Talk:Quantum indeterminacy

message: At the end of introductory paragraph, there is the following sentence:
[...] In quantum mechanics, however, indeterminacy is of a much more fundamental nature, having nothing to do with errors or disturbance.
Could anyone expand on the ambiguious and highly subjective interpretative phrases like "much more" and "nothing to do". The whole sentence also is in almost direct contrast with the previous ones.
82.181.105.233 (talk) 10:17, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Clarification

message: Some comments on quotes from the present article: 
[...] a particle with a definitely measured momentum for which there must be a fundamental limit to how precisely its location can be specified
A precise measurement of momentum (of a particle, in reference to a suitable system) simply cannot be obtained at all from observations on reference system locations within a finite distance of each other.
Vice versa, observations at one particular location (or at one particular distance x from the "origin" of the reference system, in one particular direction) don't allow to evaluate its momentum at all; i.e. as proportional to ∂/∂x ().
[...] for exampl,
(Note the typo.)
a particle with a definitely measured energy has a fundamental limit to how precisely one can specify how long it will have that energy
A precise measurement of energy (of a particle, in reference to a suitable system) simply cannot be obtained at all from observations by the reference system within a finite duration of each other.
Vice versa, observations at one particular moment (or at one particular duration t from any selected "reference moment") don't allow to evaluate its energy at all; i.e. as proportional to ∂/∂t (). Also ...
[...] concerned with the predictability of events
... the uncertainty relations (as derived by Robertson and Schrödinger anyways) are concerned with relations between concurrent measurements, from given observational data; not with predictions based on those measurements. The present article on the Uncertainty principle may not express this sufficiently ...
Regards,   <TT>F</TT>rank  <TT>W ~@) R</TT> 02:36 Mar 4, 2003 (UTC).
The last two paragraphs can go, as they have nothing to do with this topic, and seem to just be some crazy guy's theory based on a misunderstanding of what the quantum indeterminacy means.  --Havermayer 23:45, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Measurement

message: :Re:Within most interpretations of quantum mechanics, it is fundamentally unavoidable.
Why does indeterminacy depend on the interpretation?  I would say, that there can be no interpretation without indeterminacy.  I would suggest removing that sentence.--CSTAR 04:18, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Interpretations 

message: Chris Fuchs did not invent indeterminacy, and moreover his views on QM are too idiosyncratic.  I think his view of QM strikes me as being some form of instrumentalism (about which I earlier had an exchange in the interpretation of quantum mechanics talk page.--CSTAR 02:28, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that Fuchs is not the only view and that  the treatment in the article should bring out other views.  Can you see how to do this?--Carl Hewitt 03:11, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Chris Fuchs 

message: What do these quotes from Heisenberg establish? That measurement is messy, well yeah we know that, but that's not the point of this article.  Why did you take out the statement about quantum indeterminacy not being a result of error? Surely outside of crackpot circles that is a commonly held view. This article is not an essay on the history of quantum indterminacty.--CSTAR 02:19, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The Heisenburg quote attributed to Einstein directly bears on the issue of measurement.  Quantum indeterminacy is intrinsically involved with measurement.  And measurement involves intervention.--Carl Hewitt 02:45, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  OK, but at the very least the article should say clearly that quantum indeterminacy is not a due to error.  There is no controversy about that. --CSTAR 03:37, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that quantum indeterminacy is not due to error.--Carl Hewitt 04:56, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

text:  As a matter of fact, the Heisenberg quote is irrelevant to this article. Quite apart from that, you are trying to establish that indeterminacy is a result of disturbance which is certainly a non-conventional view.  Even Heisenberg himself abandoned that view. Please stop putting in quotes that you are not prepared to paraphrase.--CSTAR 04:16, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Heisenberg never abandoned the view quoted in the article.--Carl Hewitt 04:37, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

text:  There is an undercurrent in what you added that is clearly not the conventional thinking. You should reorder the sequence of your statements so that the Einstein quote comes first,  But one should also clearly say what Fuchs' position on the matter is. His view as I said, is not a common one. (Note that I am not saying he is a crackpot; my personal views are pretty close to his)--CSTAR 05:07, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Which Einstein quote should come first before what? Thanks,--Carl Hewitt 05:40, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Heisenberg quotes

message: Quantum indeterminacy is intrinsically involved with measurement which itself involves intervention.  Measurement in quantum physics has proved to be unexpectedly subtle. How the might the object be affected by the measuring process?  This question concerned Werner Heisenberg.
--Carl Hewitt 20:43, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Measurement as intervention

