Thought experiment to explain microcosm research
(Physicist with sickness)
I
A given physicist determines the coordinates of a given fine particle on the X-axis at a given time T1 with arbitrary accuracy. Suppose you have a mission to do. Can this be done?
Generally speaking, there are certain limits to measurements in the microcosm, which are represented by Heisenberg's uncertainty or uncertainty principle. These limitations affect some combinations of particle parameters that cannot be measured exactly at the same time. However, in this case, you only need to measure a simple parameter on one axis. Therefore, even the most rigorous physicists will say it is perfectly possible. This job is pretty feasible.
So our experimenters start with the problem. When you press the red button at the specified time T1 to start the measurement experiment, the coordinates of the fine particle X1 will be determined with arbitrary accuracy. What will it be It is important to emphasize that there are no blurry spatial clouds of probability values, abstract mathematical matrices, or mysterious function transformations, but no concrete points on the horizontal axis. This is an accurate measurement localized along the spatial axis in time.
However, this situation is complicated by the fact that the experimenter started work with a strong hangover after yesterday's big hangover. I missed the experiment and didn't start because it was difficult to press the red start button. No measurement was done.
There are no problems. It is possible to make the measurement a little later. Assume that our physicist has decided to postpone the act of measuring till the moment of time T2 = T1 + t, where t = 1 minute. As the first act of measuring had not taken place, the situation basically did not change. Limitations have not been set. The new tolerance measurement was made with arbitrary accuracy. If everything is correct, the experimenter will get the exact coordinates of the particle X2. This is also a point on the horizontal axis, but it's somewhere else. Some have already suspected that our physicists may have missed the red start button again. No measurements were made here either. He repeats the experiment and misses point X3 again.
So, interpret the situation. Our experimenters have experienced many times to achieve the act of putting t between T1, T2, T3 ... T (n) ... and measuring. For each of them, he can get the exact coordinates of the particles on the horizontal axes X1, X2, X3… X (n)…. Taking advantage of the fact that some interesting things are allowed in thought experiments, we force a time interval t that tends to be zero. Overall, you get an infinite set of points on the axis where the distance approaches zero. The points are actually merged into one curve.
What is this curve? This is a plot of the exact coordinates of the particles along the horizontal axis within a particular time interval. Therefore, at any point in this space, there is a point on the curve with accurate coordinates on the horizontal axis. In other words, if the experimenter starts the measurement at the right moment, he can find any point on this curve. Obviously strict determinism works here. There are no loopholes in chances and probabilities.
But this is not all. We shall assume that our physicist was so clumsy that he has touched the apparatus and has unintentionally changed the shoulder of the measuring instrument from an Xaxis to the Yaxis. Now all measurements will be valid for an axis of ordinates. In total, the concrete curve with potentially measurable coordinates of a micro particle will again be obtained. All axes in our case are equal, so as a result of the same mental trick, we can get the precise coordinate curve along the Zaxis.
Therefore, we have determined three curves along the three axes. They can be safely integrated into a spatial curve that can be called a "orbit". If, at any point within a given interval, the experimenter makes only one measurement on one of the three axes, the experimenter will fix the point on that curve (not elsewhere!). On the other hand, you can find any point on this spatial curve by measuring any of the three selected axes at the right time. There is a complete and obvious response that does not allow different interpretations.
As a result of this thought experiment, we come to the conclusion that the curve of locomotion of a micro particle really exists, has a precise local in space and time and can be easily found with arbitrary accuracy at any point on any chosen axis. This is quite a deterministic routine.
II
Problems will arise when we set a task to receive, say, precise coordinates of two or more points at once. Here the key limitation characterizing the nature of our relationships with the microcosm already comes into operation. We have termed it “a problem of the second measurement”. 20th century physicists explained them using Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle or Uncertainty Principle.
There are events in the human experience of the universe. There are events in the microcosm. And there is the process of transmitting and presenting events from the microcosm to our macrocosm. It is important to emphasize that the above issues do not affect human cosmic and microcosm events. It only affects the translation process. There is a central problem at the boundary between these two worlds. This has already been explained in the article "Ring Determinism and Probability".
There is a primitive way to explain how difficult it is to transfer multiple accurate (arbitrarily accurate) readings from a microcosmos to a human macrocosmos. What about the other required values? Now that a flaw in our habitual deterministic research methodology has been discovered, it inevitably opens the door to ambiguity and randomness. Capacity compensation requires the use of indirect descriptive calculation methods: blurry spatial clouds of probability values, abstract templates, and clever transformations of mysterious functions?
It is important to reiterate that all of these indirect steps are not directly related to the actual events and processes of the microcosm. These are simply convenient computational descriptions for physicists that can somehow tackle the problem of presenting events in one pattern to another. In the above thought experiment, it was shown that the motion curve (orbit) of fine particles actually exists. In addition, each point can be found experimentally with any accuracy. However, this curve cannot be graphed accurately (although it can be roughly plotted in a bubble chamber or expansion chamber (cloud chamber)). The
positivists (physicists and philosophers) in this situation have interesting conclusions that the orbit does not exist in the microcosm, the fine particles are not point objects that are precisely localized in space, but are probability clouds that blur space-time. Is derived. Nonsense.
Materialists, physicists and philosophers need to answer this ugliness in a strictly scientific way and with a differentiated approach. That is, it separates the new descriptive computational model of reality from the physical reality itself. Ultimately, it is possible to achieve results by moving away from modern microastrophysics, which is already confused by the superiority of superficial descriptive computational methodologies, and gaining a deeper understanding of the nature of the relevant physical processes. Will be.
You must be logged in to post a comment.