For some time now, the physicists involved in quantum physics have been trying in the laboratories to establish that there is a limit to Heisenberg's uncertainty principle. It means that there is a Heisenberg limit or a quantum limit, a limit to how much one measurable quantity can be compressed at the expense of the other. One thing is measured more precisely to get more information about it
In the quantum world, things tend to shrink to infinity and the accuracy of measurements becomes more and more elusive. The Heisenberg principle limits our ability to measure particles in the quantum world. When one wants to measure one variable of the particle, such as the position, it is not possible to measure other variables with the same level of precision, such as the momentum. A tiny level of uncertainty enters into one or both of the measurements.
Paul Dirac explained the physical logic behind the uncertainty principle: one of the only ways to measure a particle's position is by bombarding it with a photon. In this situation we will see where the photon will appear on the detector and in what way it hit it. The way in which the photon hit the detector will completely describe the position of the particle, but the fact that the photon hit the detector immediately and inevitably changes the measurement of the particle's momentum.
Now we will try to measure the momentum of the particle. Again here too, measuring the momentum with this method will inevitably change the position of the particle. Because of this coupling, according to the Heisenberg principle it is impossible to know simultaneously and with certainty, or to a very high degree of accuracy, pairs of certain variables that influence each other.
But it was natural to add quantum entanglement to the concoction. When two particles are entangled, if you want to know a variable of one of the particles, the wave function of the two particles collapses. This leads to final values for variables related to the problem.
Unfortunately for them, in light of Heisenberg's uncertainty principle, physicists tried to increase as much as possible the level of precision of measuring one quantity at the expense of the other. For some time now, the physicists involved in quantum physics have been trying in the laboratories to establish that there is a limit to Heisenberg's uncertainty principle. It means that there is a Heisenberg limit or a quantum limit, a limit to how much one measurable quantity can be compressed at the expense of the other. One thing is measured more precisely to get more information about it. Increase the admissions by one quantity, such as the position or the magnitude of the speed and compress the quantity at the expense of another quantity. If you compress the admissibility of one quantity of interest, the indeterminacy of the attribute, or the other complementary quantity, inevitably increases.
But nevertheless, the wet dream of physicists has always been to defeat the inevitable annoying noise that arises from the uncertainty principle. It seems that a month ago, at the end of July, this dream almost came true. Almost, because it was realized only in theory. The experimental realization is still far away and meanwhile in the experiment the principle of muscle uncertainty is valid. But in the theory - that is, within the framework of the mathematical formulas - a consistent and possible situation is described, a kind of Gadenkan experiment, in which the principle of non-admissibility is violated.
In one of Nature's journals, Nature Physics, an article was published by a group of researchers from Zurich, Germany and Canada. The group showed that if a particle is woven together with a quantum memory and then one of the particle's variables is measured, for example its position, this experimental state moves the quantum memory into a complementary state that can be measured. This allowed the group to do what has long been considered predation in terms of the laws of physics: the researchers are able to discover the state of certain pairs of variables at that particular time with unprecedented certainty.
The researchers used the quantum entanglement procedure: they realized that they could take two particles, the particle and the quantum memory, to find out what the complete state of one particle is and even, they could measure incompatible variables such as position and momentum. The measurements may not be incredibly precise, but the procedure is capable of enabling the move of defeating Heisenberg's uncertainty principle.
In the system - interweaving a particle with a quantum memory - all the states and all the degrees of freedom in the particle will be related to all the states of the quantum memory. Once they were entwined and then separated, an observer would measure one of the particle's properties, and then tell the keeper of the quantum memory which variable he measured. In theory, there should be a measurement of the quantum memory that would yield the same result as the measurement performed on the particle. In the quantum memory, there will be no uncertainty relationship between the measurement and any incompatible variable, which will allow viewers to observe accurate measurements of two incompatible variables at the exact same moment in time.
