Is The Uncertainty Principle Incompatible With Determinism?

What does the special theory of relativity have to do with explaining everything?

Jesus Christ, it's embarrassing to read half of the comments in this thread.

 

This is what happens when a bunch of non-physicists get together and try to discuss a topic that even physicists are loathe to discuss

 

The quark, let's not pretend you don't have a personal vendetta against me. It's good to see you here.

We already discussed the topic you raise, like civilized people. I hope that you can grow up and behave while you are here.

 

I second quark's question . . . please explain how e=mc2 is debunked, preferably with links to relevant academic articles.

 

I second my own response in which I said we already discussed this. You fellows are only one or two pages behind the times.

 

The Uncertainty Principle is not worthy of a Nobel Prize. A Scientist received this from basically saying "I don't know why it sometimes operates like a wave and sometimes like a particle, therefore, I call it the Uncertainty Principle".

Watch this for another option on the answer to the Physics-Quantum Mechanics dilemma.

By the way, "Hermetically Sealed" is a term that is Hermetically of origin.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=etnj8G1rOFw

 

You've confused the uncertainty principle with particle-wave duality. (completely unrelated note: it's been attempted to reconcile the two, however, with no success... Although I'm sure you'll find hack articles/videos saying otherwise)

I hope you don't expect to be taken seriously after that blunder.

Once again, this thread is pathetic and I weep for humanity.

 

It's the same dilemma^

 

Particle wave duality has to do with the "screwiness" of light (why it acts like a wave/particle). I'm not even going to bring up the word photon, except for in this facetious remark which ends here.

The uncertainty principle deals with not being able to know a particles position and momentum at the same time.

Good try, your four word argument was much better than anything the OP has attempted to share.

 

They are the same dilemma because they are both dealing with the same question. Why it's one way and not the other for one, and why the location and momentum can't be measured at the same time for the other, and the quantum uncertainty of the duality of both. They are very similar.

 

Mathematical syntax functions in a way that is similar to your vocabulary. So If you don't think reality can be described with an equation your words are meaningless as well.

I understand you said this yourself in your own post, but I don't think you understand that what you are really saying isalong the line of " I am not making any sense", or "this sentence is incomprehensible.

 

They're not dealing with the same question. It's not even debatable. I have no clue what your motive behind posting utter nonsense is, but once again, its better than what the OP came up with.

 

The fact is that if humans didn't live on the planet then the entire planet wouldn't be in crisis. Other species aren't actually destroying the environment of the planet. There will always be killing as it is part of nature but mankind has shown the difference between natural and artificial approaches to life.

 

Yet you parrot what I say in the op? WTF!?

 

How are they not the same dilemma? They're both dealing with how you can't pin something down on a quantum level and that there is a duality of this or that involved with both of them.

 

Plenty of species came and went before humans, there have been a few mass extinction events as well. it seems like a different discussion for another time.

 

Woops!

A few posts back I was accused of having a "personal vendetta" against another poster, I had assumed it was their thread due to the fact that they seemed to care so much about my opinion.

Totally my bad.

I've just read your post. I don't have the time to offer my input, but you've sparked my interest for later...

 

" The Uncertainty Principal" Is the name of the 14th chapter of a novel I'm writing about the roll of western music-Blues/Rock/Folk beginning in 1980 when it was still leagal but not illeagal. And follows this through the decade untill the fall of the Berlin wall. It's historical fiction--art, sculpter and many forms of creativity contributed but the book follows music because the CIA and Masad both released documents recently admiting thier roll in contributing money and contractors to contribute to the cultural revolution in the 80s in the USSR.
The 14th chapter is about one of the agents who hiked and camped to the Siberian railway. At one point he stops in a remote village where he meets a war widow {Afganistan} who is destind to spend her life alone because of the isolation cultural moras of the people who live there.
The "Uncertainty Principal is that they would find each other in the worlds largest timber wilderness.

Einstien worked less in partical propertys and more in larger concepts such as Special Relativity, General Relativity, Grand Unification theory, Grand grand unification theory and on and on. The conection in ch. 14 is the uncertainty that he woulld find love, it gets more complicated but he realizes that he has a much more spacific mission and leaves her for a much more grand mission.

This is so obtuse I don't expect anyone to understand it.

 

Partical duality. Like quibits

you got it GB

 

The fact is is that they are the same dilemma. Why would it not be linked that you can neither pinpoint whether something can be a wave or a particle and also not be able to tell the location and momentum simultaneously? That's 0/2 in the quantum world, and since they're both dealing with quantum principles, they are obviously linked dilemmas and questions.