message: Einstein's argument should be in one place, not two.--Carl Hewitt 20:49, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Einstein is saying something different in the quote from Fuchs, or at least that quote is used by Fuchs to emphasize what he (Fuchs) is trying to say about the information-theoretic nature of quantum state. Apart from that, what's the rule you are applying here to say Einstein's argument should be inb one place not two? --CSTAR 21:37, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: So do you think that Einstein's argument should be made twice?--Carl Hewitt 21:59, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Einstein's argument for the incompleteness of quantum physics 

message: This article contains a long series of extensive quotes.  This is not appropriate for an encyclopedia article. The amount of quoted material should be reduced. --CSTAR 21:46, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: In an area as controversial as this one has been, we probably need all the authority that we can muster from the best sources available.  But we can always make improvements;-)--Carl Hewitt 22:05, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  You're making it controversial. This reasonably falls under original research.--CSTAR 00:09, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Where do you see original research in quoting published work?--Carl Hewitt 00:54, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I said that the article falls (or comes close to falling) under original research, when most of the article consists of very long quotes, which are not presented to support a well-known and identifiable viewpoint. Do we need to quote extensively Einstein to explain EPR or relativity or Heisenberg and Schrodinger to explain quantum mechanics? Why is this any more controversial than quantum mechanics or the many world interpretation of quantum mechanics? Aside from this, long quotes are not an acceptable form of exposition or research.--CSTAR 02:41, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The article contains quotes from published material from respected sources with identifiable viewpoints.  It is also true that some of these viewpoints are controversial.  The longest continuous quote is one with 2 paragraphs with all the rest being 1 paragraph.  Presumably additional material will be introduced in the article between the quotations.  It is also possible that some of the quotations will be paraphrased--Carl Hewitt 03:21, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: What arethose viewpoints? Heisenberg had identifiable views on a lot of things, but which of those are relevant here? --CSTAR 03:23, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The quotations in the article from Heisenberg concern his views that bear on quantum indeterminacy.--Carl Hewitt 03:33, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Extensive quotes 

message: I've added an entry at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Maths, natural science, and technology but don't hold your breath, waiting for a mass of editors coming over to help. --Pjacobi 21:37, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I rather suspect that everyone is already here... William M. Connolley 21:51, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: No, not quite. I've posted an RfC notice at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Physics, which is a better place to find physicists than the RfC page. Also, I am reading through the debate now, and will comment shortly. Also, some of us aren't logged onto WP 24 hours a day (despite appearences). linas 00:34, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  RfC 

message: I notice that Appleboy has joined the fray on the side of Carl.  So amongst those of us who are willing to fight over this, we are now 2 to 2.  As-is, this is the formula for a useless edit war.  Therefore:
* To William Connelly: PLEASE DO NOT REVERT AGAIN TODAY.  I also will not revert again today.
* To the others:  If any of you wish to see this page reverted to the June version, then go ahead and do it.  However, I want each person doing so to revert this only ONCE today.
* TO ALL: Note that my reversion cannot hold unles there is a general consensus to do so.  Carl and Appleboy together cannot overcome a dozen editors who want this the other way.
** Note however, that if anyone else joins in on Carl's side then it must be assummed that the consensus does not exist, and we all should respect that.
I will assume that (for the editors other then Carl Hewitt) this is a fight over technique instead of substance.  In any case, I emphasize to everyone that a major revert has no busines standing without the consensus (either explicit or impled) of the editors to support it.  I am glad to have tried it, but if the result is an unwinnable edit war then we must let Carl's version remain until a consensus is obtained on what to do instead. --EMS | Talk 22:08, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: STATUS [as of 23:19, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

text: Appleboy has apologized and CSTAR has done the latest reversion.  So this looks like at this the support for the major reversion is running (literally) 3 to 1.  This is enough to make the major reversion stick, so there is no need for a truce at this time.  (That is not to say that more support would not be appreciated.) --EMS | Talk 23:21, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Time for a truce? 

