Article View: sci.physics
Article #7594a QM paradox (??)
From: Samir Kumar Mathur
Date: Sun, 02 Aug 1987 21:31
Date: Sun, 02 Aug 1987 21:31
63 lines
3122 bytes
3122 bytes
Here is a thought experiment which seems to violate Uncertainity Principle (UP)
that came up at a casual discussion with a friend.
Scenario :
There are two particles A and B and I am trying to measure their
momentum and positions accurately.
Experiment :
(1) At time t:
(a) I measure the momentums p(A,t) & p(B,t) and hence
p(A&B,t) = p(A,t) + p(B,t) as accurately as I wish.
(2) At time t+dt:
(a) I measure the momentum of A, p(A,t+dt) as accurately
as I wish.
(b) I measure the position of B, q(B,t+dt) as accurately
as I wish.
(c) I calculate p(B,t+dt) = p(A&B,t) - p(A,t+dt)
{conservation of momentum} as accurately as I wish.
Conclusion:
From steps 2(b),(c) I conclude that I can measure p(B,t+dt),q(B,t+dt)
as accurately as I wish. This obviously violates Heisenberg's UP.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
I could come up with the following possible explanations for the above
paradox(??) :
1. In the act of observing the two momentums p(A,t),p(B,t) accurately,
I will always disturb the total momentum of the system and thus
I cannot calculate 2(c) from the principle of conservation of
momentum.
2. The two events 2(b) & 2(c) are not independent and doing one of them
*instantaneously* effects the other, ie. the two cannot be
carried out simultaneously with arbitrary accuracy.
3. My step 2(c) is incorrect because I am assuming some kind of *objectivity*
(is it the right word in this context ?) in this experiment which
leads to a wrong conclusion. ie. unless I actually observe p(B,t+dt),
I can never say that p(B,t+dt) = p(A&B,t) - p(A,t+dt) and that I
cannot claim that conservation of momentum holds unless I directly
measure all the component momentums. But of course, if I do that,
step 2(b) will not be possible.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I would welcome any knowledgeble/reasonable comments on the subject.
Cheers,
Samir.
ps. I am relatively new on this net and in case an isomorph of this question
has already been discussed, I apologise for reposting it.
*****************************************************************************
Thought for the day : Mu.
Samir K. Mathur (213)-743-2746 (off)
CS dept., USC. (213)-748-2524 (Res)
*****************************************************************************
Technical Details
Message-ID:
<3794@oberon.USC.EDU>Path:
arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!utzoo!mnetor!uunet!seismo!husc6!bloom-beacon!oberon!pollux.usc.edu!mathurShow Full Headers
Complete Article Headers
Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Path: arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!utzoo!mnetor!uunet!seismo!husc6!bloom-beacon!oberon!pollux.usc.edu!mathur From: mathur@pollux.usc.edu (Samir Kumar Mathur) Newsgroups: sci.physics,sci.philosophy.tech Subject: a QM paradox (??) Message-ID: <3794@oberon.USC.EDU> Date: Sun, 2-Aug-87 17:31:52 EDT Article-I.D.: oberon.3794 Posted: Sun Aug 2 17:31:52 1987 Date-Received: Sun, 2-Aug-87 22:36:33 EDT Sender: nobody@oberon.USC.EDU Reply-To: mathur@pollux.usc.edu (Samir Kumar Mathur) Distribution: sci Organization: University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA Lines: 63 Keywords: Uncertainity Principle