# Squaring the Circle is Possible When Taking into Consideration the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle

Espen Gaarder Haug

<figure><img src="image_1.png" /></figure>

## To cite this version:

Espen Gaarder Haug. Squaring the Circle is Possible When Taking into Consideration the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle. 2021. [hal-03318463](https://hal.science/hal-03318463)

HAL Id: hal-03318463

https://hal.science/hal-03318463

Preprint submitted on 10 Aug 2021

HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access
archive for the deposit and dissemination of sci-
entific research documents, whether they are pub-
lished or not. The documents may come from
teaching and research institutions in France or
abroad, or from public or private research centers.

L'archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est
destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents
scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non,
émanant des établissements d'enseignement et de
recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires
publics ou privés.

<figure><img src="image_2.png" /></figure>

Distributed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License
# Squaring the Circle is Possible When Taking into Consideration the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle

Espen Gaarder Haug

Norwegian University of Life Sciences, Norway

e-mail espenhaug@mac.com

August 10, 2021

## Abstract

Squaring the circle is one of the oldest challenges in mathematical geometry. In 1882, it was proven that $\pi$ was transcendental, and the task of Squaring the Circle was considered impossible. When it was demonstrated that squaring the circles was not possible, this was before discovering quantum mechanics. Here, we consider Heisenberg's uncertainty principle and show that it is entirely possible to square the circle.

**Keywords:** Squaring the circle, quantum mechanics, Heisenberg uncertainty principle.

## 1 Background

Squaring the circle is the challenge of making a square and a circle with the same area using only a compass and straightedge in a finite number of steps, see [1, 2]. There was a long series of attempts to square the circle until Lindemann [3] in 1882 proved that $\pi$ was a transcendental number, and that, for this reason, it was impossible to square the circle. Hobson [4] in 1913 publishes an excellent book with a well-documented history of squaring the circle. He says:

*The history of our problem falls into three periods marked out fundamentally [with] distinct differences in respect of method, immediate aims, and of equipment in possession of intellectual tools.*

It also concludes with the following:

*It has thus been proved that $\pi$ is a transcendental number...the impossibility of 'squaring the circle' has been effectively established...*

However, since then, we have understood the physical world at a much deeper level than in 1882. Relativity theory and quantum mechanics were invented in the early 20th century, and we now have the tools to consider that we are into a fourth fundamentally distinct time with respect to methods and tools for Squaring the Circle. Haug [5] has recently shown that while it is impossible to square the circle in space, it is possible to square it in relativistic space-time. However, as he discussed in that paper, this is just to move the problems in space over in time. One then needs clocks with infinite precision, something that likely is impossible to achieve. That paper used special relativity theory to discuss that new insight in geometry, namely, Minkowski's space-time, gave new tools and new opportunities to look at the Squaring of the Circle problem. This paper looks at how quantum mechanics and the Heisenberg uncertainty principle will affect the squaring the circle challenges. As we will see, if the Heisenberg uncertainty principle always holds, then it seems one can square the circle.

## 2 Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle and Squaring the Circle

In 1927 Heisenberg [6] introduced what today is known as the Heisenberg's uncertainty principle, which basically states:

$$ \Delta p \Delta x \geq \hbar \qquad (1) $$

where $\Delta p$ is uncertainty in momentum, and $\Delta x$ is uncertainty in position, and $\hbar$ is the reduced Planck constant. In the same year, Kennard [7] claimed it should be $\Delta p \Delta x \geq \frac{\hbar}{2}$, however, if one should use $\hbar$ or $\hbar/2$ in the uncertainty principle. This will not be important for our main findings. Max Planck [8, 9] in 1899 introduced the Planck length $l_p = \sqrt{\frac{G\hbar}{c^3}}$. The Planck length is by many physicists assumed to be the smallest possible
length, see for example [10–15]. Similar views are held in superstring theory [16]. The Planck length plays an important role in quantum gravity theories, and to unify gravity with quantum mechanics, it is also assumed the Planck length must be incorporated in the Heisenberg uncertainty principle — which leads to what we can call various gravitational uncertainty principles. This is basically the Heisenberg principle modified to consider the Planck scale. For example, Adler and Santiago [17], based on such an extended uncertainty principle, argue that:

*From the modified or gravitational uncertainty principle, it follows that there is an absolute minimum uncertainty in the position of any particle, of the order of the Planck length.*

Garay [18] similar writes that:

*We are facing a resolution limit, a minimum length for relativistic quantum mechanics: it is not possible to localize a particle with better accuracy than its Compton wavelength.*

And since the Planck length by many is considered the shortest possible Compton wavelength, then the minimum uncertainty in the position can likely be seen as the Planck length, see [19–22].

