Why shouldn't we think of the Uncertainty Principle as just a statement
about the limits of observation, rather than about something objective, especially as in causing some non-zero vacuum energy?
Is there some experiment that settles "uncertainty" as something "really there"? In particular, I am not sure if the expansion of the Universe
is such evidence, or rather a consequence of the theory.
Thanks for any insight.
-Julio
On 5/18/25 10:28, Julio Di Egidio wrote:
Why shouldn't we think of the Uncertainty Principle as just a statement
about the limits of observation, rather than about something objective,
especially as in causing some non-zero vacuum energy?
Is there some experiment that settles "uncertainty" as something "really
there"? In particular, I am not sure if the expansion of the Universe
is such evidence, or rather a consequence of the theory.
Thanks for any insight.
Interesting. A statement or question actually
about physics.
If something is 'quantized' in quantum mechanics
it is actually there [and] not there.
Take an electron. It actually has a specific
rest mass or charge. It does not have an infinite
number of fine degrees of mass or charge.
On 19/05/2025 03:10, x wrote:
On 5/18/25 10:28, Julio Di Egidio wrote:
Why shouldn't we think of the Uncertainty Principle as just a statement
about the limits of observation, rather than about something objective,
especially as in causing some non-zero vacuum energy?
Is there some experiment that settles "uncertainty" as something "really >>> there"? In particular, I am not sure if the expansion of the Universe
is such evidence, or rather a consequence of the theory.
Thanks for any insight.
Interesting. A statement or question actually
about physics.
LOL, indeed.
If something is 'quantized' in quantum mechanics
it is actually there [and] not there.
Take an electron. It actually has a specific
rest mass or charge. It does not have an infinite
number of fine degrees of mass or charge.
But quantisation has nothing to do with uncertainty.
Unless you are thinking of quantising space-time...?
On 19/05/2025 11:07, Julio Di Egidio wrote:
On 19/05/2025 03:10, x wrote:
On 5/18/25 10:28, Julio Di Egidio wrote:
Why shouldn't we think of the Uncertainty Principle as just a statement >>>> about the limits of observation, rather than about something objective, >>>> especially as in causing some non-zero vacuum energy?
Is there some experiment that settles "uncertainty" as something
"really
there"? In particular, I am not sure if the expansion of the Universe >>>> is such evidence, or rather a consequence of the theory.
Thanks for any insight.
Interesting. A statement or question actually
about physics.
LOL, indeed.
If something is 'quantized' in quantum mechanics
it is actually there [and] not there.
Take an electron. It actually has a specific
rest mass or charge. It does not have an infinite
number of fine degrees of mass or charge.
But quantisation has nothing to do with uncertainty.
Unless you are thinking of quantising space-time...?
I.e. space-time dimensions: so no, at least not until
further notice, as those remain in a first instance
descriptions of observation, the "frames of reference".
On 19/05/2025 03:10, x wrote:
On 5/18/25 10:28, Julio Di Egidio wrote:
Why shouldn't we think of the Uncertainty Principle as just a statement
about the limits of observation, rather than about something objective,
especially as in causing some non-zero vacuum energy?
Is there some experiment that settles "uncertainty" as something "really >>> there"? In particular, I am not sure if the expansion of the Universe
is such evidence, or rather a consequence of the theory.
Thanks for any insight.
Interesting. A statement or question actually
about physics.
LOL, indeed.
If something is 'quantized' in quantum mechanics
it is actually there [and] not there.
Take an electron. It actually has a specific
rest mass or charge. It does not have an infinite
number of fine degrees of mass or charge.
But quantisation has nothing to do with uncertainty.
Unless you are thinking of quantising space-time...?
-Julio
On 5/19/25 02:07, Julio Di Egidio wrote:statement
On 19/05/2025 03:10, x wrote:
On 5/18/25 10:28, Julio Di Egidio wrote:
Why shouldn't we think of the Uncertainty Principle as just a
objective,about the limits of observation, rather than about something
especially as in causing some non-zero vacuum energy?