message: This article has proven to be extremely controversial in practice (although there has been a claim that the subject matter of the article may not be controversial).  This poses the dilemma that an attempt to paraphrase a quote by a Wikipedia editor opens them to the charge of NPOV.  At least the quotations currently in the article are the point of view of extremely reputable physicists published works that represent a mainstream of current physics.
::#For each quote in the article, is it better to paraphrase than to quote?
::#For each quote, what are the issues of intellectual honesty and attribution in paraphrasing that quote?
::#Some of the quotes are not available on line.  How should each such quote be provided to enable checking the accuracy of paraphrasing that quote?
--Carl Hewitt 22:30, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: So do you think that the material in all the quotes should be paraphrased?--Carl Hewitt 22:31, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  I have discussed the quotes and believe that I have given reasonable specific answers to all these questions (Please see above). To repeat once more a general remark: these questions are not Wikipedia specific. A request to Hewitt: Do not use wikipedia to make a point.--CSTAR 22:33, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  What should we do about the quotes? 

message: sorry about that guys, when I followed the link from the vandalism channel it just showed a chunk of the page missing without any explenation and it looked like vandalism, please forgive me.
--AppleBoy Talk 22:21, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: If you no longer support that action, then please undo it (or rather revert from Carl's latest reversion).  You are within your rights to do so, even under the 3RR. --EMS | Talk 22:42, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  my revert 

message: I am first and foremost, in the context of this community, an encyclopediaist. That I interpret to mean:  it is my role to collect ideas and report them, in a condensed form and in such a way that the broadest cross-section of the general public may understand. This is the standard that I will hold any other editor to as well.
The disputed version of this article fails to meet that standard.  QM and QT are complex enough for those of us that have studied it for years - filling the page with this sort of obscure, biased, and minority-view opinions will not do anything for the high school student with an interest in this field, or professional whose expertise lies far from physics.
Never forget that those are the people we are writing for. DV8 2XL 23:37, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  On perspective 

message: The aim of this article seems to be explaining quantum indeterminacy in a non-technical way as much as is possible.
My suggestions are:
Keep only the first and third paragraph of the introduction. Write in the first paragraph that QM only makes predictions in the form of a probability distribution over possible experimental outcomes. 
The second paragraph starts with: "Quantum indeterminacy can be quantitatively characterized by a probability distribution on the set of outcomes of measurements of an observable." Change this sentence to make it clear that "a probability distribution" is in fact the probability distribution as predicted by QM.
Don't mention complementarity for noncommuting observables, uncertainty principle etc. in the introduction.
The third paragraph is ok.
The rest of the article should go to the dust bin. If you want to mention Einstein and von Neuman etc. do that in the intro.
This is what I would prefer for the rest of the article:
The second section should make the qualitative notions about quantum indeterminacy mentioned in the introductions more precise. Here you can mention complementarity and uncertainty principle etc. Then explain that the uncertainty principle implies the EPR paradox and refer to the EPR page for more details.
Then write about Bell's theorem, Aspect's experiment etc. Mention the accepted view of physicists that local realistic hidden variable models are ruled out.
Some of the interpretations of QM such as Kopenhagen, Many Worlds etc. should be mentioned. Mention that in Kopenhagen the wavefunction collapses while in MWI you end up with two parallel worlds after a measurement.
It would also be interesting to mention quantum noise. E.g. in any electrical circuit involving resistors at finite temperature there is Nyquist noise, but at zero temperature you have quantum noise. So, you cannot make an infinitely accurate voltmeter even at absolute zero.
Count Iblis 13:41, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: If we were to vote, I would support this rough outline. Karol 20:28, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comment (as requested) 

message: Another pair of eyes needs to check my figure in the article. Remember this is a collabortaive effort I don't want to be responsible for all the dumb mistakes.--CSTAR 22:49, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: CSTAR has done a fantactic job of putting this page back on track. No dumb mistakes; none at all. DV8 2XL 18:06, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Just very clever mistakes? :-) William M. Connolley 19:33, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: He shoots...He scores!! DV8 2XL 19:35, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Please check accuracy of figure 

message: I've semi-protected the article for awhile, until Daniel Arbatsky gets tired of his unimaginative sockpuppet vandalism. --Fastfission 23:52, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Semi-protected

message: What all is known to effect quantum indeterminacy? Black holes? Was quantum indeterminacy more or less at the Big Bang? --75.110.194.35 (talk) 19:32, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  what is known to effect quantum indeterminacy? 

message: The section on logical independence and quantum randomness seems to have been written with the sole purpose of pushing the non-peer reviewed works of "independent researcher" Steve Faulkner. The referenced papers are published on a doubtful source (vixra instead of arxiv) and are of highly debatable content. While this does not make the content "wrong" it creates the need for more substantial references in case this section shall remain (I would rather suggest a complete rewrite of the section).  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.207.197.108 (talk) 14:06, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Logical Independence and Quantum Randomness