minkwe wrote:FrediFizzx wrote:I think what Albert Jan is referring to is how do you get around the uncertainty principle?
.
I don't think you need to "get around" it. The uncertainty principle is not a feature of nature but a feature of the theory. It arises from the complementary definition of the "properties". Whenever there is an uncertainty principle, look for complimentary in the definitions within the theory. It has nothing to do with uncertainty in nature.
Take position and momentum for example. It states that the more precisely the position of some particle is determined, the less precisely its momentum can be known, and vice versa. But this is obvious if you think about what "position" and "momentum" mean. Position has dimensions L, while momentum has dimensions MLT^-1. The definition of momentum (in the theory) involves an important component which is "change of position" over time. Obviously this implies that momentum is undefined at a given position since " position" is undefined at a fixed position. Therefore mathematically, the definition of position and momentum are such that they become pontryagin duals, or conjugate variables. This is the origin of the uncertainty principles.
Another example is "time" and "frequency" which are also pontryagin duals and therefore have an uncertainty relationship between them. Note how "frequency" is defined using " time" in such a way that instantaneous frequency is meaningless.
BTW: Pontryagin duals are also known as "conjugate variables".
Therefore the uncertainty principle is not something that needs to be gotten around, it just is because of the way we have chosen to create concepts such as "position" and "momentum" and defined them in certain ways mathematically. It's all completely epistemic.
Aren't you be a bit off here? This explanation is often used but I think is not the complete story when it comes to subatomic particles, as can be seen by the various Heisenberg uncertainty relations. It has to do with the wave/particle duality.