Is there some experiment that settles "uncertainty" as something
"really
there"? In particular, I am not sure if the expansion of the Universe
is such evidence, or rather a consequence of the theory.
Thanks for any insight.
Interesting. A statement or question actually
about physics.
LOL, indeed.
If something is 'quantized' in quantum mechanics
it is actually there [and] not there.
Take an electron. It actually has a specific
rest mass or charge. It does not have an infinite
number of fine degrees of mass or charge.
But quantisation has nothing to do with uncertainty.
Unless you are thinking of quantising space-time...?
-Julio
Why shouldn't we think of the Uncertainty Principle as just a statement
about the limits of observation, rather than about something objective, especially as in causing some non-zero vacuum energy?
Is there some experiment that settles "uncertainty" as something "really there"? In particular, I am not sure if the expansion of the Universe
is such evidence, or rather a consequence of the theory.
Thanks for any insight.
-Julio
On May 18, 2025, Julio Di Egidio wrote<snip>
Thanks for any insight.
You might want to try posting to the moderated group
sci.physics.research , which has some knowledgeable
readers.
Why do you think the universe expands?
--
On 5/20/25 00:41, Bertitaylor wrote:
Why do you think the universe expands?
--
I am not sure about that thought experiment concerning
an infinitely old universe having the background of space
gradually filling with stars if there was an infinite
distance or time to look upon it.
It seems feasible that the integral could add up to
near zero as well as stars everywhere.
Anyway the Doppler effect is different from the photoelectric
effect.
On Tue, 20 May 2025 9:45:49 +0000, x wrote:
On 5/20/25 00:41, Bertitaylor wrote:
Why do you think the universe expands?
I am not sure about that thought experiment concerning
an infinitely old universe having the background of space
gradually filling with stars if there was an infinite
distance or time to look upon it.
Idea is that the universe always was and always will be, of infinite
size. This goes against Genesis so idea is automatically outed by
Abrahamic minds to the corruption of science by wrong physics
It seems feasible that the integral could add up to
near zero as well as stars everywhere.
Near zero density of the universe is not zero density, but enough to put
the show on constant motion.
Anyway the Doppler effect is different from the photoelectric
effect.
Doppler effect shows half the galaxies are going away and half coming
towards us. Redshift, blueshift both happening. No edge found of the universe. Only more galaxies.
On 5/19/25 11:09, David Dalton wrote:
On May 18, 2025, Julio Di Egidio wrote
(in article <100d5cr$105b1$1@dont-email.me>):
Why shouldn't we think of the Uncertainty Principle as just a statement
about the limits of observation, rather than about something objective,
especially as in causing some non-zero vacuum energy?
Is there some experiment that settles "uncertainty" as something "really >>> there"? In particular, I am not sure if the expansion of the Universe
is such evidence, or rather a consequence of the theory.
Thanks for any insight.
-Julio
You might want to try posting to the moderated group
sci.physics.research , which has some knowledgeable
readers.
You know there is a lot to be said against censorship,
but when it comes to how it is easier for people to just
make stuff up rather than find out the truth (like no
red shift of galaxies) then I guess I could look (maybe
it is impossible to post there).
Basic question, is there some way to tell whether a
usenet group is moderated or not moderated?
Something like 'sci.physics.research' does not seem
to say much to me like 'I am a moderated usenet group'.
On May 18, 2025, Julio Di Egidio wrote
(in article <100d5cr$105b1$1@dont-email.me>):
Why shouldn't we think of the Uncertainty Principle as just a statement
about the limits of observation, rather than about something objective,
especially as in causing some non-zero vacuum energy?
Is there some experiment that settles "uncertainty" as something "really
there"? In particular, I am not sure if the expansion of the Universe
is such evidence, or rather a consequence of the theory.
Thanks for any insight.
-Julio
You might want to try posting to the moderated group
sci.physics.research , which has some knowledgeable
readers.
