Is there a conflict between Special Relativity of Eisnstein and Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle.?
339006
To the extent that there was a conflict, it was resolved by Dirac. His was a quantum theory that directly included relativistic invariance. His equation is now the basis for our understanding of relativistic electrons. As of now, we don't have a way of reconciling quantum theory and *general* relativity, though.
255127
Quantum theory suggest that no, it doesn't-- the observer affects the Universe.\n\nBut in a Newtonian, objective Universe, all the laws of physics should apply regardless of if there is an observer or not.\n\nI propose the falling tree is in an eigenstate like Shroedinger's cat: it is both making a sound and NOT making a sound.\n\nIf you aren't familiar with Shroedinger's cat, look it up and prepare to have your mind blown!
471895
This is the kind of question I like ... :-)\n\nNo, this is not information transfer. I will try to enlighten the problem by formulating it more precisely.\n\nBut first, I'd like to show that if you could tranfer information faster than light, you'd get a contradiction with special relativity.\n\nSuppose A can communicate some information faster than light to B. Let A sending the information be event 1, B receiving it event 2. If the message is travelling faster than light, it can be shown that in the reference frame of A, event 1 happens _before_ event 2, while in the reference frame of B event 1 happens _after_ event 2, which is a contradiction because Bob cannot receive the message before Alice sends it. If a light-signal cannot travel between events 1 and 2, we call them spacelike separated (at least in some other languages than English we do :-) ). Spacelike separated events don't have a definite temporal order (the order depends on the reference frame).\n\nOf course, in your example there is a correlation between the outcome of Alice's and Bob's measurement, but it cannot be considered information transfer. They always knew that they would get opposite results, but they didn't know who would get |up> and who would get |down>. Information transfer would mean that Alice already has a piece of data she knows, eg. a bit of 1, and she would like to transfer it to Bob. Bob's gaining knowledge of this information is the result of Alice's sending it. So there is a definite temporal order (and causal relationship) between these events. In the entagled particle-pair example she doesn't have this piece of information before she does a measurement.\n\nHowever, you could say that A can transfer information like this: she does a measurement, and as the result of the measurement the wave function of both particles collapses, and B can measure to see if his particle is in a collapsed (|up> OR |down>) or superposed (|up> + phase_factor*|down>) state. So B will know if A has already measured or not! But B cannot decide which state the particle was in with only one measurement! And he can make only ONE measurement, because the measurement collapses the state. As a result he will always get either UP or DOWN, so he cannot tell if the original state was |up>+|down> or one of |up> or |down>.\n\nOf course if B could copy the state of his particle, he would be able to make multiple measurement on the same quantum-spin-state, but he cannot copy the state because of the no-cloning theorem (Zurek-Wootters, Nature, 1983 if I remember well, but anyway, see it on Wikipedia). Of course, if he would be able to copy the state, we would get a contradiction with special relativity.\n\nAs satanorsanta pointed out there are still problems with the _interpretation_ of quantum mechanics (especially with the measurement postulate), but I wouldn't consider this specific question unsolved.\n\nI know my English is not the best ... I hope you will understand my reasoning. If you's like to chat about these thing, send me a mail.
833603
Perhaps, but the quatum effects would make it extremely difficult to measure.\n\nThis is the realm of quantum gravity and is really being researched heavily because there are so many paradoxes between relativity and quantum mechanics.
