Threesology Research Journal
The Uncertainty Principle Metaphor

~ The Study of Threes ~

Flag Counter

If the Uncertainty Principle is a Certainty, then there can be no Uncertainty Principle. (This may be more appropriately said if we relay it as: "If the Undertainty Principle is a Certainty, then there can be no principle of an Uncertainty." Are the states of Certainty and Uncertainty inter-changeable, or reversible, or are they one and the same like the wave/particle view of atomic particles?)

(See this page for a reference of the Uncertianty Principle as an expression of a gamed system: Links of Interest page 2).

While the foregoing statement may induce a moment of reserved amusement for some readers, it also evinces the revelation in accord with the notion of being yet another law of conservation seen in the limited amount of elements in the periodic table; recurring usage of a triple pattern in DNA; recurring limitations of triples, doubles, (enumeratable patterns) in different subjects; recurring political, medical, combative, economic, religious, arts/entertainment nonsense patterns, etc...

Recurring laws of activity which may be assigned under the heading of conservation present us with evidence we are living within a closed system... but not that this system represents the whole of reality. It may simply be what may be referred to as a sector, section, dimension, bubble, condition of a particular place in a larger universe where there is more latitude given for existence to occur outside the regularities imposed upon reality by human perception. While we perceive patterns and these patterns represent conservation, the regularity of this conservation point to a type of gaming mentality... if one can use the word "mentality" without being accused of suggesting a person, thing or entity is deliberately exerting an effort for personal reasons.

The recurrence of a limited array of certain enumerated patters gives an indication that the system in which humanity inhabits is a fixed, or gamed existence, but this does not have to mean all of existence (outside the 'sphere' of human consciousness) has to be this way. We humans like to affix rules, laws and suppositions representing some proportionality because our existence within such a system has created a biology that coincides with this formula of expression to which we use as a means of assisting us in acquiring that which may not actually be advantageous to us in the long run, but is nonetheless — otherwise impulsively exercised.

Let's try out some symbolic representation:

If Uncertainty (?) is equal to (=) a Certainty (!), this then describes the absence of or inequality to Uncertainty, giving us a third option, preferably expressed as an ellipsis (...) instead of a definitive period (.), though one might consider using a comma (,) semi-colon (;) or colon (:) in the equation.

However, those who have embraced the idea of Heisenberg's uncertainty principle as a unique and valid expression, are inclined to protect it by emphasizing that the uncertainty can not be invalidated by the use of different equipment or other assigned attributes. Such restrictions provide for the necessary means of protecting and projecting their ego... which is attached to something they feel is unsurmountable, unequivocable, and resolute. They would readily refute the notion of it being viewed as a fallacy... though that is exactly what it is. It is part of a host of other convoluted ideation used as labyrinthine constructs by physicists who, by the way, are not particularly imaginative and attempt to conceal their lack of creative thinking by indulging in symbolic gestures which amount to one spinning their wheels in snow, after deliberately advancing their vehicle towards a snowdrift like an adolescent who thinks their vehicle can do anything and go anywhere, much the same as they wish for their own personal abilities. So very often physicists attempt to use mathematics as their medium of expression, like an artist who prefers a certain type of medium supported by a philosophy they convince others to share, and thus establish the medium as a type of vernacular viewed as a lingua franca (universal language) that is best and foremost suited to reveal, describe and understand any and all human-based perceptions... and are so self-absorbed as to not recognize this as arrogance and egotism. This arrogance and egotism attached to the usage of mathematics has been asserted by motion picture script writers when they create a dialogue which includes the notion that if some intelligent extra-terrestrial being exists, they would then be able to communicate using this universal language, ... since humans consider themselves to be a superior intelligence and think this is the way all of reality works... without considering that the human usage of mathematics is made up to serve and suit human needs in given situations, and is a crude a tool as that used by birds to construct a nest.

As a metaphor supposedly describing the reality between human (attempted) observation of a particle or particle interaction, it is better to describe those humans who agree with the assertion for the reality of an Uncertainty principle, as old people who harbor an antiquated wives tale or superstition akin to the joke played on children about going snipe hunting. Yet, the joke is taken seriously because the old people actually believe in a creature called the snipe or, if in the desert, the existence of a jack rabbit and antelope mixture called a Jackalope.