On 20/05/2025 13:22, Bertitaylor wrote:
On Tue, 20 May 2025 9:45:49 +0000, x wrote:
On 5/20/25 00:41, Bertitaylor wrote:
Why do you think the universe expands?
I am not sure about that thought experiment concerning
an infinitely old universe having the background of space
gradually filling with stars if there was an infinite
distance or time to look upon it.
Idea is that the universe always was and always will be, of infinite
size. This goes against Genesis so idea is automatically outed by
Abrahamic minds to the corruption of science by wrong physics
It seems feasible that the integral could add up to
near zero as well as stars everywhere.
Near zero density of the universe is not zero density, but enough to put
the show on constant motion.
That makes a lot sense, especially more sense than the
circularity of reasoning that I am finding all over the place.
Anyway the Doppler effect is different from the photoelectric
effect.
Doppler effect shows half the galaxies are going away and half coming
towards us. Redshift, blueshift both happening. No edge found of the
universe. Only more galaxies.
Indeed, also the problem of what evidence for what tampering.
If nothing, it's embarrassing...
-Julio
On 5/19/25 11:09, David Dalton wrote:
On May 18, 2025, Julio Di Egidio wrote
(in article <100d5cr$105b1$1@dont-email.me>):
Why shouldn't we think of the Uncertainty Principle as just a statement
about the limits of observation, rather than about something objective,
especially as in causing some non-zero vacuum energy?
Is there some experiment that settles "uncertainty" as something "really >>> there"? In particular, I am not sure if the expansion of the Universe
is such evidence, or rather a consequence of the theory.
Thanks for any insight.
-Julio
You might want to try posting to the moderated group
sci.physics.research , which has some knowledgeable
readers.
You know there is a lot to be said against censorship,
but when it comes to how it is easier for people to just
make stuff up rather than find out the truth (like no
red shift of galaxies) then I guess I could look (maybe
it is impossible to post there).
Basic question, is there some way to tell whether a
usenet group is moderated or not moderated?
Something like 'sci.physics.research' does not seem
to say much to me like 'I am a moderated usenet group'.
x <x@x.org> wrote:
On 5/19/25 11:09, David Dalton wrote:
On May 18, 2025, Julio Di Egidio wrote
(in article <100d5cr$105b1$1@dont-email.me>):
Why shouldn't we think of the Uncertainty Principle as just a statement >>>> about the limits of observation, rather than about something objective, >>>> especially as in causing some non-zero vacuum energy?
Is there some experiment that settles "uncertainty" as something "really >>>> there"? In particular, I am not sure if the expansion of the Universe
is such evidence, or rather a consequence of the theory.
Thanks for any insight.
-Julio
You might want to try posting to the moderated group
sci.physics.research , which has some knowledgeable
readers.
You know there is a lot to be said against censorship,
but when it comes to how it is easier for people to just
make stuff up rather than find out the truth (like no
red shift of galaxies) then I guess I could look (maybe
it is impossible to post there).
Basic question, is there some way to tell whether a
usenet group is moderated or not moderated?
https://www.harley.com/usenet/master-list/index.html
Search for "physics moderated".
Something like 'sci.physics.research' does not seem
to say much to me like 'I am a moderated usenet group'.
On Tue, 20 May 2025 13:55:51 +0000, Julio Di Egidio wrote:
On 20/05/2025 13:22, Bertitaylor wrote:
On Tue, 20 May 2025 9:45:49 +0000, x wrote:
On 5/20/25 00:41, Bertitaylor wrote:
Why do you think the universe expands?
I am not sure about that thought experiment concerning
an infinitely old universe having the background of space
gradually filling with stars if there was an infinite
distance or time to look upon it.
Idea is that the universe always was and always will be, of infinite
size. This goes against Genesis so idea is automatically outed by
Abrahamic minds to the corruption of science by wrong physics
It seems feasible that the integral could add up to
near zero as well as stars everywhere.
Near zero density of the universe is not zero density, but enough to put >>> the show on constant motion.