41 תגובות
cedar:
Once is enough:
https://www.hayadan.org.il/anti-helium-2704115/#comment-290998
Hello, I would like to receive an answer regarding whether, in theory, the principle of non-admissions is going to be far-fetched possible???? That the principle of non-admission is wrong, is this principle a fundamental rule that cannot be refuted
It's always nice to get an objective answer...
By the way, the fact that a person writes his full name and details online is not a guarantee that the things he is bragging about are true or even close to the truth.
sympathetic,
You tire me with your repeated attempts to find things underground to show that I don't understand anything.
This is the last time I will respond to you and I will not respond to you again because I do not wish to descend to the level of defamation!
By the way, everyone who comments on my site in the site lists automatically records their computer's IP. It's not completely anonymous there.
Schools are for fools. Those who are really smart - learn on their own.
The school has a curriculum defined by the Ministry of Education. In the gifted class, you study the exact same curriculum, only progressing faster. All other things are studied at the university.
I went to a school for idiots. And in the twelfth grade I was hardly in class.
I spent my childhood in the sands of Tel Aviv, I climbed and played class and sidewalk ball: we would throw the ball to the other side of the sidewalk and the sidewalk would return the ball. Today it is forbidden to do that. But then who notices.
What's more, I spent my childhood as a science-seeking youth at Tel Aviv University - a spark that I had some sense 🙂
Gali I don't know what school you went to.
In the gifted class at Elon High School (a project of 10 years of study in gifted classes), students who completed matriculation 5 units in mathematics, chemistry and physics did not talk to us about this.
And not about simpler concepts, for example the definition of a boundary or a field or a vector space or technical concepts like matrix multiplication or the diagonal of a matrix.
Of course it could be that the situation is better today (I graduated high school in 96) but somehow it seems to me that the opposite is true.
sympathetic,
I saw you came to my site... nice, nice.
I will explain to you a little. There is a journalistic title and there is a scientific title. Usually news items are given a journalistic title, which is different from the scientific title. The scientific title is "Uncertainty principle in the presence of quantum memory". If I give such a scientific title to a news article, no one will understand what it is about.
Researchers and scientists conduct research in science but squint at the media...
I'll explain to you a bit how the media works: Nature does a bit of an advertising campaign before publishing its technical articles. I once published an article about it in the press, search under my name. There is a matter of copyright and the author signs copyright and also Nature, but there is a loophole that concerns the Internet.
Nature publishes the article and then all kinds of Internet news papers come and report on it. There are secrets of the profession that I will not reveal to you here regarding the news report on the article being published. But for researchers it is important that their article is reported because it is a publication. They often put on their website the report in journals such as Scientific American and other important journals.
So let's take the article in question. The title is "Uncertainty principle in the presence of quantum memory". But the researchers wrote an article that actually has only a theoretical message. Maybe sometime in 50 or more years we will be able to implement it technologically and maybe never - because it might not be interesting and their idea might not have a technological application at all.
And the most important question here is: what is quantum memory? A qubit? What is? They don't define what they mean at all in the article. It's all Gdancan Experiment and mathematical formulation.
So the article they published was actually meant to make some noise. They themselves call their thought experiment the "uncertainty game" and this game is designed to demonstrate that the uncertainty in a certain situation can be reduced so that two complementary quantities can be measured simultaneously. And this is the noise they want to create in the media.
And if they don't say that in a certain experimental (theoretical) situation it is possible to measure two complementary quantities at the same time with extraordinary certainty, then it is a waste of time to report on their article. Because then he is not interesting at all. And what does it mean to be able to measure two complementary quantities - such as position and momentum at the same time with unusual certainty?
jelly
You are doing an important job in reporting on the front of science. All I claimed is that those who deal with science in a certain field have more tools to describe what is happening on the front.
