Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site brl-tgr.ARPA Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!allegra!bellcore!decvax!genrad!teddy!panda!talcott!harvard!seismo!brl-tgr!gwyn From: gwyn@brl-tgr.ARPA (Doug Gwyn) Newsgroups: net.physics Subject: Re: Non-linear systems. Message-ID: <7212@brl-tgr.ARPA> Date: Fri, 11-Jan-85 04:07:37 EST Article-I.D.: brl-tgr.7212 Posted: Fri Jan 11 04:07:37 1985 Date-Received: Sun, 13-Jan-85 07:54:28 EST References: <209@talcott.UUCP>, <328@rlgvax.UUCP> <384@hou2g.UUCP> <273@harvard.ARPA> <214@topaz.ARPA> Organization: Ballistic Research Lab Lines: 19 > One way to look at QM uncertainty is to say that it, or something like > it, is necessary merely to avoid having to say that each particle in > the universe represents an infinite amount of information. No, this is not what quantum uncertainty is about (although perhaps this is a consequence of it). Even quantum mechanics assumes that quantities can be expressed as sets of real numbers, each of which is essentially infinitely precise. The uncertainty principle is that every measurable quantity (well, that's stretching it a bit) has a conjugate quantity such that the product of the precision to which the conjugate variables can be simultaneously determined is no less than some universal constant (something like 10^-27 erg-sec as I recall). There is no injunction against any quantity being measured to as many "bits" of accuracy as one may desire, although its conjugate becomes fuzzier as the measurement is made more precise. I would like to hear a discussion of the implications of a closed and/or bounded (not the same thing) universe on such issues. I think there is something very interesting to be discovered about this..