Is not this slightly off-topic? Lionel --- bdhill <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > please reply to [EMAIL PROTECTED] > thank you. > > > THE UNCERTAINTY PRINCIPLE IS UNTENABLE > > > By re-analysing Heisenberg's Gamma-Ray Microscope experiment and the ideal > experiment from which > the uncertainty principle is derived, it is actually found that the uncertainty > principle can > not be obtained from them. It is therefore found to be untenable. > > Key words: > uncertainty principle; Heisenberg's Gamma-Ray Microscope Experiment; ideal > experiment > > Ideal Experiment 1 > > Heisenberg's Gamma-Ray Microscope Experiment > > > A free electron sits directly beneath the center of the microscope's lens (please > see AIP page > http://www.aip.org/history/heisenberg/p08b.htm or diagram below) . The circular lens > forms a > cone of angle 2A from the electron. The electron is then illuminated from the left > by gamma > rays--high energy light which has the shortest wavelength. These yield the highest > resolution, > for according to a principle of wave optics, the microscope can resolve (that is, > "see" or > distinguish) objects to a size of dx, which is related to and to the wavelength L of > the gamma > ray, by the expression: > > dx = L/(2sinA) (1) > > However, in quantum mechanics, where a light wave can act like a particle, a gamma > ray striking > an electron gives it a kick. At the moment the light is diffracted by the electron > into the > microscope lens, the electron is thrust to the right. To be observed by the > microscope, the > gamma ray must be scattered into any angle within the cone of angle 2A. In quantum > mechanics, > the gamma ray carries momentum as if it were a particle. The total momentum p is > related to the > wavelength by the formula, > > p = h / L, where h is Planck's constant. (2) > > In the extreme case of diffraction of the gamma ray to the right edge of the lens, > the total > momentum would be the sum of the electron's momentum P'x in the x direction and the > gamma ray's > momentum in the x direction: > > P' x + (h sinA) / L', where L' is the wavelength of the deflected gamma ray. > > In the other extreme, the observed gamma ray recoils backward, just hitting the left > edge of the > lens. In this case, the total momentum in the x direction is: > > P''x - (h sinA) / L''. > > The final x momentum in each case must equal the initial x momentum, since momentum > is > conserved. Therefore, the final x momenta are equal to each other: > > P'x + (h sinA) / L' = P''x - (h sinA) / L'' (3) > > If A is small, then the wavelengths are approximately the same, > > L' ~ L" ~ L. So we have > > P''x - P'x = dPx ~ 2h sinA / L (4) > > Since dx = L/(2 sinA), we obtain a reciprocal relationship between the minimum > uncertainty in > the measured position, dx, of the electron along the x axis and the uncertainty in > its momentum, > dPx, in the x direction: > > dPx ~ h / dx or dPx dx ~ h. (5) > > For more than minimum uncertainty, the "greater than" sign may added. > > Except for the factor of 4pi and an equal sign, this is Heisenberg's uncertainty > relation for > the simultaneous measurement of the position and momentum of an object. > > Re-analysis > > To be seen by the microscope, the gamma ray must be scattered into any angle within > the cone of > angle 2A. > > The microscope can resolve (that is, "see" or distinguish) objects to a size of dx, > which is > related to and to the wavelength L of the gamma ray, by the expression: > > dx = L/(2sinA) (1) > > This is the resolving limit of the microscope and it is the uncertain quantity of > the object's > position. > > The microscope can not see the object whose size is smaller than its resolving > limit, dx. > Therefore, to be seen by the microscope, the size of the electron must be larger > than or equal > to the resolving limit. > > But if the size of the electron is larger than or equal to the resolving limit dx, > the electron > will not be in the range dx. Therefore, dx can not be deemed to be the uncertain > quantity of the > electron's position which can be seen by the microscope, but deemed to be the > uncertain quantity > of the electron's position which can not be seen by the microscope. To repeat, dx is > uncertainty > in the electron's position which can not be seen by the microscope. > > To be seen by the microscope, the gamma ray must be scattered into any angle within > the cone of > angle 2A, so we can measure the momentum of the electron. > > dPx is the uncertainty in the electron's momentum which can be seen by microscope. > > What relates to dx is the electron where the size is smaller than the resolving > limit. When