The problem with the scientific writing of articles itself (and there was no press report on it) is that concise writing assumes prior knowledge (study of a large number of years) of the reader. To describe the front of science, it is necessary to quickly update the reader with a lot of partial information that will allow him to see at least a little of the picture. The writer should be able to
1. Write well (as you do).
2. Know the field well and have experience, ie work in the specific scientific field.
3. To know what the interesting questions in the field are and why they are interesting and to know how to explain this (1).
4. To know who are the main groups in the field, what are the methods in which they work and what achievements they have reached.
5. Another advantage is the recognition of the history of science (as you have) this knowledge allows to put the research in a wider perspective.
The list of these requirements is much more than what can be demanded from a professional writer that we looked at in the report, but if scientists had bothered to try to explain their field more clearly to the general public, both parties would have benefited from it.
Beyond everything I said, be careful in presenting yourself as an expert in a certain field. Are you really an expert in private and general relations? Go through the list of conditions I wrote, do you fulfill most of them?
What topics have you written scientific papers on? Do you have more historical information on these areas? Are you able to describe what are the main problems in these areas today? For example: why is general relativity incompatible with quantum theory or what alternative theories of relativity to Einstein's are being sought today and why? How did they find out observationally that the universe is accelerating and why is there a problem in attributing this acceleration to vacuum energy? If you can answer yes to most of these questions, then you can be called an expert in private and general relationships (at least in my opinion).
I cannot tell about the work beyond what is written in the article in Nature Physics. I'm not an expert on quantum information. I deal with special and general relativity. And that is my specialty. But it is enough to report a physical article exactly as the article itself is written.
The science site here brings articles that report on scientific news and do not deal with basic questions in the foundations of quantum mechanics. Therefore I reported exactly what is written in the article and my report is consistent.
Now you can argue with the researchers and disagree with them and demonstrate where they were wrong. That doesn't mean I agree with them either. But as a reporter I report what is written in the researchers' article. This is a journalistic report and not an expression of my personal opinion.
And to the point of the matter regarding the principle of non-admissions.
First of all historically the uncertainty principle was not proposed as a mathematical theorem in Hilbert space. In 1926 Schrödinger wrote papers on wave mechanics while Heisenberg and Jordan and Born proposed matrix mechanics. David Hilbert wrote a book and Schrödinger didn't know him yet. Schrödinger's wave equation was written in a very simple way and then Schrödinger published an article: "On the connection between the quantum mechanics of Heisenberg-Born-Jordan and mine". Then the wave function took on a new meaning. Heisenberg went to Copenhagen to Bohr because of the problems in matrix mechanics, Born's interpretation of the wave function and the fact that Schrödinger's wave mechanics was about to dominate.
This is how the principle of non-admission was born. Hilbert space is a vector space - when dealing with operators in vector space we talk about Hilbert space.
From a historical point of view, defining the principle of non-admissibility as a mathematical theorem in Hilbert space is a late development, after the principle of non-admissibility was formulated in 1927 by Heisenberg in a way that it is taught in high school in the XNUMXth or XNUMXth grade.
It seemed to me too literary for a comment, so I wanted to look into the matter.
Avi:
You have nothing to fear from the copyright. The material is original (and based on a true story).
jelly
You didn't write the article, Maxim is editing what was written. It may be that what you wrote is extremely accurate, but there is no more information in it than in the article itself. Once again, you are doing an important job of bringing news to the general public, but I believe that it would be desirable for scientists to also invest their time and tell about their work.
The basic question was not presented either by you or in the original article. The uncertainty principle is not a scientific speculation but is mathematically proven under certain assumptions. The assumptions are technical: quantum states are described in Hilbert space and operators in Hilbert space represent measurable quantities. Under these assumptions it is impossible to contradict the uncertainty principle because it is simply a mathematical theorem. The basic question and the point to be presented is what is wrong with the assumptions that every undergraduate student studies? Why is the mathematical proof invalid? Another question is what the physical meaning of this is. And finally, if the authors of the article make a claim about the world, why aren't they able to perform an experiment that would confirm it?
