# Thread: Does things that happens without a cause mean that it might not have happened at that time?

1. Originally Posted by Strange
Originally Posted by RAJ_K
At a point of time a particle is at a position ?
At the same time there is a momentum of that particle.
It is NOT at a specific position; there is uncertainty in its position.
It does NOT have a specific momentum; there is uncertainty in its momentum.

Which quantum law tells its wrong Dywyddr ?
The uncertainty principle.
At a point of time T1

( I ) A particle has a position P1, (1.certain or uncertain what ever do you like 2. Uncertainty law does not prove it is not it does not prove it does not have any position)

(II) At Time Point T1, Particle also have a momentum say M1 (1.certain or uncertain what ever you like 2. Uncertainty law does not say there is no momentum and also does not prove )

Now there on T1, there is momentum m1 and position P1 (Uncertanity Principle does not deny it)

What uncertainty Principle describe ?
It describe clearly
1 We can not know both M1 AND P1
2. As more accurate we know about M1 , Our estimate about P1 Would be more inaccurate and reverse
3. Rule is based on fundament nature of quantum behavior and not due to observer ‘s
effect.
4. It shows we cannot link momentum completely with its position
5. It shows perfect predictability of P1 is not possible

It does not describe or prove clearly

1. There is no deterministic working in quantum

If we assume there is no deterministic working in Quantum (Although I do not believe it says)

1. Why particle has M1 Momentum and P1 Position. ? Why particle not having P2 position with same momentum ?

Law is based on observer s’ inability of knowing both momentum and position
Even he does not make an effect on it and has practically perfect instruments

Even if we believe you right and upon is wrong,

But it is not possible to prove this law as we do not have such perfect instruments and
Also do not know complete factors that effect position of particle

2. Originally Posted by RAJ_K
At a point of time T1

( I ) A particle has a position P1, (1.certain or uncertain what ever do you like 2. Uncertainty law does not prove it is not it does not prove it does not have any position)
Wrong. The uncertainty principle says it does not have specific poition. The position is P1+/-delta.

(II) At Time Point T1, Particle also have a momentum say M1 (1.certain or uncertain what ever you like 2. Uncertainty law does not say there is no momentum and also does not prove )
Wrong. The uncertainty principle says it does not have specific momentum. The momentum is M1+/-delta.

And, because this is a mathematical result it is pretty much proved. If you want to show that the Fourier transform does not do what people think it does ...

Now there on T1, there is momentum m1 and position P1 (Uncertanity Principle does not deny it)
Wrong. The uncertainty principle says it does not have specific position and momentum. The position is P1+/-delta. The momentum is M1+/-delta.

What uncertainty Principle describe ?
It describe clearly
1 We can not know both M1 AND P1
Wrong. It is NOT about what we can know. It is about the actual, real values of position and momentum.

2. As more accurate we know about M1 , Our estimate about P1 Would be more inaccurate and reverse
Wrong. It is not about what we know and what we estimate. It is about what IS.

3. Rule is based on fundament nature of quantum behavior and not due to observer ‘s
effect.
Correct. (Hurrah)

4. It shows we cannot link momentum completely with its position
I have no idea what that means.

Why particle has M1 Momentum and P1 Position. ? Why particle not having P2 position with same momentum ?
If P2 is within P1+/-delta then it does have position P2 with the same momentum. It is at every position within P1+/-delta. And it has every momentum within M1+/-delta.

Law is based on observer s’ inability of knowing both momentum and position
Wrong.

But it is not possible to prove this law as we do not have such perfect instruments and
It does not require perfect instruments to prove. It is a mathematical proof.

But if you make measurements which would be more accurate than the uncertainty principle, then you find that the uncertainty principle holds.

Also do not know complete factors that effect position of particle
Irrelevant. It is nothing to do with "complete factors". THE POSITION IS NOT WELL DEFINED.

Have you read the other thread? Do I need to copy the explanation here? Will you just ignore it if I do?

