The uncertainty principle is a relationship that underpins quantum mechanics, and therefore, the very foundation of our world. But are we sure that we truly understand it?
This video only helps to cement my reluctance to the Copenhagen Interpretation. The example used at the end is expected - there is nothing surprising about it, since a photon acts as a wave. Also, the claim that the slit does not interact with the photon/electron is false in my opinion, and it is well known that slits can interact.
Never know maybe One day we may hook up to it in a way we could sense a new measure that could be replicated & publicly articulated It means determinism ends in yoo hoo woo uncertainty. If you grant it here you will push complexity there so we must Triangulate order like it or not . Issac newton spoke to this and it's exactly what we found and we knew this when we unlocked the keys to the cosmos originally but many 2/3 miss aligned minds really can't handle it or don't like it for do so even if it means creating mythological hidden variables of time & objects. We do this in classical factory of precision machining when equations of feed cutting A or b in speed both work independently but together A& b won't work . We scrap parts and invoke some hidden complexity to why it fails and we fabricate ways around the failure and do not try to explain them all away outside of a general causation.
Was the Uncertainty Principle involved in making the Big Bang of the Universe bang ? That is, was the origin of the kinetic energy in boiling over the quark-gluon "soup" the gravitational collapse of the soup itself ?
IN THE INTEREST OF FINDING THE THEORY OF EVERYTHING: It seems to me that ANY theory of everything idea should be able to answer the below items in a logical, coherent, inter-related way. If that idea does not, then is it truly a theory of everything? a. Numbers: Modern science does not even know how numbers and certain mathematical constants exist for math to do what math does. Surely the very nature of reality has to allow numbers and mathematical constants to actually exist for math to do what math does in this existence. b. Space: Modern science does not even know what 'space' actually is nor how it could actually warp and expand. c. Time: Modern science does not even know what 'time' actually is nor how it could actually warp and vary. d. Gravity: Modern science does not even know what 'gravity' actually is nor how gravity actually does what it appears to do. And for those who claim that 'gravity' is matter warping the fabric of spacetime, see 'b' and 'c' above. e. Speed of Light: 'Speed', distance divided by time, distance being two points in space with space between those two points. But yet, here again, modern science does not even know what space and time actually are that makes up 'speed' and they also claim that space can warp and expand and time can warp and vary, so how could they truly know even what the speed of light actually is that they utilize in many of the formulas? Speed of light should also warp, expand and vary depending upon what space and time it was in. And if the speed of light can warp, expand and vary in space and time, how then do far away astronomical observations actually work that are based upon light and the speed of light that could warp, expand and vary in actual reality? f. Photons: A photon swirls with the 'e' and 'm' energy fields 90 degrees to each other. A photon is also considered massless. What keeps the 'e' and 'm' energy fields together across the vast universe for billions of light years? And why doesn't the momentum of the 'e' and 'm' energy fields as they swirl about not fling them away from the central area of the photon? And why aren't photons that go across the vast universe torn apart by other photons, including photons with the exact same energy frequency, and/or by matter, matter being made up of quarks, electrons and interacting energy, quarks and electrons being considered charged particles, each with their respective magnetic field with them? Electricity is electricity and magnetism is magnetism varying possibly only in energy modality, energy density and energy frequency. So why doesn't the 'e' and 'm' of other photons and of matter basically tear apart a photon going across the vast universe? Also, 'if' a photon actually red shifts, where does the red shifted energy go and why does the photon red shift? And for those who claim space expanding causes a photon to red shift, see 'b' above. Why does radio 'em' (large 'em' waves) have low energy and gamma 'em' (small 'em' waves) have high energy? And for those who say E = hf; see also 'b' and 'c' above. (f = frequency, cycles per second. But modern science claims space can warp and expand and time can warp and vary. If 'space' warps and expands and/or 'time' warps and varies, what does that do to 'E'? And why doesn't 'E' keep space from expanding and time from varying?). g. Energy: Modern science claims that energy cannot be created nor destroyed, it's one of the foundations of physics. Hence, energy is either truly a finite amount and eternally existent, or modern science is wrong. First Law Of Thermodynamics: "Energy can neither be created nor destroyed." How exactly is 'energy' eternally existent? h. Existence and Non-Existence side by side throughout all of eternity. How? * NOTE: Even General Relativity and the Standard Model of Particle Physics cannot answer these items in a logical, coherent, inter-related way. Shouldn't these above items also require accurate answers?
The Uncertainty Principle: (Is 'Life' truly eternal or not): ETERNAL LIFE, IMMORTALITY: Really think about that: a. After existing for trillions of years, you would still have trillions of years after that, then trillions of years after that, endless trillions of years of existence. Plus, what if one were trapped for millions or billions of years, possibly even throughout all of future eternity somehow, someway that we are not even aware of yet? What initially what might be considered an eternal blessing could actually turn out to be an eternal curse. b. The other option is 'ETERNAL DEATH'. One would die one day from something, would forget everything one ever knew and experienced, and one would most probably be forgotten one day in future eternity as if one never ever existed at all in the first place. It would not even ultimately matter that one even ever existed at all in the first place, much less how one existed while one existed. Life itself would be ultimately meaningless in the grand scheme of things. c. Life itself is probably one way or the other above in actual reality, 'eternal life' or 'eternal death', one probably does not have a choice. But if one had a choice, which path would one choose? 'Eternal life in a literal heaven' where nothing bad ever occurs throughout all of future eternity, future eternity which is endless, or at least have an option of 'eternal death' somewhere along the way if needed? But by having an option of 'eternal death' in the mix, isn't one probably going to choose that option somewhere along the way in future eternity? Of which did one actually choose 'eternal death' in the first place by even having it in the mix? But the other option would be 'eternal life' with no way of ever ending it, possibly even being in a 'literal hell' of some sort for all of future eternity? If one had a choice, which path would one choose?