In my opinion, the doctoral student in quantum optics could easily shed light on these questions and the response he received on the site is clearly not flattering.
sympathetic,
What happened? Guy's story is very nice.
Especially for you I wrote the article again and published it on my website. Ehud, come on... 🙂
What happened to you, the article I published on my website is incredibly accurate - please read the researchers' article in "Nature Physics" and see. If my article had been a chair, it would have sold for a thousand shekels in the market.
Really unfortunate. On my site and in science it is not sold for even one penny. 🙂
That's how science is worth, it's not even worth a poor wretched chair...
Thanks
At your request I returned the comment, apparently I didn't understand the sarcasm and it didn't seem related, what's more I was worried about copyright.
my father
I have never complained here about gagging on this site even though many of my comments were initially blocked and only shown after being reviewed again. In my opinion, the gagging this time crossed all limits!
There was an amusing comment on the site by Guy who expressed his opinion in a humorous way and in my opinion there was no offensive tone in this objection beyond the fact that it went against the way in which the article we are discussing was marketed. The comment appeared on the site and was later deleted. Every writer on the site should be aware that he can receive substantive criticism and that sometimes it will go against him. No one has the right to keep only comments that praise him. The responses are intended to allow the readers to be interested and also to express their opinion and there is no place to censor objective responses.
I am not overwhelmingly against any kind of censorship. Such censorship should be against trolls, mouthpieces, and tireless blabbermouths who find it possible to write a response on a platform to present delusional theories. In a framed article I will mention that in one of the responses I received derogatory nicknames from one of the commenters on the site (period) and the nickname was not deleted. On the other hand, you chose to delete Guy's comment which was amusing.
The boy and the throne:
An act of a boy who aspired to be an important businessman and gain the respect of his family and friends.
The boy sat and thought.
"what should I do?" the boy asked himself. "How will I start a business? I don't have the training nor the means" he said in his heart.
Two days passed, a week passed, two months passed.
The child remains a child but the big business dream remains far away.
Until one day a brilliant idea popped into his mind. "I'll take the old, dilapidated wooden chair from the storage room at my parents' house and sell it!" The boy left his house jubilant, encouraged by the renewed hope that filled him.
The next day the boy took the chair from the warehouse, went to the market and stood by the vegetable stand, the chair lying on his side, waiting for a buyer. "A chair for a penny! A chair for a penny!” shouted the boy. Passers-by came and went, but no one was interested in the child or the chair.
After about an hour, a nice old man stopped in front of the boy and asked: "What are you selling, kid?"
"I'm selling a chair for a penny!" said the boy proudly.
"really? If so, I'm ready to buy." said the old man. "But before I buy, can I examine the chair closely?" He added and turned his gaze towards the chair.
"Sure, sir. Please" the boy replied enthusiastically. The boy picked up the chair, brought it closer to the Lord, and as soon as he placed it on the floor - "Terach!" The rickety chair broke.
"Well, what a shame," commented the old man, "Nice boy, well done for the initiative. You will be blessed for that. But in order to sell a chair, you have to make sure you can sit on it." The old man looked at the poor boy and went on his way.
The disappointed boy collected the pieces of the chair and returned home tired and sad.
"What shall I do now?" The boy hesitated. He went into the storage room at his parents' house and thought. "Aha!" A brilliant idea flashed through his mind. "I will take the pieces of the chair, assemble it and try to sell it one more time." And that was not the end of the idea "this time I will decorate the chair and paint it a new color!"
The next day the boy got up early from his sleep, washed his face, brushed his teeth and ran straight to the warehouse. The boy took the parts of the chair, and began to assemble the parts. Although the connections were still loose, the wood was old and slightly rotten, but in the end the chair stood on its feet. To finish, just as he had planned, the boy took blue paint and with the utmost care painted the old chair. When he finished, the boy thought to himself, "I succeeded. The chair looks like new! Now people won't think twice before buying the chair!"
