum, originates from a benign mathematical statement that multiplying the matrix representation of these variables in one order does not give the same answer as multiplying them in another order (which relates to a slightly deeper mathematical statement that if two matrices do not commute, they cannot be expressed in the same basis). In addition to not commuting with each other, variables which obey Heisenberg uncertainty relations are Fourier transform duals of one another, which is another mathematical statement that precision in one variable undermines precision in another variable: the Fourier transform of a skinny Gaussian (variable has a limited range of values it can take) is a fat Gaussian (variable has a broad range of values it can take) and the Fourier transform of a delta function (variable is precisely known) is a constant (variable can take any value).The Heisenberg uncertainty principle is not a measurement problem, and it is certainly not a philosophical statement. It is a statement that a particle does not have a defined position if its momentum is well defined (ditto for other conjugate variables). But if you're not convinced, click on one of the other 500 identical questions for confirmation that the formulators of quantum mechanics, who were much smarter than you and I, were not wrong.
Does NASA confirming there is more ice forming than melting disprove global warming?
No it would not. The Ice Sheets (especially the Antarctic) are subject to only VERY long term changes. For example, the Antarctic Peninsula which is much further north than the rest of ANtarctica and only 2% of the ice mass of the East and West Antarctic ice sheets has been melting since the last glaciation (Wisconsin), and only a small fraction of that small fraction of the Antarctic ice has melted. Antarctica has been glaciated for at least 3 million years and has experienced much warmer temperatures than the present without significant loss of ice. The small variations in ice mass over short time periods are not significant compared to these thousand to 10s of thousand year changes.Even the SEA ICE, which is MUCH more variable than the ice sheets has been remarkably stable for the entire Satellite Monitoring period (i.e. the last 40 years). Here is a useful graph which displays the global Sea Ice since the beginning of satellite monitoring. It demonstrates a remarkably stable amount of sea ice in the Arctic and the Antarctic. I.e. less than 5% change over the entire 40 year period.This alone implies that the alarmism so rampant in the Western media today is at least greatly exaggerated. We are living in a remarkably stable period of climate with no discernible change in droughts, floods, hurricane or tornadoes that corresponds with the small CO2 concentration increase (0.028 to 0.041% over the last 150 years). Even if the small temperature increase (less than 1 deg C over the last 150 years) was human caused (not likely for many reasons), it is certainly beneficial for humanity since we are a tropical species and warmth reduces our death rate, while cold increases it.It is good news. We should be happy about it.Ian in Vancouver
Quantum mechanics states that you cannot precisely measure both position and momentum. Just because you can't measure it, doesn't mean it doesn't have position and momentum at the same time. The theory seems based on this principle, but why?
They have it. It has to do something with the wave-particle duality. To make you understand I will give you three different scales.For understanding I present an electron,Our chemistry teacher explained this inability to calculate both momentum and position as follows:When we are calculating position of electron, at that very instant of time (put the world to a pause), the electron is a particle.Now when the electron moves, it does so as a wave, not as a solid object moving, implying that you can only calculate its momentum not position.Now when we look realistically to it, combine both the concepts, we end up with this understanding that it can’t be a wave at some moment and particle at another, it is infact both of them all the time: both a wave and a particle.Now a photon,is a particle when in the state of rest, theoretically; but it always manifests itself practically in the form of waves with all its properties. It is infact both of them but wave part is dominantly observable to us.In ourselves, the human beings,Though we see ourselves to be matter, wave property is still there, but the wavelength is too small to be detected: somewhat about 10^-37 m. Even the sun has got its wavelength.Everything has its mass or wavelength which can be calculated by this formula:λ = h /mcWave and particle properties are always there but inversely proportional and dependent upon each other.Δx . Δp ≈ hYou get certain on position, the uncertainity in momentum increases, and vice versa.But it definately is there. Both the position and the momentum, both the property of a particle and of wave.We live in a world of wave-particle duality. There is no seperation. Just because we are unable to calculate something, that does not mean it’s not there. That’s all the limitation of our observation, and the way we calculate.