3 Uncertainty & Measurement Table of Contents Previous Next

The Heisenberg uncertainty principle is rendered meaningless by the way particles move.

DWT has postulated a way that particles move (λ-hopping) that makes Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle “moot” (see Section 11). When a particle appears it has no velocity (zero velocity with respect to the observer). At the next appearance of the particle (which takes a little time) the particle again has no velocity. The particle is never seen moving but yet a velocity can be calculated for its transit. Velocity is not an observable and always is the result of a calculation. The position and velocity of a particle is not uncertain, it is just that velocity cannot be defined at a point. Velocity only makes sense as a calculation between λ-hops.

(see section 12 on Zeno’s Paradox).

The uncertainty principle as a disguised deBroglie equation:

The uncertainty principle did not just come as a postulate with no history. Heisenberg basically made a reformulation of deBroglie’s equation for the wavelength of a particle.

It works like this:

1. The deBroglie equation is: λ = h/(mv)

2. Since momentum p = mv, we have λ = h/(p)

3. Rearranging the equation we get λp = h

4. And we can say that the equation applies to the changes Δλ and Δp

5. Now we have that ΔλΔp = h

This result (ΔλΔp = h) is the core of Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle (ΔxΔp ≥ h) and also the core of DWT and the wavelength hopping concept (λ-hopping).

Heisenberg’s Interpretation: Heisenberg saw that the Δλ (delta wavelength) term was simply a distance that could be represented by a Δx. This would change the deBroglie relation to read as ΔxΔp = h. Heisenberg’s saw that this equation could explain the theoretical limits on making measurements of the position and velocity of a particle. His postulate was that ΔxΔp ≥ h and the best measurement we can make on position is Δx ≥ h/Δp and the best measurement we can make on momentum is Δp ≥ h/Δx. In most instances this means we can make very precise measurements, however on the atomic scale we are stuck with imprecise measurements, and are forced to live with uncertainty and probability.

Digital Wave Theory Interpretation: DWT says that Heisenberg was fixated on particles moving continuously on a background of space-time. The way a particle actually moves is by hopping over a continuous space-time. This wavelength hopping (λ-hopping) phenomena fits the deBroglie equation very well, with the caveat that now the deBroglie equation explains a digital phenomena.

See Section 11 and Section 30. With DWT the equation ΔλΔp = h indicates that there is a hard digital limit at the wavelength of the particle. A particle makes an appearance periodically at its wavelength, and between appearances the particle does not exist, and therefore there is no position or velocity to measure. The concept of uncertainty and probabilities in this situation is meaningless.

Now, some of my readers may say that I have just validated (proved) the uncertainty principle. This would be incorrect, what I have shown is how easy it is to fall into the uncertainty trap. What is happening is that we start with a λ-hopping particle (the electron) and want to know what its next position will be. The next position is not a probability. The position is determined by the rest of the universe and it how it couples to the electron we are following (Feynman’s sum over histories). By the way this is not that different from Newton’s mechanics where an object will move depending upon all the forces acting upon it. When the electron hops it disappears and its reappearance is a deterministic event. Now if we “boggle” at the computations needed to predict the appearance of the particle (like how to account for the diffraction) we can say the appearance event is probabilistic. The probabilistic way that quantum mechanics is currently interpreted kind of works, but it misses the deterministic way physics really works. And thus I agree with Einstein, the probability interpretation of quantum mechanics is goofy (and yes it is somewhat workable). See Section 6 for more on this.

Taking Uncertainty to the Extreme: In Section 17 a case is made for the existence of gravitons. A graviton is a most unusual quantum mechanical particle with a wavelength λ that can be the distance between stars. This means that from a Heisenberg perspective it is extremely (ludicrously) uncertain. However, this is not completely nuts. Let us consider photons. We usually think of photons of visible light in the 600 to 1000 nanometers. And we deal with radio wave photons with wavelengths of 100s of meters. There is no reason not to have photons with wavelengths of 1000’s of light years. Yes, it is possible for a single photon to span the distance from the Sun to Arcturus, but now it is not necessarily a photon if it hops back and forth. To see a most interesting theory of gravity that can explain dark matter and dark energy see Sections: 17, 18, 19, 20, and 21.

Why physics has embraced Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle?

Even though your humble author feels that the concept of uncertainty is a very big thorn in the side of physics, it has become fundamental to modern physics .....why?

The answer to this question is that the uncertainty principle is a way to explain quantum phenomena like the dual slit experiment (see Section 13) without having to have any discontinuous phenomena.