That makes a lot sense, especially more sense than the
circularity of reasoning that I am finding all over the place.
Anyway the Doppler effect is different from the photoelectric
effect.
Doppler effect shows half the galaxies are going away and half coming
towards us. Redshift, blueshift both happening. No edge found of the
universe. Only more galaxies.
Indeed, also the problem of what evidence for what tampering.
If nothing, it's embarrassing...
-Julio
Good, Arindam's physics throws out all confusion. It unites all forces
as electric; updates the laws of motion and chucks out the theories of relativity and quantum.
You can easily get the relevant links from searching in this newsgroup.
On 5/20/25 16:08, Bertitaylor wrote:
On Tue, 20 May 2025 13:55:51 +0000, Julio Di Egidio wrote:
On 20/05/2025 13:22, Bertitaylor wrote:
On Tue, 20 May 2025 9:45:49 +0000, x wrote:
On 5/20/25 00:41, Bertitaylor wrote:
Why do you think the universe expands?
I am not sure about that thought experiment concerning
an infinitely old universe having the background of space
gradually filling with stars if there was an infinite
distance or time to look upon it.
Idea is that the universe always was and always will be, of infinite
size. This goes against Genesis so idea is automatically outed by
Abrahamic minds to the corruption of science by wrong physics
It seems feasible that the integral could add up to
near zero as well as stars everywhere.
Near zero density of the universe is not zero density, but enough to put >>>> the show on constant motion.
That makes a lot sense, especially more sense than the
circularity of reasoning that I am finding all over the place.
Anyway the Doppler effect is different from the photoelectric
effect.
Doppler effect shows half the galaxies are going away and half coming
towards us. Redshift, blueshift both happening. No edge found of the
universe. Only more galaxies.
Indeed, also the problem of what evidence for what tampering.
If nothing, it's embarrassing...
-Julio
Good, Arindam's physics throws out all confusion. It unites all forces
as electric; updates the laws of motion and chucks out the theories of
relativity and quantum.
You can easily get the relevant links from searching in this newsgroup.
You know with classic static electricity, a lot of positive charges
like 'protons' would repel each other in a nucleus.
You might need a 'strong force' to keep them in the nucleus regardless
of the quantum nature of this 'strong force'.
Then there might be neutrons and positrons or electrons. It might be
that the nature of the 'weak force' might not be as obvious as the
'strong force'. It does seem feasible however that the 'strong force'
might be different from static electricity. Positive charges do repel
each other.
On 5/19/25 11:09, David Dalton wrote:
On May 18, 2025, Julio Di Egidio wrote
(in article <100d5cr$105b1$1@dont-email.me>):
Why shouldn't we think of the Uncertainty Principle as just a statement about the limits of observation, rather than about something objective, especially as in causing some non-zero vacuum energy?
Is there some experiment that settles "uncertainty" as something "really there"? In particular, I am not sure if the expansion of the Universe
is such evidence, or rather a consequence of the theory.
Thanks for any insight.
-Julio
You might want to try posting to the moderated group
sci.physics.research , which has some knowledgeable
readers.
You know there is a lot to be said against censorship,
but when it comes to how it is easier for people to just
make stuff up rather than find out the truth (like no
red shift of galaxies) then I guess I could look (maybe
it is impossible to post there).
Basic question, is there some way to tell whether a
usenet group is moderated or not moderated?
Something like 'sci.physics.research' does not seem
to say much to me like 'I am a moderated usenet group’.t should
Why shouldn't we think of the Uncertainty Principle as just a statement
about the limits of observation, rather than about something objective, especially as in causing some non-zero vacuum energy?
Is there some experiment that settles "uncertainty" as something "really there"? In particular, I am not sure if the expansion of the Universe
is such evidence, or rather a consequence of the theory.
Thanks for any insight.
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 505 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 44:53:15 |
| Calls: | 9,919 |
| Calls today: | 6 |
| Files: | 13,801 |
| Messages: | 6,347,274 |