Let us now assume the minimum uncertainty for a particle is the Planck length. To draw a circle on a sheet of paper or the ground, we basically put out or localize particles. The line is particles, and the minimum uncertainty in the position of any particle is the Planck length. This means the minimum uncertainty in the diameter of the circle is $2l_p$. Assume we try to draw a circle with a radius of one meter, a unit circle. There will now be an uncertainty in the radius equal to the Planck length. The area of a circle is:

$$A = \pi r^2 \qquad (2)$$

But under the uncertainty principle, we must have:

$$A = \pi(r \pm l_p)^2 \qquad (3)$$

That again means the area must be between $\pi(r+l_p)^2$ and $\pi(r-l_p)^2$. This we can move over to an uncertainty in $\pi$ instead, because we can set up the following equation:

$$\pi(r \pm l_p)^2 = \pi_u r^2 \qquad (4)$$

where $\pi_u$ is the uncertain $\pi$. This means we can move the uncertainty from the radius to an uncertainty in $\pi$ and that this must be:

$$\pi_u = \frac{\pi(r \pm l_p)^2}{r^2} \qquad (5)$$

And the difference between the real $\pi$ and this uncertain $\pi$ must be:

$$\Delta\pi_u = \pi - \pi_u = \pi - \frac{\pi(r \pm l_p)^2}{r^2} \qquad (6)$$

Suppose we use the CODATA (NIST) 2019 Planck length value $1.616255 \times 10^{-35}$ m, then we find that for a unit circle ($r=1$), need to only know $\pi$ to 34 decimal places to stay inside the uncertainty. In $\pi$, caused by the uncertainty in the line of the circle, that again creates an uncertainty in the area of the circle. In other words, Lindemann’s 1882 proof that $\pi$ was transcendental becomes irrelevant for Squaring the Circle in “practice” (under ideal conditions) when one considers what we today know of quantum mechanics and its uncertainty principle.

## 3 Possible limitations

Not all physicists agree the Planck length is a minimum length or the minimum uncertainty. For example, Unzicker [23] has argued that since the Planck length can only be found from dimensional analysis based on knowledge of $G$, $\hbar$ and $c$ and not measured more directly, that it is then more like a mathematical artifact. This was also a view held, for example, by Bridgman [24]. However, Haug [25] has recently also shown how the Planck length can be extracted from gravity observations with no knowledge of $G$ or $\hbar$ or even $c$, something that strengthens the view that the Planck length is something very fundamental. This experimental finding strongly supports the majority view that the Planck length is fundamental and linked to something “real.” The question is still what it truly represents.

If the uncertainty principle leads to a minimum uncertainty, then we have shown we can square the circle. This view is, however, rooted in that the Heisenberg uncertainty principle always holds. Haug [26, 27] has recently argued that the uncertainty principle breaks down at the Planck scale and that it, at the very Planck scale, is replaced with a certainty principle, and that this again is directly linked to gravity. This is a new and controversial view, and it will take time before this is fully investigated. However, if it should hold true, then one
can likely still not square the circle. It is, therefore, in our view, still an open question whether one can square
the circle in practice, even under ideal conditions. This is because we know from standard physics theory that
there is no agreement yet on how to unify gravity with quantum mechanics, and such unification could indeed
lead to modifications of quantum mechanics. Therefore, to truly know if we can square the circle will likely be
fully settled when we have settled on a unified quantum gravity theory.

4 Conclusion

Squaring the circle has been one of the great challenges in geometry, with attempts to do so for hundreds if not thousands of years. In 1882, it was proven that π was transcendental, and the task of Squaring the Circle has been considered impossible since then. However, new epochs in science lead to new tools. Quantum mechanics and the uncertainty principle were unknown in 1882. If one should try to square the circle even under ideal conditions, one must consider quantum mechanics. At least, if one should be physically possible and not only merely a geometrical challenge in an imaginary geometrical world. When considering the uncertainty principle, it becomes irrelevant that π is transcendental, so one for any given circle size ends up with that, and one only needs to know π for a given limited number of decimal places to square the circle. An outstanding issue is if the Heisenberg uncertainty principle always holds, also at the Planck scale. One of the biggest challenges in physics is to make a quantum gravity theory that unifies with quantum mechanics, so this can lead to changes also in quantum mechanics. So, the final answer to whether we can square the circle can likely be settled when we have a unified quantum gravity theory.

References

[1] Douglas M. Jesseph. *Squaring the Circle: The War Between Hobbes And Wallis*. University of Chicago Press, 2008.

