Uncertainty Principle - Are you uncertain about it?

Found this interesting article about how the Heisenberg Uncertainty principle has been poorly understood


Anyway, it got me thinking, and there is something that I still am not sure about. According to Heisenberg , which of the following is right?

Lets say I have an electron and am asking where it is (both location and velocity). The possible area is divided in my scenario into 10 portions. So I can say that there is a 10%chance that the electron is in each of those areas. This is odds, as long as all the electron has the same chance of being in each local.

OK, so, is the electron in all 10 locals until it is measured (collapse) or Is the electron in only one of the ten, we simply can't know which?

So I'm not asking about measuring, I'm asking about before we try to measure, what is the fundamental state of the electron? Is it 10% in each local, Is it totally in each local? Is in only in one local but not measurable?

Anyone want to take a shot at answering me, I would dig it.

 

There is a probability of the object being in a given area, not a percentage of the object being in a given area.

 

OK, so there is a probability. Thats all we can know. But, beyond what we can know, what does theory say? Is the particle in more than one place at a time? Regardless of the probability, that us trying to explain it. Maybe I'm making it more complex than it needs to be.

 

a probability is a %chance that it will be in an area. Or am I making a mistake with that too?

probibility is 1 in 10, hence a 10%chance that the particle will be in area X

 

No, you're correct. %chance is the same as a probability.

 

Keep in mind that "location" can mean different things as well.

 

Good, thought i was going crazy.

 

My understanding is that an electron cloud is used because it can act like the electron is in more than one location.

 

So then speaking of a particular electron, it is everywhere within the electron cloud all the time until noted?

 

my understanding is still yes, and this is related to why particles can act like waves. But my knowledge is very rusty, and won't be surprised if shown to be wrong.

 

OK, this was my view also until I got confused reading the article that was meant to clarify the uncertainty principal. Ironic.

 

Thanks, while you were typing I was editing my post that you quoted, I meant to have the word "cloud" after the second "electron".

 

Electrons can be determined. The "cloud" analogy is the way of describing the uncertainty principle and quantum mechanics, in that there is some probability it can be anywhere. But when desired, individual particles can be measured and noted. To make things more complicated, size is affected by speed, so saying "where" something is can depend on it's size. Additionally, the time component adds complexity because there is no such thing as simultaneity at those time scales.

 

Right, but all of this has to do with observability. The uncertainty principal is suppose to be in play regardless of observation. So this is what I am wondering. I am comfortable with what is going on and our inability to measure. My question is before any measuring, what is believed to be the nature of the location of the electron? So, is it everywhere withing the cloud? Is it in specific quantum steps, not everywhere but always located in all specific steps, or is it only in one place at any specific moment, but simply immeasurable so we talk about it as the cloud.

 

as you already did in another thread, you're essentially asking what is the ontological meaning of QM. the answer is still nobody knows.

various (untestable) theories include that the electron is actually a wave spread out before measurement and collapse, there is a "pilot wave" of some kind directing the electron, there exists both forward and backward in time causation that makes the electron appear smeared from our perspective, there are infinite realities encompassing all possible positions of the electron branching at measurement along with "Your" consciousness so you are aware of only one result, and some others that are even further over my head.

 

The ones driven by nerds.

 

Thanks. Ya, I never knew too much about QM until recently when it's become a small hobby to try and understand. The problem with learning via words and not math is that it's hard for me to figure what I don't know vs what is not currently knowable. And besides, it's kind of fun to ask these questions on a basketball forum. It's actually amazing how many intelligent responses I get. Just imagine asking on a Lakers forum. Haha

 

Uncertainty Principle, besides being an obvious oxymoron, is neither a principle nor an uncertainty.