3. (1) True – I am not giving it a special position, I am just giving name to a unkown position which it held , if you are not agree you can say it is hidden and has no position
(2) True- I am not giving it a special momentum, I am just giving name to unkown momentum if you dislike it you can say it is static

4. I am busy in these days as year is going to end and there is lot of work
I would also take a complete review with my colleague who is a Physics Lecturer & whose thinking match with you
I will post after some days after finishing my work and revising complete information and possibly my thinking may change

5. Originally Posted by RAJ_K
(1) True – I am not giving it a special position, I am just giving name to a unkown position which it held , if you are not agree you can say it is hidden and has no position
It is not special.
It is not unknown.
It is not hidden.
It is not "no position".

(2) True- I am not giving it a special momentum, I am just giving name to unkown momentum if you dislike it you can say it is static
It is not special.
It is not unknown.
It is not static.

6. Originally Posted by RAJ_K
I have my own logic and questions
I love how folks somehow think that their "own logic" is a replacement for logic. RAJ_K, you're simply wrong about what the HUP says. Guitarist showed you mathematically. If your "own logic" says something different, then show us where Guitarist's math went wrong. If you cannot, you must concede that your own logic is wrong logic.

Yet there are not answers of that questions
I also believe quantum theory rights
What you actually mean is that the answers you have given are not to your taste. As has been pointed out to you several times, nature has no obligation to conform to your personal expectations. So, you need to prepare for disappointment.

But I take it in other sense
This does not mean I am showing illogical statements
Actually, it does mean exactly that.

7. Originally Posted by RAJ_K
At a point of time T1

( I ) A particle has a position P1, (1.certain or uncertain what ever do you like 2. Uncertainty law does not prove it is not it does not prove it does not have any position)...{snip}
Since you have totally ignored the effort that Guitarist put into explaining the HUP to you, I expect you to ignore mine as well. So I write this primarily for others reading this thread, so that they will not be misled by the noise you generate.

Let's not even talk about the HUP per se, to avoid the haze of "quantum mystery" that too many folks like to invoke. It also avoids the grossly misleading descriptions taught in too many textbooks ("imagine a light beam striking an electron...") that falsely convey the idea that HUP is about instrumentation limitations. Let's just talk about the Fourier transform, since fundamental, observer- and instrument-independent uncertainty arises there. That allows us to see that uncertainty appears in a non-quantum context, preparing our minds for its appearance in a quantum context.

For those who are not familiar with the Fourier transform, here's a simplified, verbal version (sorry, Guitarist -- I will someday provide a math-filled tutorial for a sticky, but that day is not today): Let's consider characterizing a signal two ways: By its behavior as a function of time, or by its spectral content. The information in these two representations is wholly equivalent. The Fourier transform is the mathematical "hardware" that allows us to figure out one from the other.

As one simple example, consider a true sinewave. By "true" is meant y = sin t for all t (i.e., not a finite piece of a sine). That function is thus spread out over all t. Its Fourier transform consists of a single frequency (here, it's 1 radian per second), so its spectrum is not spread at all. Although its frequency is thus highly certain, its position (in time) is fundamentally uncertain --- one cannot define "where" (when) it is, because it is everywhere (everywhen); the uncertainty has nothing whatever to do with measurement imprecision, instrumentation limitations, or the presence of an observer. It is inherent.

Now suppose that, in order to reduce the uncertainty in "when", we propose sampling the sinewave. Specifically, let's preserve exactly one cycle of the sine. If you've not done the math before, you might be tempted to argue that its spectrum is still a single frequency. However, you'd be wrong. To produce a waveform that has exactly one cycle of a sine, and is zero everywhere else, one must sum an infinity of different-frequency and appropriately-phased sines to produce a destructive cancellation outside of that one cycle. So, in narrowing the uncertainty in where/when the signal exists, we've broadened its spectrum. We can no longer say what its frequency is because it is no longer a single frequency. Again, that uncertainty is inherent. It has nothing at all to do with an instrumentation limitation. A better spectrum analyzer would only tell us with more precision that we can't say anything about "the frequency." So, too, is the presence of an observer irrelevant.

One may show more generally, using the Fourier transform, that this uncertainty relation holds for any signal and its Fourier transform complement, not just for the sines examples above. A Gaussian in time corresponds to a Gaussian in frequency, for example. The Fourier transform hardware tells us that if the Gaussian in time possesses a certain standard deviation, its corresponding transform possesses a standard deviation that is the reciprocal. That is, a narrow Gaussian in time corresponds to a broad Gaussian in frequency.