For those readers unfamiliar with or need a re-fresher, here is a reference about the Uncertainty Principle from the Britannica:

(The Uncertainty Principle is a) statement, articulated (1927) by the German physicist Werner Heisenberg, that the position and the velocity of an object cannot both be measured exactly, at the same time, even in theory. The very concepts of exact position and exact velocity together, in fact, have no meaning in nature.

Ordinary experience provides no clue of this principle. It is easy to measure both the position and the velocity of, say, an automobile, because the uncertainties implied by this principle for ordinary objects are too small to be observed. The complete rule stipulates that the product of the uncertainties in position and velocity is equal to or greater than a tiny physical quantity, or constant (h/(4π), where h is Planck's constant, or about 6.6 X 10-34 joule-second). Only for the exceedingly small masses of atoms and subatomic particles does the product of the uncertainties become significant.

Any attempt to measure precisely the velocity of a subatomic particle, such as an electron, will knock it about in an unpredictable way, so that a simultaneous measurement of its position has no validity. This result has nothing to do with inadequacies in the measuring instruments, the technique, or the observer; it arises out of the intimate connection in nature between particles and waves in the realm of subatomic dimensions.

Every particle has a wave associated with it; each particle actually exhibits wavelike behaviour. The particle is most likely to be found in those places where the undulations of the wave are greatest, or most intense. The more intense the undulations of the associated wave become, however, the more ill defined becomes the wavelength, which in turn determines the momentum of the particle. So a strictly localized wave has an indeterminate wavelength; its associated particle, while having a definite position, has no certain velocity. A particle wave having a well-defined wavelength, on the other hand, is spread out; the associated particle, while having a rather precise velocity, may be almost anywhere. A quite accurate measurement of one observable involves a relatively large uncertainty in the measurement of the other.

The uncertainty principle is alternatively expressed in terms of a particle's momentum and position. The momentum of a particle is equal to the product of its mass times its velocity. Thus, the product of the uncertainties in the momentum and the position of a particle equals h/(4π) or more. The principle applies to other related (conjugate) pairs of observables, such as energy and time: the product of the uncertainty in an energy measurement and the uncertainty in the time interval during which the measurement is made also equals h/(4π) or more. The same relation holds, for an unstable atom or nucleus, between the uncertainty in the quantity of energy radiated and the uncertainty in the lifetime of the unstable system as it makes a transition to a more stable state.

"uncertainty principle." Encyclopædia Britannica Ultimate Reference Suite, 2013.

If we add another metaphor to describe the metaphorical phrase "uncertainty principle" such as viewing it in terms of gaming theory, it is like a person standing in front of a carnival game who is uncertain about which object to pick or shoot at. For example, if the game is one in which there are several plastic ducks floating about in a circularly aligned pool from which a person can choose in hopes of picking the one with a particular sign, symbol or color that will enable them to win a supposed grand prize... but the person running the game has no intention of anyone winning the prize, the desired duck with the desired symbol may be shown and then removed by way of a sleight of hand, or be accompanied by such a large assortment of similar ducks that the chances for choosing it are astronomically high; we have a situation in which we must look upon the nature of atomic particle behavior as a rigged system.

If however we read the description of the Uncertainty Principle as if Heisenberg was a High Priest having written his "word of god" in a text that must be literally accepted, then even though it is a metaphor, no one is permitted to use another metaphor to describe it in more realistic terms.

When it is noted that particle behavior appears to exhibit a resonating wave-like property(s), the usage of another metaphor such as a rubber ball comes in handy. Such that if we describe a particle as a rubber ball that, when bounced against an object will produce one or more (resonating) wave-like patterns which can be seen by adding another metaphorical application (sound, smoke, etc.) to the mix in an effort to accentuate our senses to assist in the detection thereof, we can thus move beyond the bouncing-ball-against-an-object metaphor to the metaphor of a rock, stone or pebble dropped into a pool of water which causes concentric reverberations. Hence, the rock... as a particle in a given medium, thus has the property of waves attached to it. While many a person has taken notice of the wave behavior after dropping an object into a pool of water or observing an insect move about on its surface, the same type of activity on the atomic level spurns its activists into creating some propounded life-revealing philosophy as a far eastern monk might do when using nature to create metaphors to describe and explain human activity.

