Talk:Uncertainty principle

Observer Effect

Is the quoted statement correct? Didn't the modern double-slit experiment, conducted sometime after the sited reference, reveal that it was not simply detecting the particle that collapsed the wave function but rather the observation of the result? Please help!

"It must be emphasized that measurement does not mean only a process in which a physicist-observer takes part, but rather any interaction between classical and quantum objects regardless of any observer."

can be known

The description asserting a fundamental limit to the precision with which certain pairs of physical properties of a particle, known as complementary variables, such as position x and momentum p, can be known. suggests that objects have position and momentum more accurate than the uncertainty principle, but that we (humans) can't measure it. As far as I know, the uncertainty is there, whether we measure it or not. Gah4 (talk) 22:20, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

Can. Something that cannot be measured is there? What is your improvement?Cuzkatzimhut (talk) 02:53, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

A recent edit changed can exist in nature to can be known. The latter seems to me to imply a person in the system. Gah4 (talk) 07:33, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

Sigh... As you might have ascertained by going down the edit history of the article, "can be known" has been around for at least a dozen years. and hashed out again and again and again. This article is about physics, not ontology. The whole innovation and significance of the principle is to avoid discussions of things that are there but cannot be known. Cuzkatzimhut (talk) 13:03, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

The ideal of the detached observer -iatrogenic Building Blocks

Hello there. In the section entitled 'The ideal of the detached observer', though Pauli mentions that he disagrees with Einstein's refutation of the uncertainty principle with respect to the observer influencing the thing observed, adding that he hopes his memory accurately reported their conversation, we do not hear Pauli's corrective to Einstein's attempt to refute the idea of something changing while/upon being observed. I'm sure his recall was perfectly good and it probably doesn't matter as the example cited, the position of the moon being unchanged whether we observe it or not (a bit like Bishop Berkeley's kitchen vanishing once he moves into the living room) is exactly (with all due respect to Einstein) the wrong scenario with which to test the hypothesis. A simpler scenario whereby an inspector is observing a junior teacher teach captures the theory a little more firmly. The inspector's presence distorts the lesson being given though s/he perhaps is unaware to what extent his presence changes the thing that he is observing. Descartes x/y axis assumes a new dimension Z, 'the catalytic observer' or perhaps better 'the subjective correlative' (to finesse T.S. Eliot), it seems to me (though I know nothing about physics). Another scenario might see an art gallery visitor standing before a classical painting and then an abstract painting, the former demanding no participation to consummate its meaning, the latter requiring some. (Unwelcome to settled tastes, the idea of the public participating in art is anti-elitist but nonetheless considered a necessary corrective to self serving elites.) Likewise, developments like Le Nouveau Roman require readers to augment their missing chapters to complete them, thereby assigning or allowing a role for the reader/observer (as Detective fiction does). These simple examples are part of an index of much heavier (complex) applications with respect to the manner in which our judgement is or becomes skewed in certain situations where we passively participate in let's say condemning lust while living a life of unwelcome and enforced celibacy. Our often failure to see that our own pathology (sorry) influences our view of the thing observed can get us into all kinds of trouble. Psychoanalysts have something called the object oriented question which is 'employed' on particularly resistant/ repressed individuals who will only surrender an image of their ego unwillingly and so such people speak through objects (as we all invariably do) to express themselves, so enabling the therapist to get an idea of their psychic composition. The therapist him or herself may possess all kinds of blocks to observing the patient in a clear light. These iatrogenic blocks provide a term which may help differentiate between Einstein's Moon and more subtle examples where the presence of the observer does impact the thing observed. So, I think this section needs a little finessing to either include Pauli's refutation or a better example might be found to expound the actual beneficial application whereby a scenario is altered by virtue of being a participant. I hope I haven't confused matters. Thank you. M.H. p.s. If you doubt the role of the observer, consider the oft told story of King Faisal waking disguised in the market to find out what his people were thinking, and saying. He knew that if he showed up as himself, he'd get a very different reception. 'The Deferential Equation', maybe.

Proposed merge with Heisenberg limit

Feel like the Heisenberg limit is a specific application of the uncertainty principle that would be better discussed in the context of the latter. Although the target is large, I think merging this wouldn't be a problem since this would only amount to a sentance or two. ​ --Trialpears (talk) 21:36, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

Merging from Heisenberg limit makes sense to me, as the uncertainty principle is well-known. -- Beland (talk) 22:48, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

I support this as well. Daviddwd (talk) 01:54, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

I suppose yes, for the current content of Heisenberg limit, but maybe it should be

improved and extended. It seems to me that Heisenberg limit is more experimental, and less theoretical, and likely has some details not applicable here. But that only makes sense if we actually get those details. Gah4 (talk) 03:07, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

Given that the page in question is only a few sentences, smaller than most subsections within the main page, this merger seems perfectly logical, especially considering the similar nature of the two. I would be more than willing to make the edit myself 23:35, 5 December 2019 (UTC)