That same day the boy took the chair and went to the market. All the way the boy was careful not to drop the chair as he knew that this would crush the rickety chair and his dream along with it. When he arrived we stood again at the vegetable stand.
"A new chair for a penny! A new chair for a penny!” shouted the boy with considerable self-conviction.
After a few minutes the old man passed by the boy and out of curiosity asked the boy:
"Well, how are you, kid?"
"Very well, sir. I have a new chair especially for you! Of course you can buy it, I give you permission!" answered him.
"Thanks, kid," replied the old man, "but it looks to me like the same old, dilapidated chair you sold here a few days ago," added the old man and disappeared between the stalls.
I rewrote the article on my website especially for you in a more professional way:
http://www.notes.co.il/gali/69172.asp
If my father wants to replace the article here with the article on my website, of course he can!
I always let my father do it. 🙂
Gali, first of all thank you for the translation work you are doing, it does a lot to bring the front of science to the general public and for that, bless you, but there are different levels of knowledge of the material. Your writing represents the basic level of news translation compared to a professional in the field who can elaborate on the given issues and on the article itself, not only on the news for the general public that came out in English.
In the bottom line, in order to explain things in a simple way, you must first understand them in depth. I don't assume that you claim to be an expert on quantum information so I assume that your knowledge is basically superficial and therefore you risk misleading the public by trying to express an opinion on articles that are not in your field.
To explain this point I will give several examples from the article you translated. What is the basis for the information you brought? Is there a physical explanation for the fact that the uncertainty principle can be violated? If so what is it? Should the result presented in the article be understood only mathematically? Do you understand the mathematical transitions in the article in such a way that you can explain the principle underlying them? Why wasn't an experiment carried out to test the claim made in the article? A professional could answer these questions. You are also welcome to try and then it will turn out to me that I was wrong and your knowledge is extensive even though you have not researched or published in the field.
Dr. Weinstein, keep writing in simple language for laymen so that we can try to understand, the professors can hear lectures at the Weizmann Institute, we are from the Samson Institute.
Ehud, we had a lot of arguments on this subject, including by email.
It is possible to write popular science at several levels starting from the level of "Popular Science" to the level of "Scientific American" and a higher level. It all depends on the target audience. And it is very difficult to adapt writing to different and diverse audiences. The article above is a translation of a popular article and there is a reference to it at the end of the article. However I added some theorems of my own about the Heisenberg limit. See the first reference in the link after the article I wrote. Click on it and see which article it is.
You can write an article in this language:
Quantum non-locality - a particle affects another instantly when they are very separated in space. This is verified experimentally in the following way... but the phenomenon is debated. And as for its philosophical implications, it remains problematic to this very day. Quantum non-locality is demonstrated by measurements in separated entangled quantum systems. The result is that the measurement results are correlated in a way that cannot be explained for local variables.
It is also popular science but at a higher level. This is how you talk in a university lecture when addressing students.
It's better not to write like that because it sounds like a university lecture and therefore drives away readers. Sometimes I do write like that, but then it usually drives most readers away - because most readers are not ready to accept such language. It is an unfriendly language, not a language used in science and communication.
Science and communication have their own dynamics and their own language - which is different from the language in the university lecture hall. And so writing articles for the media is something completely different.
PhD student in quantum physics.
I completely agree with you, many of the articles are written not by scientists but by people who lack understanding in the field. This fact only increases the confusion among readers who are not knowledgeable in the field. The challenge is for knowledgeable people like you to contribute their knowledge to the education of the general public. Science should be accessible to the public because many times it (the public) pays the bill for it and the deserving species that will benefit from the fruits of knowledge. It is difficult to explain to the public achievements in science because just acquiring a scientific education takes several years on the other hand it is not impossible. Popular science writers should be scientists and I throw the gauntlet at your feet... at the very least you can contribute your knowledge to try to explain some of the terminology that appears in the articles.
Is it possible to spray this "Opitka" in the armpit that you did as a doctoral student.