Uncertainty is therefore a fundamental property of any Fourier transform pair. Instrumentation limitations are not at all to blame, nor is the presence of an observer.

The final bit is that the formulation of quantum theory shows that position and momentum, as well as energy and time, are complementary variables related by Fourier transforms, and thus the HUP is just a specialized restatement of the uncertainty inherent in Fourier transform pairs.

8. I have yet to read a better (intuitive) explanation of the Fourier transform

Great stuff tk421

9. Originally Posted by Guitarist
I have yet to read a better (intuitive) explanation of the Fourier transform

Great stuff tk421
Thanks a lot, Guitarist -- I deeply appreciate your kind words!

10. Originally Posted by tk421
Thank you.
But I would like to submit a formal complaint:
Originally Posted by tk421
Let's not even talk about the HUP per se,
Don't ever say that, again.

Might start thinking you're an emo vampire...

"Let's not talk about the HUP, per se... 'Cuz I will, like, totally bite your neck... m'kay?"

11. Eloquent? Yes.
To the point? Yes.
Will it help RAJ_K ? No.

12. Originally Posted by ryanawe123
Originally Posted by forrest noble
If the occurence of a past event was unpredictable and it has already occured but was not observed, then it could have happened at any past instant -- so the equation that you proposed would be invalid. It could have happened at any past instant.

You could never say that something acausal that has occurred, could not have occurred at any particular past instant unless its time of occurrence was observed. If not then any past time of occurrence could be calculated at different likelihoods of probability. There would be no assumptions involved.
i really dont understand what you are saying could you paraphrase a bit please.
If something happened in the past, whether causal or by chance (acausal), you cannot know when it happened unless you observed the event. Based upon the information/ evidence available one might be able to estimate closely the probability of when the event might have occured, but generally one cannot eliminate any possible past time of occurance if it is within the span of possiblility.

Does this explain it any better to you?

13. Originally Posted by forrest noble
If something happened in the past, whether causal or by chance (acausal), you cannot know when it happened unless you observed the event. Based upon the information/ evidence available one might be able to extimate closely the probability of when the event might have occured, but generally one cannot eliminate any possible past time of occurance if it is within the span of possiblility.

Does this explain it any better to you?
The "probability" and "possibility" you used would be the possibility where we do not know?

14. Originally Posted by ryanawe123
Originally Posted by forrest noble
If something happened in the past, whether causal or by chance (acausal), you cannot know when it happened unless you observed the event. Based upon the information/ evidence available one might be able to extimate closely the probability of when the event might have occured, but generally one cannot eliminate any possible past time of occurance if it is within the span of possiblility.

Does this explain it any better to you?
The "probability" and "possibility" you used would be the possibility where we do not know?
Yes, I answered both questions. If we did not observe an event we cannot know exactly when it happened. Depending upon what event we are talking about, we may be able to predict the probability concerning times when it may have happened. I gave the example of isotope decay. The probability concerning the possible times of occurrence also might not be calculable either, if we do not have enough information.

15. Can the exact time of occurance be calculatable if but we cant we had enough information?

i got the general grasp of the overall of HUP, but i am not very firm in the details....

16. Originally Posted by ryanawe123
Can the exact time of occurance be calculatable if but we cant we had enough information?

i got the general grasp of the overall of HUP, but i am not very firm in the details....
I'm short of time right now but I will answer your question in my next posting and look to find a good "very plain-language" present mainstream interpretation(s) of the HUP. Until then

17. Originally Posted by ryanawe123

i got the general grasp of the overall of HUP, but i am not very firm in the details....
Post #207.

If you want a bit more detail, this might be a good start: Uncertainty principle

And for fans of YouTube (not me) there is this: What is the Uncertainty Principle? - YouTube - a 1 minute explanation.

18. What is the Uncertainty Principle? - YouTubei saw this, its only talking about how much we can know/what we can know.

it doesn't say about the thread starter: Do events, due to being acausal, mean that it might not have happened at that instant?

im still reading this Uncertainty principle

19. Originally Posted by ryanawe123
What is the Uncertainty Principle? - YouTubei saw this, its only talking about how much we can know/what we can know.
If you think that, then you haven't understood it.