the > electron is in the range dx, it can not be seen by the microscope, so its position > is uncertain. > > > What relates to dPx is the electron where the size is larger than or equal to the > resolving > limit .The electron is not in the range dx, so it can be seen by the microscope and > its position > is certain. > > Therefore, the electron which relates to dx and dPx respectively is not the same. > What we can > see is the electron where the size is larger than or equal to the resolving limit dx > and has a > certain position, dx = 0. > > Quantum mechanics does not rely on the size of the object, but on Heisenberg's > Gamma-Ray > Microscope experiment. The use of the microscope must relate to the size of the > object. The size > of the object which can be seen by the microscope must be larger than or equal to > the resolving > limit dx of the microscope, thus the uncertain quantity of the electron's position > does not > exist. The gamma ray which is diffracted by the electron can be scattered into any > angle within > the cone of angle 2A, where we can measure the momentum of the electron. > > What we can see is the electron which has a certain position, dx = 0, so that in no > other > position can we measure the momentum of the electron. In Quantum mechanics, the > momentum of the > electron can be measured accurately when we measure the momentum of the electron > only, > therefore, we have gained dPx = 0. > > And, > > dPx dx =0. (6) > > Ideal experiment 2 > > Single Slit Diffraction Experiment > > > Suppose a particle moves in the Y direction originally and then passes a slit with > width > dx(Please see diagram below) . The uncertain quantity of the particle's position in > the X > direction is dx, and interference occurs at the back slit . According to Wave Optics > , the angle > where No.1 min of interference pattern is can be calculated by following formula: > > sinA=L/2dx (1) > > and L=h/p where h is Planck's constant. (2) > > So the uncertainty principle can be obtained > > dPx dx ~ h (5) > > Re-analysis > > According to Newton first law , if an external force in the X direction does not > affect the > particle, it will move in a uniform straight line, ( Motion State or Static State) , > and the > motion in the Y direction is unchanged .Therefore , we can learn its position in the > slit from > its starting point. > > The particle can have a certain position in the slit and the uncertain quantity of > the position > is dx =0. According to Newton first law , if the external force at the X direction > does not > affect particle, and the original motion in the Y direction is not changed , the > momentum of the > particle int the X direction will be Px=0 and the uncertain quantity of the momentum > will be dPx > =0. > > This gives: > > dPx dx =0. (6) > > No experiment negates NEWTON FIRST LAW. Whether in quantum mechanics or classical > mechanics, it > applies to the microcosmic world and is of the form of the Energy-Momentum > conservation laws. If > an external force does not affect the particle and it does not remain static or in > uniform > motion, it has disobeyed the Energy-Momentum conservation laws. Under the above > ideal experiment > , it is considered that the width of the slit is the uncertain quantity of the > particle's > position. But there is certainly no reason for us to consider that the particle in > the above > experiment has an uncertain position, and no reason for us to consider that the > slit's width is > the uncertain quantity of the particle. Therefore, the uncertainty principle, > > dPx dx ~ h (5) > > which is derived from the above experiment is unreasonable. > > Concluson > > > From the above re-analysis , it is realized that the ideal experiment demonstration > for the > uncertainty principle is untenable. Therefore, the uncertainty principle is > untenable. > > > > Reference: > 1. Max Jammer. (1974) The philosophy of quantum mechanics (John wiley & sons , Inc > New York ) > Page 65 > 2. Ibid, Page 67 > 3. http://www.aip.org/history/heisenberg/p08b.htm > > > > Author : Gong BingXin > Postal address : P.O.Box A111 YongFa XiaoQu XinHua HuaDu > GuangZhou 510800 P.R.China > > E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Tel: 86---20---86856616 > > _______________________________________________ > XFree86 mailing list > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > === message truncated ===
__________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Tax Center - forms, calculators, tips, more http://taxes.yahoo.com/ _______________________________________________ XFree86 mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://XFree86.Org/mailman/listinfo/xfree86