Einstein’s knew something was “missing” from quantum mechanics and fought Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle. Both Einstein and Heisenberg were geniuses who fought a monumental battle. Most in physics reckon that Einstein lost the battle. In my opinion Einstein did not get a lot of agreement, but the EPR thought experiment was essentially correct (see Section 6). Most could not see this because they were so attached (welded) to the uncertainty principle and superposition (it was just so “genetic” to have stuff be continuous).

It should be mentioned that Einstein and Bohr went back and forth about the uncertainty principle, with Einstein putting forth arguments against uncertainty and Bohr countering them. The result was that Einstein could not really nail uncertainty as being false.

Can DWT nail “uncertainty” as being false? The best that DWT can do is point out Feynman’s statement that the dual slit experiment is unexplainable and we just need to follow the math, because there is just no way of explaining how an electron can go through both slits at the same time. Physics as a whole has swallowed this mysticism and it is the (peer reviewed) explanation.

DWT explains how the electron moves by Wavelength hopping (λ-hopping) and thus it never moves through anything, it hops over stuff. DWT points out that this can be experimentally verified. In addition the whole of this web site shows that λ-hopping for quantum particles makes sense. So, until λ-hopping is verified as a physical process via experiment, this concept is also speculation. So, the question is which mysticism do you prefer 1. We can never understand how an electron can go through both slits simultaneously, or 2. Electrons move discontinuously via the mechanism of λ-hopping and never go through the two slits, electrons hop over the two slits. Yes, we can say that the slits can be thought of as a lens and the electron as a wave phenomena, but it is better in my opinion to have the electron as a particle that disappears (λ-hops over the slits) and reappears forming a diffraction pattern.

It should be mentioned that DWT also has a phenomena that looks like virtual particles. But these particles are not coming out of the vacuum of space as postulated by the uncertainty principle. The DWT particles that look like virtual particles are real particles only with a very long wavelength. These slow moving particles look as if they just appear out of nowhere. This is because the slow moving (long wavelength) particle’s last position was remote to the observer. This looks like particles coming out of the void but is fundamentally different in that they are coming from somewhere and going somewhere, they are not born out of uncertainty applied to a void. This is particularly true of gravitons (see section 17).

Heisenberg was initially on the right track with his matrix mechanics which postulated quantum mechanics as a discontinuous phenomena (see section 2). His theory was rejected in favor of Schrodinger’s equation and the continuous representation of quantum mechanics. Heisenberg eventually made the Schrodinger equation (which he called crap in a letter to Pauli) palatable with his uncertainty principle. From the viewpoint of DWT this is the start of the trouble with physics.

See the FQXi.org essay:

http://www.fqxi.org/data/essay-contest-files/Limuti_Information_Misinfor_2.pdf

for a more humorous look at uncertainty via the author’s iPhone installed with the latest Siri.

The Measurement Problem:

The Wikipedia Definition: The measurement problem in quantum mechanics is the problem of how (or whether) wave-function collapse occurs. The inability to observe this process directly has given rise to different interpretations of quantum mechanics, and poses a key set of questions that each interpretation must answer.

Can we predict events such as the life or death of Schrodinger’s cat? If a button was pressed that caused poison gas to be released in the box, we can predict that the cat will be dead. If the button was actuated by a random event (atomic decay with a half life of 1day), is the cat dead? Einstein translated this conundrum as: “Is the moon present even if we are not looking”. I am certain Einstein’s intent was to express “are these Quantum Mechanics people for real”.

This question forces us to consider the nature of Randomness. If the half life is truly a random process then we cannot say for certain whether the cat is alive or dead without a measurement. Quantum Mechanics postulates the half life as truly random, and thus it says that the cat is in a state of superposition (or a state of fundamental stupidity from the viewpoint of DWT). DWT postulates that the half life of a radioactive atom is in theory predictable (via Feynman’s sum of histories theory) and we can therefore predict whether the cat is alive or dead. In practice we have not been able to predict atomic decay (at present) and we just do not know whether the cat is alive or dead. There is no need to postulate that the cat is in a superposition of alive/dead, we can just say we do not know the state of the cat. And if we want to know the state of the cat we need to make a measurement. And the fundamental question is, is anything “really random”. See the next section 4 for more on this.

An interesting test of uncertainty is proposed in section 13. The experiment proposes to control the position and velocity of individual electrons approaching the dual slits. I believe that if we can precisely control each electrons position and velocity before it hops over the slits, we can eliminate the interference pattern. It is certainly possible that I could be taking back my criticism of the uncertainty principle (aka apologizing to Schrodinger's cat).

Table of Contents Previous Next