The double-slit experiment used to describe the presence of waves and particles being associated as a single component thus takes on the metaphor of vaccumless space with two holes that may be described as parallel worm or black holes which does not appear to be consistent with observable reality. In fact, two black holes side by side may not exist as equal partners, but as one being dominant around which the lesser one rotates and creates reverberating patterns which change over time and distance until it is consumed, or takes on the image of the dominant one so much so that it becomes invisible... and the wavelike patterns of inter-mixing reveals an absorption spectrum human intelligence is not yet ready to exam as a property of valuation to be used in any practical application. Here is a simulated example of two differentiated black holes interacting in a context of discussing gravitational waves:

Science News: Gravitational waves have revealed the first unevenly sized black hole pair

However, if we then add another metaphor to the previous two and describe the pool of water as being in the vacuum of space, what then do we see when we drop a pebble in a pool of water in a vacuum? It is another realm of atomic physics that has application that is out of reach for most common forms of observation. Some may want to describe such a realm as a dimension, but in either case what is being described is the usage of a tiered system of metaphor being used as a language, like that being attempted by mathematicians. They use tiered forms of analysis and illustration but do not necessarily view their behavior of "tiering" as a psychological construct similar to other cognitive profiles using their own systems of tiering with their respective signs, symbols or grunts and gestures.

Along with the metaphorical (language) expression of the Uncertainty principle is the notion of String theory:

(String Theory) in particle physics, (is) a theory that attempts to merge quantum mechanics with Albert Einstein's general theory of relativity. The name string theory comes from the modeling of subatomic particles as tiny one-dimensional "string-like" entities rather than the more conventional approach in which they are modeled as zero-dimensional point particles. The theory envisions that a string undergoing a particular mode of vibration corresponds to a particle with definite properties such as mass and charge. In the 1980s, physicists realized that string theory had the potential to incorporate all four of nature's forces—gravity, electromagnetism, strong force, and weak force—and all types of matter in a single quantum mechanical framework, suggesting that it might be the long-sought unified field theory. While string theory is still a vibrant area of research that is undergoing rapid development, it remains a purely mathematical construct because it has yet to make contact with experimental observations.

"string theory." Encyclopædia Britannica.

Note: I view string theory as a loose thread having occurred because of the Peanut's Character's cat (Shrodinger's cat) having been playing with the fabric of the Universe from the perspective of it being a ball of string or yarn. As such, the human mind thus conjectures three possible forms of the Universe all dealing with variations of how entangled the string-like entities are. We then enter into the notion of Quantum Entanglement, which "entangles" the various concepts being bounced about in the present discussion, though quantum entanglement begins with a duality and when applied to the idea of designing a quantum-based computer moves beyond the conventional on/off switching to a third valuation or state of existence:

3 supposed shapes the universe might have
Shrodinger's cat and string theory as a loose thread A supposition on the dimensionality of Shrodginger's cat and string theory

Quantum entanglement is the physical phenomenon that occurs when a pair or group of particles is generated, interact, or share spatial proximity in a way such that the quantum state of each particle of the pair or group cannot be described independently of the state of the others, even when the particles are separated by a large distance. The topic of quantum entanglement is at the heart of the disparity between classical and quantum physics.

Measurements of physical properties such as position, momentum, spin, and polarization performed on entangled particles are found to be perfectly correlated. For example, if a pair of entangled particles is generated such that their total spin is known to be zero, and one particle is found to have clockwise spin on a first axis, then the spin of the other particle, measured on the same axis, will be found to be counterclockwise. However, this behavior gives rise to seemingly paradoxical effects: any measurement of a property of a particle results in an irreversible wave function collapse of that particle and will change the original quantum state. In the case of entangled particles, such a measurement will affect the entangled system as a whole. Such phenomena were the subject of a 1935 paper by Albert Einstein, Boris Podolsky, and Nathan Rosen,[1] and several papers by Erwin Schrödinger shortly thereafter,[2][3] describing what came to be known as the EPR paradox. Einstein and others considered such behavior to be impossible, as it violated the local realism view of causality (Einstein referring to it as "spooky action at a distance")[4] and argued that the accepted formulation of quantum mechanics must therefore be incomplete.