20. Originally Posted by ryanawe123

i got the general grasp of the overall of HUP, but i am not very firm in the details....
Realize that this question seems to me to be not directly related to your original question. But maybe here is the simplest explanation of the HUP that I could find.

The original math of it can be stated as: the combination of the errors in position of a particle times the error in its momentum must always be greater than Planck's constant. So you can measure the position of an electron, for instance, to a degree of accuracy, but then its momentum will be inside a much larger range of possible values. Likewise, you could measure its momentum to a degree of precision, but then its position would likewise be within a much larger range of possibilities. The degree of uncertainty is inherent within the method of calculation, so if it were possible to do "better" probably both the method(s) of measurement along with the method of calculation(s) would need to be changed. This explanation is not necessarily simple, but it is the simplest I could find.

http://abyss.uoregon.edu/~js/21st_ce...res/lec14.html

21. Originally Posted by forrest noble
Originally Posted by ryanawe123

i got the general grasp of the overall of HUP, but i am not very firm in the details....
Realize that this question seems to me to be not directly related to your original question. But maybe here is the simplest explanation of the HUP that I could find.

The original math of it can be stated as: the combination of the errors in position or a particle times the error in its momentum must always be greater than Planck's constant. So you can measure the position of an electron, for instance, to a degree of accuracy, but then its momentum will be inside a much larger range of possible values. Likewise, you could measure its momentum to a degree of precision, but then its position would likewise be within a much larger range of possibilities. The degree of uncertainty is inherent within the method of calculation, so if it were possible to do "better" probably both the method(s) of measurement along with the method of calculation(s) would need to be changed. This explanation is not necessarily simple, but it is the simplest I could find.

http://abyss.uoregon.edu/~js/21st_century_science/lectures/lec14.html
You were doing ok until you inserted your absolutely nonsensical speculation about "...if were possible to do 'better'." Read post 207 to understand why that part of your post is nonsense. The HUP is not about an instrumentation limitation.

22. Originally Posted by tk421
Originally Posted by forrest noble
Originally Posted by ryanawe123

i got the general grasp of the overall of HUP, but i am not very firm in the details....

Realize that this question seems to me to be not directly related to your original question. But maybe here is the simplest explanation of the HUP that I could find.

The original math of it can be stated as: the combination of the errors in position or a particle times the error in its momentum must always be greater than Planck's constant. So you can measure the position of an electron, for instance, to a degree of accuracy, but then its momentum will be inside a much larger range of possible values. Likewise, you could measure its momentum to a degree of precision, but then its position would likewise be within a much larger range of possibilities. The degree of uncertainty is inherent within the method of calculation, so if it were possible to do "better" probably both the method(s) of measurement along with the method of calculation(s) would need to be changed. This explanation is not necessarily simple, but it is the simplest I could find.

Uncertainty Principle
You were doing ok until you inserted your absolutely nonsensical speculation about "...if were possible to do 'better'." Read post 207 to understand why that part of your post is nonsense. The HUP is not about an instrumentation limitation.
I like your posting # 207 and agree with it, but just because Fourier transforms are now used for such calculations, does not preclude other future methods of calculation, or other methods of measurement for that matter. In the same way today's limitations of present theory and methods, are not necessarily limitations for all times.

23. Originally Posted by forrest noble
I like your posting # 207 and agree with it, but just because Fourier transforms are now used for such calculations, does not preclude other future methods of calculation, or other methods of measurement for that matter. In the same way today's limitations of present theory and methods, are not necessarily limitations for all times.
Ridiculous. Your post shows that you don't actually understand the HUP. Fourier transforms are not just "now used for such calculation." They are an inevitable consequence of how QM is formulated. Period. Changing the "method of calculation" in the sense you invoke is equivalent to discarding QM, which you cannot logically do while explaining the HUP, since it is a consequence of QM.

Learn some physics, Forrest. Until you do, please refrain from posting such obvious nonsense. It only gets in the way of the educational function of this forum.

