I was going to comment on the author's lack of understanding of HUP, but a Times commentor already said exactly what I wanted to say, so credit to him:
- This essay recapitulates a common fallacy with regards to the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle, namely the idea that the HUP has something to do with observation. While explanations of the HUP intended for the layperson often invoke the unavoidable causal interactions between observers and observed phenomena, Heisenberg's theory actually makes a more fundamental statement about the nature of matter.
Heisenberg asserted that, at least at the subatomic level, the behavior of particles can be completely described by a particular set of differential equations. These equations, however, contain non-linearities such that a particle's position is a non-continuous function of its velocity and vice versa. As the zone within which a given particle can be said to exist with a high degree of probability gets smaller, the range of velocities that can possibly be assigned to that particle approaches infinity. The same is true in reverse. The key point here, though, is that such "uncertainty" is not an effect of observation but rather a fundamental property of particles themselves, one that, at least according to Heisenberg, holds true even in the absence of observation.
Although I would add to this that there are several other physical properties whose quantities are interconnected beyond position-momentum, the most fascinating of which I find to be time-energy.
- "Uncertainty" is not an effect of observation but rather a fundamental property of particles themselves, one that, at least according to Heisenberg, holds true even in the absence of observation.
Is there any way to confirm this without observation? If there isn't, then is there any way to compensate for the effects of observation so we can guess what they might be doing without the observation?
I don't know in terms of the Uncertainty Principle, but the probabilistic behavior of unobserved photons (and electrons, and I think Helium atoms too, now) can be demonstrated with the two-slit experiment, where one photon is sent towards the slits, and the result of many photons being sent through individually over time results in an interference pattern. This is best explained by the photon interfering with itself. That is, the photon exists as a wave, and thus preserves the interference pattern of a wave, even though it is the only particle involved.
However, if you determine which slit the photon traveled through, no interference pattern arises. You "collapse the photon's wave-function", and force it to act like a particle. Here's an explanation of the single particle behavior.
I would imagine that there are some ways to deduce that the Uncertainty Principle is in effect for non-observed particles. Probably you could devise a scenario where the result observed could only be explained if the Uncertainty Principle were in effect.
I don't think there's a way to confirm any theory without observation. Without testability we have religion, not science. As far as how the tests are done, well, I can't help much there. My knowledge of theoretical physics is adequate, but my knowledge of particle physics is embarrassingly negligible.
Yes. my grad degree in is physics. More simply, the point I wanted to make is this: Paradoxes in philosophy typically come from language traps that reflect a misunderstanding of the physical world; the uncertainty principle reflects a deep, fundamental way in which things actually exist, and is derived from first principles, as opposed to language or a presumed understanding of the world. The two couldn't be more different.
Bunches of large equations are why the uncertainly principle is not all that accessible to those who aren't trained in physics or math, and why lay people get fed such garbage about it from people who don't really understand it themselves.
- The two couldn't be more different.
I wouldn't say that. I think in many ways, physics is philosophy guided by experiments, expressed in mathematics. Every answer begs a new question, and many physicists could use some philosophy education. On that note, I wish philosophers that wandered into this realm would realize that without understanding the physics, they cannot ask the most interesting questions.
I agree that the garbage is piled high.
I always wonder at the application of the UP to the early universe. I'm sure it has been well-considered, but when decide that there was a state where "the universe was very very young", then we assume at this state that energy was a very unbounded property. Isn't that a very biased approach? Is it more useful to speak in terms of the evolution of these uncertainties? The UP really defines the resolution of a coupling, and if we extrapolate back, there comes a point where they are essentially uncoupled.