Ross A. Finlayson wrote: Ross A. Finlayson wrote: PD wrote:
Ross A. Finlayson wrote: PD wrote: Ross A. Finlayson wrote:
Is HUP inapplicable to photons? Emit the photon and
detect it, the photon only travels at c so the straight
line from the emitter -=-

$ STOP there ..at the HUP-emitter, duh.!!
The emitter at HUP-point A cannot be LOCATED within PLANCK-length.
AND for the SAME reason, B cannot be LOCATED within PLANCK-length.
ALL for the SAME reason MOMEnTUM """ within PLANCK-momentum, hbar.

THAT the detector at HUP-point B or the A-B vector-MOMEnTUM might
arbour the SAME "uncertainty", is REDUNDANT ..to HUP-POSiTiON A's.

$ THEREFORE, conclude:
Heisenberg's UNnecessary UNcertainty Principle is CLEARLY REDUNDANT.
[ Redundant to HUP-point-POSiTiON A's inherent PLANCK UNcertainty. ]

A. HUP, UP or GR Tivity POSiTiON A PLANCK UNcertainty
[ i CANNOT locate POSiTiON A ..to within (+) or (-) lp / 2. ]
[ i CANNOT measure POSiTiON A closer than lp = hbar / Mp*c. ]
[ This applies iNHERENTLY to "EXACT position of ANY CLOCK." ]
[ This applies iNHERENTLY to "EXACT position of ANY RULER." ]
[ This applies iNHERENTLY for "EXACT position of ANY BALL." ]
[ This applies iNHERENTLY for "EXACT position of, EMiTTER." ]
[ This applies iNHERENTLY for "EXACT position of a PHOTON." ]
Science CANNOT ((focus)) POSiTiON A ..closer a PLANCK LENGTH.!!

$ CLEARLY Heisenberg's UN-necessary UNcertainty is REDUNDANT.!!

B. Heisenberg's UNnecessary UNcertainty Principle
[ HEiSENBERG UNcertainty's ALL about HOW dimwits ((focus)). ]
[i CANNOT ((focus)) on BOTH ENDs of VELOCiTY vector AT ONCE.]

Heisenberg was NOT WRONG ..just because he GOT CAUGHT too OFTEN,
"Trying to ((focus)) on BOTH ENDs of VELOCiTY vectors, at once!"

( ..snicker )

RePOST ..snipped, follows:..

| Albert Einstein, "Relativity", Chapter 7: "There is hardly a
| simpler law in physics than that according to which light is
| propagated in empty space. -=-

CLEARLY FiRST & FOREMOST, EinsteiN's focus is PARTiCLE COUNT.!!

| -=- Every child at school knows, or believes he knows, that
| this propagation takes place in straight lines with a
| velocity c=300000 km/s."
|
| Chapter 22: "...the law of the constancy of the velocity of
| light in vacuo, -=-

CLEARLY ..AGAiN, EinsteiN's focus is on PARTiCLE COUNT.!!

[VELOCiTY of LiGHT has "constancy" per CONSTANT COUNT].!!

| -=- which constitutes one of the two fundamental assumptions
| in the special theory of relativity and to which we have
| already frequently referred, cannot claim any unlimited
| validity. A curvature of rays of light can only take place
| when the velocity of propagation of light varies with
| position. Now we might think that as a consequence of this,
| the special theory of relativity and with it the whole theory
| of relativity would be laid in the dust. BUT IN REALITY THIS
| IS NOT THE CASE."

| understand the difference between speed and velocity. -=-

Duh...
$ NEW SI GUESS iSS CODATA LaGrangian L:
L = h*fL = nL*h*c / wl = nA*{mph}*ls*c^2 / rA = m1*c^2 = [mph]*c^2
= E - eM - eV = eK - eV = eM - eF = [(m1*v1^2 / 2)*(m1/M1 + 1)] .!!

You'll NEED, essentially, iN THEORY, a *well-defined* LaGrangian.!!
(Question: Why'd dimwits ALL stick to lunatic-Tivity LaGrangians.?)

LiGHT velocity c is NOW a MATHEMATiCAL constant ..just as is, pi.!!

LiGHT velocity v VARiEs, inversely, WiTH the path-PARTiCLE-COUNT.!!
o o o o
o o o vector
o o o PROjECTiON
A--------VELOCiTY vector v--B - - - - - - C
o o o
o o o
o o ..ANY actual PATH o

GUESS *SPEED* is CLEARLY (..ANY actual PATH) / DURATiON.!!

VELOCiTY = (Any measured or imagined VECTOR) / DURATiON.!!