479672
zero point energy comes from the fact that by heisenberg's uncertainty principle you can never know exactly the momentum (speed) and location of a particle at the same time. of course the uncertainty is only on the atomic scale, so you can be pretty sure you are in front of your computer with 0 velocity right now. this uncertainty comes from the fact that measuring a particle will change it - you have to bounce photons (light) off of it, and just like bouncing one ball off another, it makes both go in different directions. at the atomic level, however you can't predict which way they'll go very well. now, to get back to zero point energy, this means that any bound particle - one which is stuck in a certain position, like an electron stuck orbiting a nucleus - has a known position. if it had no energy, we would know its location and its velocity - 0. thus, its minimum energy is greater than 0. i don't really know why people would think this has to do with God, but i'll take a shot. they might say that this nonzero energy shows God's presence everywhere, that God is a positive force keeping everything moving. or maybe its some intelligent design argument.  as always, check wikipedia.org
82353
the classical def of the momentum is indeed p=mv, however, for  massless particles, this def no long applies, for the photon for instance, the momentum is given by\np=h/lambda, where h is the planck constant and lambda, the wave length\nIn that case, energy is given by E=hv, v bieng the frequency of the photon (v=c/lambda)
1081054
Quantum mechanics has no problems with special relativity.  \nIt is with only gravity and general relativity that there is a problem.  The problem is that no one fully understands how gravity works on a small scale.  On the other quantum mechanics is really hard to do on a large scale.  It is only in some extreme cases do the two clash.  As far as I know time is not the problem.\nIt is that in physics ever theory has its limits, which is why we eventually find a more complete theory to replace it as a knowledge increases.
944027
*sigh* Another debatable query enslaved to the limited senses of us mortals, yet forced in all its calamity by our fascination. Here goes.\n\nEinstein shook the fundaments of the Scientific Community when he introduced his Theory Of Relativity and Special Theory Of Relativity back in 1905. He was considered everything from Nostradamus to Jesus. This pinnacle of his life was not attained in mere pondering. Let me expalin to you this fragment of his theory.\n\n  In theoretical suppositions, the space-time connoction bear themselves in alliance. Any change inflicted on one dimension is prone to affect another.\n\n When we say that we will only age a bit, while the Earth has conquered years and decades, we mean to say, that, time being relative to every individual, along with its flow, may hasten up, if we start to function at a velocity of extremes.\n\n If time IS relative (No humane way to confirm), then a higher velocity achieved could result in a hastened flow in the fluid of the "Fourth Dimension" of time. Such relativity was all that he wished to make us understand.\n\n As far as the aging is concerned, provided that we have armour to protect us from the friction effects of such a speed, we are going to age alright. Since our molecules are being relative to the molecules of the rest of the universe, they are not going to change much. Yet RELATIVELY they will alter a decade or more (backwards)!\n\n*sniff* Einstein, I salute you!
575949
Einstein postulated that the speed of light would remain the same regardless of the inertial frame in which it is measured.  This contradicts classical physics, since if an object is moving at a velocity v, as measured in an inertial frame, and that inertial frame is moving with a velocity v2 with respect to a second inertial frame, then you should take the vector sum of the two velocities to determine the velocity of that object with respect to the second inertial frame.\n\nEinstein postulated that within an inertial frame the laws of classical physics held.  So, to make things work out Einstein calculated that time and space are distorted with velocity.  It is as though you and your brother are of different heights, but you both want to be the same height, so you take a rubber ruler and stretch it so you get the same measurement for the two of you.\n\nIn this way you always measure the speed of light as the same value, no matter how fast the source of the light is moving with respect to you.  You adjust the rubber ruler so that what you want to believe remains true.
847615
Heisenbergs uncertainty principle states we cannot tell where any electron is at any given moment.
15904
Probably not.  There are several problems\n\n1) because of the Heizenberg(sp?) uncertainty principle to learn of the exact direction of an atom one would change it's original direction.\n\n2) even if we could know a priori all that information it would require a simulation machine the size of the universe to calculate everything exactly.\n\n3)  I think there are still events of randomness at the atomic level that cannot be predicted.