[2] D. S. Richeson. *Tales of Impossibility: The 2000-Year Quest to Solve the Mathematical Problems of Antiquity*. Princeton University Press, 2019.

[3] Ferdinand. Lindemann. Über due zahl pi. *Mathematische Annalen*, 20(2):213–225, 1882.

[4] Ernest W. Hobson. *Squaring the Circle: A History of the Problem*. Cambridge University Press, 1913.

[5] E. G. Haug. Squaring the circle and doubling the cube in space-time. *The Mathematics Enthusiast*, 18:59, 2021. URL https://scholarworks.umt.edu/tme/vol18/iss1/7.

[6] W. Heisenberg. Über den anschaulichen inhalt der quantentheoretischen kinematik und mechanik. *Zeitschrift für Physik*, (43):172–198, 1927. URL https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01397280.

[7] E. H. Kennard. Zur quantenmechanik einfacher bewegungstypen. *Zeitschrift für Physik*, (44):326–352, 1927.

[8] M. Planck. *Natuerliche Masseinheiten*. Der Königlich Preussischen Akademie Der Wissenschaften, 1899.

[9] M. Planck. *Vorlesungen über die Theorie der Wärmestrahlung*. Leipzig: J.A. Barth, p. 163, see also the English translation “The Theory of Radiation” (1959) Dover, 1906.

[10] T. Padmanabhan. Planck length as the lower bound to all physical length scales. *General Relativity and Gravitation*, 17, 1985. URL https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00760244.

[11] T. Padmanabhan. Physical significance of Planck length. *Annals of Physics*, 165:38, 1985. URL https://doi.org/10.1016/S0003-4916(85)80004-X.

[12] R. J. Adler. Six easy roads to the Planck scale. *American Journal of Physics*, 78(9):925, 2010. URL https://doi.org/10.1119/1.3439650.

[13] S. Hossenfelder. Can we measure structures to a precision better than the Planck length? *Classical and Quantum Gravity*, 29, 2012. URL https://doi.org/10.1088/0264-9381/29/11/115011.

[14] S. Hossenfelder. Minimal length scale scenarios for quantum gravity. *Living Reviews in Relativity*, 16, 2013. URL https://doi.org/10.12942/lrr-2013-2.

[15] V. Faraoni. Three new roads to the Planck scale. *American Journal of Physics*, 85, 2017. URL https://aapt.scitation.org/doi/pdf/10.1119/1.4994804.
[16] L. N. Chang, Z. Lewis, D. Minic, and T. Takeuchi. On the minimal length uncertainty relation and the foundations of string theory. *Advances in High Energy Physics*, 2011, 2011.

[17] R. J. Adler and I. Santiago. On gravity and the uncertainty principle. *Modern Physics Letters A*, 14(20), 1999. URL https://doi.org/10.1142/S0217732399001462.

[18] L. J. Garay. Quantum gravity and minimum length. *International Journal of Modern Physics A*, 10:145, 1995. URL https://doi.org/10.1142/S0217751X95000085.

[19] M.A. Markov. Elementary particles of maximally large masses (quarks and Maximons). *Soviet Physics JPT*, 24(3), 1967. URL http://www.jetp.ac.ru/cgi-bin/dn/e_024_03_0584.pdf.

[20] S. Hawking. Gravitationally collapsed objects of very low mass. *Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society*, 152, 1971.

[21] G. M. Obermair. Primordial Planck mass black holes (PPMBHS) as candidates for dark matter? *Journal of Physics*, *Conference Series*, 442, 2013. URL https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/442/1/012066.

[22] E. G. Haug. The Planck mass particle finally discovered! http://vixra.org/abs/1607.0496, 2016.

[23] A. Unzicker. *The Mathematical Reality: Why Space and Time Are an Illusion*. Independently published, 2020.

[24] P. W. Bridgman. *Dimensional Analysis*. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1931.

[25] E. G. Haug. Finding the Planck length multiplied by the speed of light without any knowledge of *G*, *c*, or *h*, using a newton force spring. *Journal Physics Communication*, 4:075001, 2020. URL https://doi.org/10.1088/2399-6528/ab9dd7.

[26] E. G. Haug. Collision space-time: Unified quantum gravity. *Physics Essays*, 33(1):46, 2020. URL https://doi.org/10.4006/0836-1398-33.1.46.

[27] E. G. Haug. *Quantum Gravity Hidden In Newton Gravity And How To Unify It With Quantum Mechanics*. in the book: The Origin of Gravity from the First Principles, NOVA Publishing, New York, 1921.