CLEARLY ..POSiTiON B is an ARBiTRARY point, ON the PATH.!!

Any OTHER two POiNTs on *SAME path*, a DiFFERENT VECTOR.!!

-=- to the detection indicates its momentum, and the
detection indicates its position.

Since you asked about three dozen questions and presented
about two dozen half-baked ideas, I'll address one to start.

Yes, the HUP applies to photons. Note the HUP doesn't restrict
whether a measurement can be made at all, but the inherent
*precision* of the measurement (governed by physics and not by
instrumentation).

Thus you can measure the momentum and position of a photon but
not both with arbitrarily high precision.

NO.!! See the ABOVE, you dooOP.!!
You CAN'T locate HUP-point A to "arbitrarily high precision".!!

The associated LENGTH is the PLANCK Length, lp = hbar / Mp*c.!!
Where, Mp is the Planck MASS.!! And, Mp*lp*c is DiRAC's hbar.!!

The HUP FAiLiNG is the UN-scientifically-POSSiBLE EXACTness of A.

QUALiFY your UN-scientifically-CERTAiN "exactness" of HUP-point A.!!

brian a m stuckless


PD

I'm just happy I got somebody rational to reply.

About that, it seems that because light speed is strictly c, that if
the observers at emitter and collector both know the synchronized time
of the photon emission, that its position and momentum is readily
determined, because, it's the only particle that could have done that,
reached the collector, and, it did.

Indeed, the procedure for synchronizing clocks is classical and works
only in the realm where quantum effects are small. We know that
already. This, however, does not mean that spacetime and manifest
covariance of physical laws does not pertain to quantum mechanics.

PD

Hi,

I don't really understand that.

You're basically saying that although E and D synchronize their
watches, to establish a "point" reference frame, and then move
symmetrically from that point, i.e. each in equal and opposite
distances, in deep space as necessary, that they do not then share a
reference frame.

What do you think about the reasoning that the Heisenberg Uncertainty
Principle is not applying to these photons, massless particles, and
others are describing massy lepton confinement over time?

I guess I'm asking if you could further explain what you mean by that.

Thanks,


I guess the photon is supposed to be taking all possible paths, i.e.
its path is Feynman's path integral.

Yet, the shortest distance from point to point is a straight line. In
time t, at its maximum and constant velocity c as measured by all
observers in the reference frame, the unimpeded photon travels exactly
t * c meters.

So the detector, if the photon travels all paths until its wave
function collapses on detection, will not see a point photon but
starting at time t the photon in the shortest line and also the same
photon that travelled a fractal space-filling path that would take it
years to cross thirty meters, so the detector is stuck in time forever?
That doesn't seem very plausible.

For the travel distance to be some average of the paths, or the path
integral, then the photon on the actual straight line would be going
both forward and variously backward in time. Now, as it goes backwards
in time, it follows its same track, so to be not advanced, at some
point it would go back in time faster than it went forward, yet back
faster again, to not violate c it violates causality.

It just seems that some classical explanations do override the quantum
in simple experiments.

Then as a layman I'm trying to figure out some intuitive reasons to
explain in the particle-wave duality such things as the dual slit
experiment, or four or eight or all of them leading to the path
integral. The explanations are not so counterintuitive within their
framework, but via exhaustion there just seem too many implausible
implications that can never be verified.

That's probably just a regular skeptic talking, QED, Quantum
Electrodynamics or the explanation of quantum mechanics, is said to be
very successful and that it verifies all its experiments. That is very
key and I respect that, but by the same token it still involves
renormalization, and quantization is denormalization.

Also, there is this consideration of discussion that HUP doesn't apply
to photons, or more broadly HUP doesn't apply in general, and that
changes a lot of the assumptions behind the theory.

Ross

brian a m stuckless wrote:
Ross A. Finlayson wrote: Ross A. Finlayson wrote: PD wrote:
Ross A. Finlayson wrote: PD wrote: Ross A. Finlayson wrote:
Is HUP inapplicable to photons? Emit the photon and
detect it, the photon only travels at c so the straight
line from the emitter -=-

$ STOP there ..at the HUP-emitter, duh.!!
The emitter at HUP-point A cannot be LOCATED within PLANCK-length.
AND for the SAME reason, B cannot be LOCATED within PLANCK-length.
ALL for the SAME reason MOMEnTUM """ within PLANCK-momentum, hbar.

THAT the detector at HUP-point B or the A-B vector-MOMEnTUM might
arbour the SAME "uncertainty", is REDUNDANT ..to HUP-POSiTiON A's.

