Uncertainty Principle

rom #14 ( Determinism and Causality ) , the position of a particle as well as its attributes cannot be determined with absolute precision. In association with this fact, a particle may disappear from one place and reappear elsewhere acausally. The only limitations are imposed by the requirements of Planck's constant.
This is in addition to the causal randomness originating from the reaction velocity (the endless 'jumping around' in response to the appearance of new particles within the field of the central particle).

Since the reaction velocity is always greater than light velocity and the notification of the existence of a new particle travels at c, one might rightly inquire as to what occurs when the reacting particle 'overruns' the notification. Does it recross the passing notice and count the particle twice? If this were true the theory of an underlying integer count would be compromised.

The simple way around this is that the notice of existence is indeterminate. Meaning that the reacting particle may react at any time within limits set by the indeterminacy of the event. So that the central particle jumps around in concert with the number of notifications received within some finite time rather than jumping exactly when encountering a new particle notice. To perform any operation with infinite precision would violate the requirements given in #14.

The reaction velocity (causal indeterminism) is coupled with uncertainty of position (acausal indeterminism). These indeterminate factors are added to the deterministic velocity to obtain the motion of the electron as the changing position of its "locus of activity".

Note: the reaction velocity is also coupled with mass since it is the reaction velocity 'folded up' which determines the Compton wavelength of the particle.

If an object were to disappear from one location and reappear in another, how do we say that it is the same object (in classical terms), i.e. if you disappear from where you presently are and reappear across the room by what logic would you say that the new position was not occupied by "another person looking just like you". Of course, it would be meaningless unless differences were apparent to others in addition to position change.

The case of the electron is not as simple since all electrons are identical (by quantum logic, i.e. identity of indiscernibles). Here we must decide whether the presently observed electron is the same one or another which has transported itself by many light years ... instantaneously. I believe you can here see why the speed of light is also bound up with Planck's constant and that it too is variable to such extent that an electron can do anything (even against the classical rules of physics) provided that it doesn't get caught, i.e. no measurement can be taken which verifies a violation of some conservation law.

Thus, the velocity of a particle, its angular momentum, its mass, energy and position ... are all variable to an extent fixed ultimately by the requirement that to exist, requires a a degree of consistency in behavior alluded to in Determinism and Causality, as well as a degree of inconsistency in order that any measure of randomness at all might be displayed.


We must suppose that the reaction velocity of the electron in response to the appearance of new particles must be an aggregate reaction meaning that if we could detect what the electron is actually doing, it would balance out ... over time ... to a number of "jumps" approximating the new particle production rate.

Next Page

Ebtx Home Page