Questioning the Uncertainty Principle

Question

I am aware this is a widely accepted consensus within the scientific community now, however, majority opinion does not equate to truth as history shows. Furthermore, I still question the validity of the uncertainty principle.

To me, the logic is flawed. In my mind, the lack of knowledge of the position and speed of a particle simply shows we do not know what is happening. This does not necessarily imply quantum mechanics is inhernetly probabilistic as the nature of the particles may remain deterministic, although we are unable to measure this with our crude instruments.

Yet majority opinion, cannot be discarded with ease. Therefore I maintain a position of ignorance at present as I have heard of convincing evidence supporting the uncertainty principle. Maybe the world is controlled by random chance and maybe God really does play dice.

I would like to hear your thoughts on this matter as I am sure many of you have read more deeply than me.

I believe you must ask your specific question out doubt rather than personal opinions. — SRS, Jul 01 '17 at 21:24
You hold what is called a realist position here: there is a state of reality which we can't measure, so we have to settle for quantum mechanics. The problem is that there are many no-go theorem which drastically restrict such realist theories. A starting point: Wikipedia — , Jul 01 '17 at 21:46
The uncertainty principle is an experimental fact. There is an interpretation of QM, Bohmian Mechanics, that is non-local but has actual particles with definite positions (configuration) at all times and that, proponents claim, makes the same predictions as 'orthodox' QM, i.e., the uncertainty principle holds. — Alfred Centauri, Jul 02 '17 at 03:44
Do not delude yourself in believing that the uncertainty principle is due to the lack of experimental evidence. It itself is an natural truth. — vs_292, Jul 02 '17 at 04:57
Possible duplicate of Isn't the uncertainty principle just non-fundamental limitations in our current technology that could be removed in a more advanced civilization? — John Rennie, Jul 02 '17 at 05:07
See also: Is the uncertainty principle a property of elementary particles or a result of our measurement tools? — John Rennie, Jul 02 '17 at 05:08

score 2 · Answer 1 · answered Jul 01 '17 at 22:09

2

The theory you are proposing is called Local hidden variable theory. It has been tightly constrained (or ruled out, depending on your interpretation) by Bell's theorem.

answered Jul 01 '17 at 22:09

tparker

47,418

kpv · Answer 2 · 2017-07-02T04:56:06.840

Uncertainty principle makes sense because it rises from the wave/particle dual nature of matter. A wave does not have a specific location because, it is spread over the wavelength with different amplitude. This is independent, and in addition to your "we do not know what is happening" part. Your logic can also contribute to real/practical uncertainty, but the theoretical (and insurmountable) uncertainty arises from the dual nature.

However, the mysterious non-local/non-realist/non-causal nature of quantum entanglement is not proved to be fundamental, it still needs to be probed, even though the majority view is different.

The majority view as of today is influenced by Bell's inequality. Bell's inequality only proves that "static local hidden variables" can not cause both - "perfect anti correlation", and "statistical correlations". Which is true. But "static local hidden variables (conservation laws in other words)" only cause anti correlation. "Statistical correlations" are caused by some other (yet to be uncovered) mechanism.

Questioning the Uncertainty Principle

2 Answers2