$ THEREFORE, conclude:
Heisenberg's UNnecessary UNcertainty Principle is CLEARLY REDUNDANT.
[ Redundant to HUP-point-POSiTiON A's inherent PLANCK UNcertainty. ]

A. HUP, UP or GR Tivity POSiTiON A PLANCK UNcertainty
[ i CANNOT locate POSiTiON A ..to within (+) or (-) lp / 2. ]
[ i CANNOT measure POSiTiON A closer than lp = hbar / Mp*c. ]
[ This applies iNHERENTLY to "EXACT position of ANY CLOCK." ]
[ This applies iNHERENTLY to "EXACT position of ANY RULER." ]
[ This applies iNHERENTLY for "EXACT position of ANY BALL." ]
[ This applies iNHERENTLY for "EXACT position of, EMiTTER." ]
[ This applies iNHERENTLY for "EXACT position of a PHOTON." ]
Science CANNOT ((focus)) POSiTiON A ..closer a PLANCK LENGTH.!!

$ CLEARLY Heisenberg's UN-necessary UNcertainty is REDUNDANT.!!

B. Heisenberg's UNnecessary UNcertainty Principle
[ HEiSENBERG UNcertainty's ALL about HOW dimwits ((focus)). ]
[i CANNOT ((focus)) on BOTH ENDs of VELOCiTY vector AT ONCE.]

Heisenberg was NOT WRONG ..just because he GOT CAUGHT too OFTEN,
"Trying to ((focus)) on BOTH ENDs of VELOCiTY vectors, at once!"

....

CLEARLY ..AGAiN, EinsteiN's focus is on PARTiCLE COUNT.!!

[VELOCiTY of LiGHT has "constancy" per CONSTANT COUNT].!!

....

Hi,

Brian, you're not making sense to me there. That's not to say you are
making no sense, it's just that subjectively I am not deriving
information from your post.

If you have uncertainty of the photon's radius, you'll notice that it
doesn't multiply over the path of the photon determined at the
detector. So, that point can basically be called as exact as the
device's precision, rounded off and called perfect. Simply that
extending the range of the photon's path doesn't affect any uncertainty
in precision detection at the collector shows that a laser in vacuum is
a damn straight line. The shortest distance between two objects is a
straight line. Light covers distance, including the shortest distance,
at a maximum velocity of c, where c is a constant.

Say six particles travel from the origin along the axes at a constant
velocity. I guess you don't want to know their positions, or they
can't have a constant or equal velocity, or there would be no right
angles, or straight lines, but then there would be, because there are.

I am interested in this detector pausing time deal. It's like there
was this experiment and the predicted value was 1 and the experimental
value was 1.000016... or something. I wish I could better describe
that, I hope someone can name that experiment.

I'd like to know more about these parastatistics: Fermi, Bose, and
Maxwell statistics, for which are named fermions and bosons. Rather,
I'd like to know more about Maxwell-Boltzmann, Bose-Einstein, and
Fermi-Dirac statistics. Is that like Monty Hall or what? Please
explain more about these parastatistics.

HUP makes a lot of sense. It gives a reason why the hydrogen atom is 1
AMU, that an atom is a particular size and that for whatever meso-scale
mass unit is defined, where the quantum and relativistic is dominated
by the classical, that there exists a constant, in the case of SI,
Systeme Internationale or metric, units Avogadro's constant, relating a
finite real number's count of atoms to grams, often in practice based
upon experimentally determined average atomic mass of elements in the
wild. In the classical it doesn't much matter what that constant is
compared to the relevance of the mass ratios.

While that is so, people used to say back in the '80's that nobody can
void HUP because and exactly because nobody can solve Schroedinger's
wave equation. Yet, now they can, because there are more mathematics
than then.

I don't really care. I'm interested, I'd like to know more about it
before I care. With some people talking about the physical limits of
processors, I'd like to learn how to program the quantum computers, as
computers turn towards ultra-efficient reversible computers that run on
gnat sweat, and oppositely power computers, and frickin lasers.

About the quantum encryption and so on: can it be disrupted if you
just _think_ you know what's going over the line? What if you truly
believe?

If two objects aren't in the same reference frame, where does that
occur? What's the boundary between same reference frame and different
reference frame? If everything is in its own reference frame, yet as
well in that of each other's and each's reference frame, isn't each a
reference frame, like in set theory everything's a set? That's kind of
off-topic in this discussion about quantum scale particle physics.

Anyways, if someone would please point to or jot a few paragraphs
succinctly explaining what are parastatistics in particle physics here
that would be very helpful, thank you.

Ross