[HN Gopher] The Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle Is Pure Mathema...
       ___________________________________________________________________
        
       The Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle Is Pure Mathematics
        
       Author : gumby
       Score  : 32 points
       Date   : 2021-07-20 14:08 UTC (8 hours ago)
        
 (HTM) web link (www.cantorsparadise.com)
 (TXT) w3m dump (www.cantorsparadise.com)
        
       | svat wrote:
       | The main paragraph, just before "*This* is Heisenberg's
       | uncertainty principle!":
       | 
       | > _The more sure we are that a given particle is inside a small
       | interval, the more localized (horizontally squished) the wave
       | function of the position is going to be. And since the wave
       | function of the momentum is the Fourier transform of the wave
       | function of position, the momentum wave function is going to be
       | stretched out horizontally meaning that there is going to be a
       | greater uncertainty of the momentum. This is due to the above-
       | mentioned scaling property of the Fourier transform._
       | 
       | This made me realize I didn't really know the meaning of
       | "momentum" (that's physics); I found these helpful:
       | 
       | * https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/39442/intuitive-...
       | 
       | * https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/35746/is-there-a...
       | 
       | * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Position_and_mome...
        
       | sempron64 wrote:
       | This is an incredible explanation! I'd love a deeper explanation
       | of the uncertainty principle applied to the Doppler effect for
       | radar that is mentioned in passing.
        
         | landtuna wrote:
         | Here's a decent explanation:
         | 
         | https://www.radartutorial.eu/01.basics/Doppler%20Dilemma.en....
        
           | gballan wrote:
           | Cool. I confess I don't have this 100% straight, but it must
           | be related to the CRB for range estimation. For time
           | (equivalent to range) tau, [2, example 3.13] gives it as
           | var(tau) > 1/(Eb/N0 * MSB), where MSB is the mean-square
           | bandwidth of the pulse.
           | 
           | [2] Fundamentals of Statistical Signal Processing, Volume 1:
           | Estimation Theory.
        
         | gballan wrote:
         | You may like Chapter 16, "DURATION-BANDWIDTH RELATIONSHIPS AND
         | THE UNCERTAINTY PRINCIPLE", of one of my favorite books [1].
         | 
         | [1] Siebert, William McC.. Circuits, Signals, and Systems. MIT
         | Press, 1986.
        
       | PaulHoule wrote:
       | That is, it's a property of waves.
        
       | bronzeage wrote:
       | Note that interestingly, momentum and position in orthogonal
       | directions do commute and don't have uncertainty.
       | 
       | You can know both a particle position in the x direction and it's
       | momentum in the y direction with 100% certainty. Some intuitive
       | based explanations would give you the wrong impression here.
       | 
       | Another way of looking at it is that momentum operator is
       | equivalent to derivation, and derivation and multiplying by x
       | don't commute: d/dx x - x d/dx = 1. So, depending on the order in
       | which you measured (first momentum then position, or first
       | position then momentum) you get a different result.
        
       | onecommentman wrote:
       | Isn't this being taught in quantum mechanics and Fourier
       | transform courses at the advanced undergraduate level nowadays?
       | The basic idea is discussed in Wikipedia pages for both
       | Uncertainty Principle and Fourier Analysis. Since Fourier
       | Analysis is so fundamental to Information Technology, I assumed
       | FA would be covered in the first year or two, so this sort of
       | discussion would pop up in a third year or fourth year QM or
       | signals processing course.
       | 
       | It's much more insightful than the uncertainty principle
       | discussions in the Paleolithic era when I went to school, albeit
       | the first FA derivation of the uncertainty principle dates back
       | to the 1950s and 1960s.
        
       | alisonkisk wrote:
       | Isn't all of theoretical physics pure mathematics? That's the
       | point.
       | 
       | Well, maybe not "pure", but HUP isn't particularly "pure" either.
        
         | jfengel wrote:
         | What the article means is that the Heisenberg Uncertainty
         | Principle isn't just some problem of measurement that could
         | possibly be overcome by better tools.
         | 
         | Rather, HUP is a mathematical consequence of the axioms of
         | quantum mechanics, and you won't get around it by clever
         | technology. Only blowing up QM entirely would get around HUP --
         | and the results would almost certainly be less familiar, rather
         | than more like classical mechanics. (Indeed, this is already
         | the case: it's called Quantum Field Theory.)
        
           | bsaul wrote:
           | hey, since you might be familiar with this: so quantum field
           | theory is actually a departure from QM instead of its
           | continuity ? I'm confused, i thought QM was the best thing we
           | had regarding quantum behaviors...
           | 
           | Also, i sometimes saw theoretical physicists talk about
           | "quantum gravity" as if it was a solid theory (i tried to
           | look at some presentation on the topic, but it was way beyond
           | my level)... That made me even more confused, because i was
           | under the impression that chord theory was the only thing we
           | had to unify quantum mechanic and general relativity, and
           | that it was far from accomplished...
           | 
           | Could you (or anyone reading this) help me out of my
           | confusion ?
        
             | Koshkin wrote:
             | QM alone fails to account for certain facts. QFT does this
             | by using somewhat "weird" methods in order to bring Special
             | Relativity and QM together. It has been working pretty well
             | so far, and it is indeed the best we have. String Theory,
             | on the other hand, while being a consistent theory of
             | quantum gravity, uses a model (or models) that we may never
             | be able to verify experimentally.
        
         | Koshkin wrote:
         | The difference between theoretical physics and mathematics is
         | 1) the subject and 2) the criterion of truth.
        
       | quantum_state wrote:
       | Uncertain about what is being added here ... a straw man seemed
       | to be set up and hit ... It is not surprising one cannot take any
       | pop science description of science too seriously ... like the so-
       | called weird nature of a quantum thing "being at two places at
       | the same time" is not accurate and misleading ...
        
       | quantum_state wrote:
       | The assertion "Is Pure Mathematics" is wrong and misleading ...
        
         | Koshkin wrote:
         | How about "a _logical_ consequence of the wave nature..."?
         | (Personally, I make no distinction between "logical" and
         | "mathematical.")
        
       ___________________________________________________________________
       (page generated 2021-07-20 23:02 UTC)