Making the Quantum of Relevance

Journal for General Philosophy of Science / Zeitschrift für Allgemeine Wissenschaftstheorie 36 (2):223-241 (2005)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

The two Heisenberg Uncertainties (UR) entail an incompatibility between the two pairs of conjugated variables E, t and p, q. But incompatibility comes in two kinds, exclusive of one another. There is incompatibility defineable as: (p → − q) & (q→ − p) or defineable as [(p →− q) & (q →− p)] ↔ r. The former kind is unconditional, the latter conditional. The former, in accordance, is fact independent, and thus a matter of logic, the latter fact dependent, and thus a matter of fact. The two types are therefore diametrically opposed. In spite of this, however, the existing derivations of the Uncertainties are shown here to entail both types of incompatibility simultaneously. Δ E Δ t ≥ h is known to derive from the quantum relation E = hν plus the Fourier relation Δ ν Δ t ≥ 1. And the Fourier relation assigns a logical incompatibility between Δ ν = 0, Δ t = 0. (Defining a repetitive phenomenon at an instant t → 0 is a self contradictory notion.) An incompatibility, therefore, which is fact independent and unconditional. How can one reconcile this with the fact that Δ EΔ t exists if and only if h > 0, which latter supposition is a factual truth, entailing that a Δ E = 0, Δ t = 0 incompatibility should itself be fact dependent? Are we to say that E and t are unconditionally incompatible (via Δ ν Δ t ≥ 1) on condition that E = hν is at all true? Hence, as presently standing, the UR express a self-contradicting type of incompatibility. To circumvent this undesirable result, I reinterpret E = hν as relating the energy with a period. Though only one such period. And not with frequency literally. (It is false that E = ν. It is true that E = ν times the quantum.) In this way, the literal concept of frequency does not enter as before, rendering Δ ν Δ t ≥ 1 inapplicable. So the above noted contradiction disappears. Nevertheless, the Uncertainties are derived. If energy is only to be defined over a period, momentum only over a distance (formerly a wavelength) resulting during such period, thus yielding quantized action of dimensions Et = pq, then energies will become indefinite at instants, momenta indefinite at points, leading, as demanded, to (symmetric!) Δ E Δ t = Δ p Δ q ≥ h’s.

Other Versions

No versions found

Links

PhilArchive



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 101,247

External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server

Through your library

Similar books and articles

Conditional Probability and Dutch Books.Frank Döring - 2000 - Philosophy of Science 67 (3):391 - 409.
First-passage problems for asymmetric diffusions and skew-diffusion processes.Mario Abundo - 2009 - In Krzysztof Stefanski (ed.), Open Systems and Information Dynamics. World scientific publishing company. pp. 16--04.
The Text of the Epistles of Themistocles.J. Jackson - 1926 - Classical Quarterly 20 (1):27-35.
A note on quantum logic and the uncertainty principle.Peter Gibbins - 1981 - Philosophy of Science 48 (1):122-126.
The equality S1 = D = R.Rami Grossberg, Alexei Kolesnikov, Ivan Tomašić & Monica Van Dieren - 2003 - Mathematical Logic Quarterly 49 (2):115-128.
Note on Thucydides VII. 28. 3.S. C. Booker - 1914 - Classical Quarterly 8 (02):104-.

Analytics

Added to PP
2009-01-28

Downloads
88 (#238,177)

6 months
15 (#205,076)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Citations of this work

No citations found.

Add more citations