Because it also looks simply ridiculous if sprayed from the side.
Please only serious comments.
The only admission is that Olmert is guilty 🙂
And now really…
Even I, who consider myself quite intelligent, came out confused by the expressions and jargon that we are not really familiar with, such as "quantum entanglement" and the whole sentence that accompanied it...
One thing yes I know...thinking that you are close to something in physics is just like realizing that you have just started the path to it....that is what is so beautiful in physics and especially in quantum mechanics....definitely a very beautiful time this time we live in...
What a mess on the web.
Simply unbelievable.
I don't understand why someone who doesn't understand what he is saying bothers to write an article? So that other people who don't understand think he does understand?
This is repeated over and over again in so many popular science articles that to a scientist on the outside it seems simply ridiculous.
A traffic policeman stops Heisenberg.
"are you mad ? Do you know how fast you are going?"
No, but I know where I am.
non-funny joke .
Adi
It seems forced to say "measures a measurable size" a kind of tautology, but there is no disagreement between us and there is no good translation in Hebrew for observable.
I don't understand your statement "when the interweaving between the particle and the memory is not maximal. So the uncertainty is smaller than the Heisenberg barrier, but larger than 0 (the case of maximal entanglement).” And how does it fit in with the initial statement "the principle of non-recognition cannot be violated, not to say far-fetched". As far as I understand the Heisenberg barrier defines the uncertainty principle.
Number of clarifications:
Ami
In connection with the question of whether quantum entanglement is preserved or not during measurement? Well it depends on the measurement if a property of the system is measured then the interweaving is not destroyed. For example, the total angular momentum of the system can be measured and then the interweaving will not be destroyed. If a single particle state is measured then the entanglement is destroyed. For example, what is the spin of the particle that reaches the detector under the assumption that two spin states are entangled, then measuring spin destroys the entanglement.
lion
The entanglement does not express knowledge but in a certain sense lack of knowledge, when a pair of particles is entangled it is not possible to say about the state of one particle in such a quantum state and the other in such a quantum state, but the state of both particles must be referred to. When the state of one particle is measured, it destroys the entanglement, because afterwards it is possible to talk about the quantum states of each particle separately.
age
Knowing about each individual particle is not knowledge. Suppose we have a pair of particles with zero total momentum when one particle has spin + and the other - if the particles are intertwined, we can talk about a superposition of states when we don't know which particle is in which state, but as soon as we measure the state of one of the particles and get (say) + we immediately know that the particle The other is in the - state. Regarding your question about how many particles are intertwined, it is not possible to talk about their separate properties as long as they are intertwined.
The article is a little misleading.
The principle of non-acknowledgment cannot be violated, not least of all unfounded. You can indeed measure adjacent observables with better precision when you use more than one particle. According to what I understand, this is the sensational discovery of the article, rather they propose a formula for uncertainty in the presence of a quantum memory, when the interweaving between the particle and the memory is not maximal. So the uncertainty is smaller than the Heisenberg barrier, but larger than 0 (the case of maximal entanglement).
sympathetic:
"We do not measure variables of a particle, but measure quantum states. "
An observable quantity is measured, and this is probably what is meant by variable. A quantum state is not directly measured. Semantics, but still 🙂
Sarabschmid:
"The only connection is the audacity to go against the natural law of Eisenberg's uncertainty principle. It's good to see that there are more such scientists."
You are tiring and boring.
This is a certain trickery.
You know about the particle indirectly.
It is considered ?
Does the fact that you have information about how many particles are intertwined into a single particle mean that there really is such a particle that contains all the indirectly measured parameters?
Ami - to the best of my knowledge the interweaving is not violated in the measurement; On the contrary, the interweaving manifests itself in the fact that as soon as you measure and know one, the state of the other is determined and known.
I too, like those older than me here, did not really understand - but I can be expected to understand nothing in quantum physics, so I have no reason to be ashamed this time.