518583
Let’s start with what Einstein actually said… His Special Theory of Relativity started with two postulates: 1) that the laws of physics are observed to be the same in any non-accelerated reference frame and 2) that the speed of light (c) is observed to be the same for all observers.\n\nThe first assumption isn’t too worrisome, but the second seems trickier. It’s certainly not intuitively obvious, but it makes sense from both a theoretical and an observational perspective. Observational because the Michelson-Morley experiment (and others) detected no change in the velocity of light when measured from a moving frame of reference; theoretical because Maxwell’s Equations yield a specific value for the velocity of light.\n\nWhen Einstein considered Maxwell’s Equations, he realized that they don’t allow for a “standing wave” solution, which is what a light wave would look like if you were travelling at the speed of light. So he already sensed there would be a problem with travelling at very high speeds. Indeed, when you re-work the addition of velocities, it comes out to be not simple addition, but a fraction that never gets larger than c. Basically, what happens is that the measurement of time and distance changes, so a physical object (e.g., a spaceship) can never achieve lightspeed.\n\nHere’s where the infinite thing comes in.  Because the laws of physics must remain the same (remember the first postulate), then the changes in length and time at high velocities also start to affect the measurements of momentum and of energy—and since E=mc^2, mass and energy are equivalent, so mass itself has to change.  The rate of change has a term in the denominator that’s the square root of (1-(v/c)^2), so if the velocity (v) approaches the speed of light (c), then the denominator approaches zero; but if the denominator of a fraction approaches zero, then the total fraction approaches infinity.  Thus, you start to talk about problematic things such as infinite mass and energy and size.\n\nBut remember that nothing can actually travel at the velocity of light, so although this fraction should get very big, it shouldn’t actually become infinite.\n\n\nRyan Wyatt\nRose Center for Earth & Space\nNew York, New York
21559
The events leading to the crisis in science from which Quantum Mechanics was born begain in 1859.\n\nIn 1859 Gustav Kirchhoff came up with the theorem about "black body" radiation, that is for something the absorbs all light that hits it. This will heat the material - no matter what it is - and will emit a specific energy distribution. However, Kirchhoff didn't know what the distribution was.\n\nWhat was quickly found that the distribution could be derived from only one side of the spectrum. If you derived the blue end, then the red end went to infinifty. If you derived the blue end, the the red went to infinity.\n\nFinally in 1900 Max Planck solved the problem by making an assumption - light can only have discrete values. That was strange since it had been assumed that light could have any frequency. But in the context of the blackbody problem a series of tiny steps in energy were needed to determine a correct solution to the black body problem.\n\nThen in 1905 Einstein was looking at something called the photoelectric effect which was also puzzling people. He solved the problem by using Planck's idea of quantized energy.\n\nThen in 1913 Neils Bohr came up with a way to understand the spectrum from a hydrogen atom by postulatins a quantization.\n\nSo by this point it was all taking off, soon to be added to be Shrodinger, Dirac, and Heisenberg into the comptete base of modern Quantum Mechanics.
264708
Science : May be uncertainty principle in quantum effect. \nMaths : Probability theory
656628
Einstein didn't like the quantum impossibility to make exact predictions or the probabilistic reality that Quantum Mechanics postulates. He considered it an incomplete theory, he thought that quantum uncertainties where the result of incomplete knowledge and not a characteristic of the Universe. The EPR paradox is one of the aspects in which Relativity and Quantum Mechanics appear to contradict each other. There is a kind of particles that are called entangled particles in which a change in a characteristic in one of them immediately results in a change in the other. This apparently goes against Quantum Mechanics because it would be a way to lift Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle (we could measure the position of one of the particles and the momentum of the other). On the other hand, the existence of entangled particles means that there must be some way by which such particles trade information between them, because each of them knows what the other one is doing (and they know it instantly, which means they exchange information at infinite speed!) And this kind of "subatomic telepathy" was not something Einstein liked, since Relativity states that the speed of light is the maximum speed allowed in the Universe. Mysteries...
163297
it has to ......all physics stuff is inter-related\n\n1. time, space\n2. uncertainity principle, particle wave\n3. laws of motion \n\nlogic works...and does not break down in any situation.\n\nits the knowledge, awareness, ability to imagine ...thoose are the limiting factor(s).\n\nour reality does not "change" in a sense but gets "refined".\n\nthere will be more changes to our view of reality.\n\nagain depends upon what you mean by "change"\n\nfor example uncertainity principle is not due to "instrument measurement" issues but do to the fact that the question is not proper.....yet some text books still use "instrument measurement" issues....and Einstein proved that wrong......many many years ago.\n\n\nthere are two equations built 1) by riding the particle 2) observing the particle from a bit far
1057842
go to this site to have all your doubts cleared\n\n\nhttp://www.physicsclassroom.com/mmedia/newtlaws/efar.html