The HUP is not an artifact of instrumentation, nor is it an artifact of "methods of calculation." To claim otherwise is to deny QM itself.

24. Very accurate , but I did not find enough proof to change my understanding that matter and energy behave in determined way at quantum level.
Yet there is no change in my feeling and I believe 100% that if there is uncertainty it is due to lack of complete information or may be due to improper observation or something other unknown reason. Behavior of objects at quantum level also depends completely to their properties and conditions and completely determined by reasons and no true probability exists in real terms.

No doubt, most possibly I would be wrong.

25. Yet there is no change in my feeling and I believe 100% that if there is uncertainty it is due to lack of complete information or may be due to improper observation or something other unknown reason.
Your beliefs are just that - personal beliefs. You are entitled to have them, so long as you don't confuse them with physical reality.

26. Originally Posted by forrest noble
I like your posting # 207 and agree with it, but just because Fourier transforms are now used for such calculations, does not preclude other future methods of calculation, or other methods of measurement for that matter. In the same way today's limitations of present theory and methods, are not necessarily limitations for all times.
You appear to have got that the wrong way round (as usual). Fourier transforms were the original formulation. Other methods of calculation have since been developed. Unfortunately for you, changing the way you calculate things (or even developing new theories), does not change the underlying reality.

27. Originally Posted by RAJ_K
Yet there is no change in my feeling and I believe 100% that if there is uncertainty it is due to lack of complete information or may be due to improper observation or something other unknown reason. Behavior of objects at quantum level also depends completely to their properties and conditions and completely determined by reasons and no true probability exists in real terms.
Those sort of irrational religious beliefs do not really belong on a science forum.

28. Originally Posted by Strange
Originally Posted by RAJ_K
Yet there is no change in my feeling and I believe 100% that if there is uncertainty it is due to lack of complete information or may be due to improper observation or something other unknown reason. Behavior of objects at quantum level also depends completely to their properties and conditions and completely determined by reasons and no true probability exists in real terms.
Those sort of irrational religious beliefs do not really belong on a science forum.
You can not compare this view with religious views as there is lot of difference
Specially when I am claiming Almost I am wrong

29. Originally Posted by RAJ_K
You can not compare this view with religious views as there is lot of difference
Of course we can: you persist in clinging to this belief despite the fact that you have been told AND SHOWN otherwise.

Specially when I am claiming Almost I am wrong
Yes, you keep saying "I could be wrong" and, having multiple times been shown YOU ARE WRONG, you always come back to the same incorrect position.

30. Originally Posted by RAJ_K
You can not compare this view with religious views as there is lot of difference
Specially when I am claiming Almost I am wrong
The Church of the Humble Fool.
Motto: "Forgive me Lord for I know not what I think"

31. Ok you can say what you like

32. Originally Posted by RAJ_K
Yet there is no change in my feeling and I believe 100% that if there is uncertainty it is due to lack of complete information or may be due to improper observation or something other unknown reason. Behavior of objects at quantum level also depends completely to their properties and conditions and completely determined by reasons and no true probability exists in real terms.
Yes, this follows the hypothesis of determinism. Many still believe this former theory will someday be vindicated, but this site is about present-day theory which states that the contrary is valid, that random events can and do occur. You do not have to believe in present-day theory but you should realize what present-day theory asserts. If you wish to argue otherwise you must also realize that mainstream forums like this one only allow mainstream arguments. If you wish to argue for determinism there are 3 available forums on this site. One is called 'New Ideas," another is called "Pseudo-science," and the third is called the "Trash Can." Don't let the titles of any of these categories fool you. In my opinion lots of good arguments and education have happened in those forums too, and those responding there might give you various opinions of your ideas, advice, critiques of your ideas, arguments contrary to your ideas, etc. rather than just telling you that you are wrong.

Good luck

Page 3 of 3 First 123
 Bookmarks
##### Bookmarks
 Posting Permissions
 You may not post new threads You may not post replies You may not post attachments You may not edit your posts   BB code is On Smilies are On [IMG] code is On [VIDEO] code is On HTML code is Off Trackbacks are Off Pingbacks are Off Refbacks are On Terms of Use Agreement