What is more interesting in my opinion is the connection between the state of the quantum entanglement and acknowledgments that it is preserved (the entanglement) during measurement. Doesn't it make sense that quantum entanglement is broken (i.e. the two entangled particles will stop communicating or transmitting information to each other) following laboratory manipulation of them? Or measuring them?
Ami Bachar
The link to the article is wrong
Another attempt (forgiveness is with you)…
http://arstechnica.com/science/news/2010/08/quantum-memory-may-topple-heisenbergs-uncertainty-principle.ars
By the way, it would also be desirable to give a link to the article in English from which the article is quoted. It appears at:
Quantum memory may topple Heisenberg's uncertainty principle http://www.browserdefender.com/getdomain/arstechnica.com
that the terminology appearing in it is problematic and lacking.
Regarding quantum memory, I assume that this is an example memory of a quantum computer that allows a superposition of quantum states to be stored on it. To simplify, a normal bit can have the value 1 or 0 on a quantum bit
(a type of quantum memory) you can put a superposition of the states 1 and 0 (a possible realization for a quantum memory is the spin of a particle where the states 0 and 1 are mapped to the spin states).
Thanks for the article,
Can you please expand on interweaving a particle with quantum memory? Or what is actually meant by quantum memory?
Thanks to Gali for the article. Several comments and clarifications:
The statement "in the quantum world things tend to shrink to infinity" is not clear, on the contrary in the classical world a particle is a point object as small as we like.
The claim "The Heisenberg principle limits our ability to measure particles in the quantum world" is not true in quantum mechanics quantum states are measured not particles. Neither are variables of a particle measured, but quantum states are measured.
The description of the principle of uncertainty through measurement is misleading, both momentum and place cannot be attributed in quantum mechanics. This is related to the non-exchangeability of the operators and not to the possibility of measuring something. A more intuitive and accurate explanation would be an attempt to produce a localized wave packet. The more wavelengths we take to place the wave packet spatially, the less defined their wave number will be. An important point is the statement that quantum states cannot be cloned (replicated) because if it were possible we would produce many copies of the same state and measure different properties on them
thereby violating the principle of uncertainty.
Why refer to an article in science that is not accessible to all readers, it is better to refer to an article in the archive
arXiv: 0909.0950
for life
My opinion is like commenter number 2
I, for example, did not understand the concept of "interweaving a particle with a quantum memory"
I also don't understand why they always have to emphasize that in Eisenberg's uncertainty principle it is impossible to achieve absolute accuracy of two things like momentum and position but only one at the expense of the other. In my opinion, it is impossible to achieve absolute accuracy of even one thing - momentum, mass, speed, etc. because of the accuracy of the tools and the measurement conditions of the measurement.
I told this to a physicist and he explained to me that I was wrong because basically the uncertainty is talking about a law of nature and not just a measurement error. But what to do, I didn't understand that either.
What's more important is that it doesn't seem to me to be related to my beloved dark mass. The only connection is the audacity to go against Eisenberg's law of nature and the uncertainty principle. It's good to see that there are more such scientists.
Good Day
Sabdarmish Yehuda
The waves of things are not really clear to me.
A. If my memory is correct, Dirac's explanation of the physical effect of measuring one variable on the accuracy of the other variable is not the heart of the matter; But there is an inherent limit to knowing the two variables - the mere knowledge of one variable lowers the accuracy of knowing the other variable.
B. If I understood the text correctly, then there is a principled limit to the degree of accuracy of a certain variable, regardless of the other variable; There may be a novelty in this, but this does not contradict the principle of uncertainty. Right?
third. And for the very novelty - it is not clear what is the interweaving of a particle with a quantum memory. In the well-known case of entangled particles, there is accurate information about both particles as soon as one is measured - but these are binary - dichotomous parameters and not continuous variables. What exactly is interlacing in the new idea and how does it work with continuous variables?
Absolutely fascinating!
I wonder what Yehuda Svardamish's opinion is about this, does he reject or approve?