Wikipedia: Quantum Entanglement

Difference between conventional computing and quantum computing:

Conventional Computing Quantum Computing
Conventional computing is based on the classical phenomenon of electrical circuits being in a single state at a given time, either on or off. Quantum computing is based on the phenomenon of Quantum Mechanics, such as superposition and entanglement, the phenomenon where it is possible to be in more than one state at a time.
Information storage and manipulation is based on “bit”, which is based on voltage or charge; low is 0 and high is 1. Information storage and manipulation is based on Quantum Bit or “qubit”, which is based on the spin of electron or polarization of a single photon.
The circuit behavior is governed by classical physics. The circuit behavior is governed by quantum physics or quantum mechanics.
Conventional computing use binary codes i.e. bits 0 or 1 to represent information. Quantum computing use Qubits i.e. 0, 1 and superposition state of both 0 and 1 to represent information.
CMOS transistors are the basic building blocks of conventional computers. Superconducting Quantum Interference Device or SQUID or Quantum Transistors are the basic building blocks of quantum computers.
In conventional computers, data processing is done in Central Processing Unit or CPU, which consists of Arithmetic and Logic Unit (ALU), processor registers and a control unit. In quantum computers, data processing is done in Quantum Processing Unit or QPU, which consists of a number of interconnected qubits.

Conventional Computing vs Quantum Computing

In short, while we come to catalogue various examples of patterns expressed in a numerical format, we are customarily overlooking the behavior of using metaphor to describe another metaphor to describe another metaphor. In fact, unraveling the so-called mysteries of life (in physics, chemistry, biology, etc.), may require a three-part language decipherment as we have encountered when referring to the Rosetta stone, Behistun Inscriptions, and Galle Inscriptions. The fact that one theory of old often becomes surpassed by yet another clarification using a different formula of metaphor, suggests that we are unaware that the human brain may necessarily use a three-step, step-wise system of cognitive metaphorization without being consciously aware of it, because human ego distracts the recognition thereof in order to substantiate some kind or level of personal uniqueness that is not governed by a system of occurrence which can be systematically viewed as a type of biologically-based mechanical activity.

The different times, places, people, cultures, languages and applications all assist in exerting an expressed camouflaging exercise that human rationality practices as a survival mechanism. Because it is so widespread and commonly occurring, it is easily overlooked unless one trains oneself to step outside the conventions of thought processing. While this has happened with the young who rebel against the status quo of a belief or practice, it frequently occurs as well with the old who have spent their lives adjusting themselves to an acceptance of the status quo and defending one another belief; only to awaken at some time to the realization they have had to revise their thinking. And even though many old people who inhabit places and positions of authoritative control over a given culture or cultural practice become aware of their revisions, they may keep quite because they do not know how to effectively apply their new-found perspective and maintain that way of life which they now hold onto in their "dusking" years of mortality. They prefer to keep their ways and means intact, may unduly affect them in a negative way. They want the public to keep their vision of the present devil in vogue because they have developed a working society in conjunction therewith, and do not want to bring about the emergence of a possible new kind and type of devil that is not well known and is thus unpredictable. They prefer the predictability of a proposed uncertainty and do not want to expose the uncertainty as a false god around which a culture has created a working environment of intellectual activity, even if the activity is one in which the entire culture is like a vehicle stuck in the muck spinning its wheels.

Because we can pay witness to what appears to be a small assortment of recurring patterns, this small assortment may be a conservation effect which produces the circumstance which prevents life forms from existing in a reality of immortality. We can not live extensive lives because the present formula of life accommodates the incremental deterioration of the planet, solar system and galaxy. Life as we know it is a process of conservation in accordance with the incremental deterioration. However, it is a survival mechanism with a short lease. Extending the lease requires removal from the type and kind of deterioration existing in the environment which our kind and type of biologically is connected. Like the 3 engines of the space shuttle used to remove a few from the confines of the Earth, we need to effect an operable 3-stage system of cognitive metaphorization in order to reach the escape velocity for leaving behind the antiquated beliefs held up in sanctifications of importance by the old guards of theoretical physics and other subjects who carrying out routines of thinking commensurate with their status and placement in their respective social and professional circumstances.

Page Originated: Friday, lst May, 2020... 2:37 AM
Page initially posted: 7th May, 2020... 7:36 AM
Updated Page: Sunday, 31th May, 2020... 5:11 AM