-
About the Uncertainty Principle, which says in the quantum world you have to interact and change the measured to know what it's about, Einstein said,
-
"Do you honestly think the
moon is not up there when you don't look up to see it?"
-
Needless to say (or not so needless some would say) I agree with Einstein, Click Here for my complete Einstein science agreement! -
There are those who are now saying that quantum computers will be impossible because all the subatomic particles are in such constant random motion about the Uncertainty Principle because of the interaction. They think because of this you can never be totally certain what's going on with a particle, to measure it is to change it, so it always has foaminess. I disagree here because motion is motion and energy is conserved and of motion. All energy moves more to rest and reduced foam when heat is cooled. So a way to get around the Uncertainty Principle more often for quantum computing may be just to cool the particles that compute. This already helps more prosaic (usual) computers. (I think what's named quantum computing with just 10 bits and destabilization may mostly be improved by using a continuous bit that's the smallest it could be without the foam or larger, this 360 degree bit made of perhaps a few atoms would rotate in the continuous space surrounding it to store the bit and then lock with a clamp (like on a wrench). The stability of the lock and clamp is then read by an outside wire so a bit just the size of an atom by it's continuous rotation and locking that could then be read without decoherence might allow many more bits per byte than the foamy physics now being considered, perhaps 50,000 bits per memory unit, which would also read and write at the same time. More about The 50,000 Bit Chip!) -
A second way to reduce the Uncertainty is about the collapse of the wave function where the particles are a bit inflated like a small, small airship. Because the particles change so much with the incoming illumination of the probe it's been assumed not much can be known about what the original state of the measured field was, this as well as both impactors being about the same mass and so neither at rest makes it so many have believed there was no way to out the Uncertainty Principle. Unlike Einstein and me they believed it wasn't just a bit of science about subatomic physics, it would be about the nature of space and time itself. If my interpretation of Einstein's belief about this is true, it's not derived from space and time, rather just from the field. Einstein also believed if we had particles of low power that wouldn't interact much with the measured mote but that had enough energy to see it, the Uncertainty Principle would be solved, and recent low power physics experiments of this type seem to support Einstein about this. So if the particle is just like a small dirigible that may collapse there may be two more ways to improve subatomic resolution; inflate the erstwhile collapsing balloon or add pressure on the outside to make it more stable so it wouldn't tend to collapse so often. To inflate the balloon it might be stabilized on a surface with electric or magnetic attraction, then for more stability the particle would be pumped up with energy flowing in from the connection on the surface. While some of the information might be reduced by pumping in more power there would be more overall advantage in the stability. To be able to find out something, even if not absolute may be of more worth than to find out we are uninformed. And read on, all these motifs on the page combined may reduce the uncertainty many times more.
This trick to reduce uncertainty is about the measured leptons and mesons of subatomic physics at rest, the small airship can be inflated if it's well anchored About the moving probe on the other hand, if it were like a zeppelin, another way to reduce it's uncertainty may be to add pressure to the field moving along with it's rest frame, it would be sort of already pressurized and more collapsed before it sees the impact, so there would be more predictable results of it's impact.
...If protons were well adhered to a supporting structure (i.e. if the electric field were strong outside the strong force radius of the proton, so the two poles of the magnetic field of each proton in alternation would be held via the field well to hold the proton in a "proton wire" made of protons) the proton may be more well bound, so when the incoming probe would see the proton, the proton may be more like Einstein thought about the light of the moon when the small particles reflect and don't much change, and wouldn't be moved so much when the seeing particle reflected off it. The power of the probe would be taken up more with the probe at right angles to the axis of proton wire by the field around the proton. The proton would be more stable and would spring back so this would be about what Einstein had thought about it just being luck that the probes of subatomic physics are usually at about the same level of power as the particles the probe measures. When you measure a sofa with a light wave, the light is much smaller, and I think there's no reason to believe it's not so the two must be at the same energy level. The sofa's much larger mass takes up the impact of the light. If the mass of the measured particle was more at rest in a solid foundation like the "proton wire"or perhaps just on a surface like a small support structure of atoms beneath it that holds it well by electric charge, while not as good about this as the hassock this may be better than what we have in the subatomic physics of 2008. If it were fundamental to space and time and not just a property of particles improving the foaminess via ways like this, macrosopic proof of it being no more general than subatomic physics wouldn't be in evidence, nor would this be possible in subatomic physics. So I agree with Einstein. If the interactions were always with no particle at rest so the interaction was about the same for both the seeing and the seen the world wouldn't be more at rest than the life on it, and life would be impossible. And if there were no observer more at rest, the earth wouldn't orbit the solar mass which is more at rest, so if the world were made of the Uncertainty Principle we would have already RV'd off the edge of the world!
.....
..This idea of the proton wire or other like the use of the surface to stabilize the adhering measured particles (and perhaps with the combination of cooling them too) may be of use to prove or disprove my theory that the fractional charges perhaps spin at Faster Than the Speed of Light. The proton would be held well, and the incoming probes would hit first on one limb of the proton where the fractional charge was, then the other side almost right after, to see if the same fractional charge was spinning at faster than light as it would spin around as my theory says it may, and other experiments like this to prove this my causology of General Wave Dynamics or other use, as on the CLICK HERE site, my most famous on the web!
...
