Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!news.quux.org!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Julio Di Egidio <julio@diegidio.name>
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Subject: Re: What is "uncertain" in quantum physics?
Date: Mon, 19 May 2025 11:17:03 +0200
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 41
Message-ID: <100esug$105b0$2@dont-email.me>
References: <100d5cr$105b1$1@dont-email.me> <100e0f3$18pob$2@dont-email.me>
 <100esco$105b1$2@dont-email.me> <100esos$105b0$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Mon, 19 May 2025 11:17:05 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="fcf06f9df370babaff46fa07453c23d2";
	logging-data="1054048"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1805CCTdHlgOYwbgmKYlpwSmxHQ1wu6FEs="
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:NWi2YWPjgVKhE0IHy0U6ropD0kk=
Content-Language: en-GB, it
In-Reply-To: <100esos$105b0$1@dont-email.me>
Bytes: 2653

On 19/05/2025 11:14, Julio Di Egidio wrote:
> On 19/05/2025 11:07, Julio Di Egidio wrote:
>> On 19/05/2025 03:10, x wrote:
>>> On 5/18/25 10:28, Julio Di Egidio wrote:
>>>> Why shouldn't we think of the Uncertainty Principle as just a statement
>>>> about the limits of observation, rather than about something objective,
>>>> especially as in causing some non-zero vacuum energy?
>>>>
>>>> Is there some experiment that settles "uncertainty" as something 
>>>> "really
>>>> there"?  In particular, I am not sure if the expansion of the Universe
>>>> is such evidence, or rather a consequence of the theory.
>>>>
>>>> Thanks for any insight.
>>>
>>> Interesting.  A statement or question actually
>>> about physics.
>>
>> LOL, indeed.
>>
>>> If something is 'quantized' in quantum mechanics
>>> it is actually there [and] not there.
>>>
>>> Take an electron.  It actually has a specific
>>> rest mass or charge.  It does not have an infinite
>>> number of fine degrees of mass or charge.
>>
>> But quantisation has nothing to do with uncertainty.
>>
>> Unless you are thinking of quantising space-time...?
> 
> I.e. space-time dimensions: so no, at least not until
> further notice, as those remain in a first instance
> descriptions of observation, the "frames of reference".

Unless you are thinking of quantising *proper* time (!),
but then again, what would be the evidence, theoretical
or experimental, for such a thing?

-Julio