Electron crystal made

[james03]

https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-02657-6

I think this pretty much kills off the Heisenberg Uncertainty principle.

[Heinrich]

You certain about that?

[james03]

You are at sub nanometer lengths.  No one will touch it though because they'd be treated as an heretic.

[Heinrich]

You are at sub nanometer lengths.  No one will touch it though because they'd be treated as an heretic.

Like Geocentrism.

[MaximGun]

I had some curtains that looked like that in the 1970s.

[LausTibiChriste]

You are at sub nanometer lengths.  No one will touch it though because they'd be treated as an heretic.

a heretic*

[Heinrich]

You are at sub nanometer lengths.  No one will touch it though because they'd be treated as an heretic.

a heretic*

It's a silent aitch, ace.

[ChairmanJoeAintMyPrez]

Like ell it is, omeboy

[Heinrich]

Like ell it is, omeboy

Talk about the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principal.

[cgraye]

https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-02657-6

I think this pretty much kills off the Heisenberg Uncertainty principle.

What does this have to do with the Heisenberg Uncertainty principle?  The article doesn't mention anything about it.

[james03]

The article doesn't mention anything about it.

It will never be investigated.  Did any scientist investigate whether IBM spelling out their name with atoms violated Heisenberg?  No.  This is orders of magnitude more precise. 

[cgraye]

The article doesn't mention anything about it.

It will never be investigated.  Did any scientist investigate whether IBM spelling out their name with atoms violated Heisenberg?  No.  This is orders of magnitude more precise.

But still far, far beyond the scale where the uncertainty principle would make any difference to the structure of the crystal.

[james03]

A reflexive answer.  This is the sad state of science.

Mass of an electron 1x10^-27g
Picometer 1x 10^-12  m (we might be down to femto meter scale actually).

Planck:  6.6 x 10^-34

This was likely done very close to absolute zero, so given the miniscule mass of an electron, the uncertainty in momentum is small, probably on the order of mass.  So not only is this not far, far beyond the scale (2 fars?), it likely violates the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle.  It clearly deserves consideration.

Which is not surprising since Ozawa showed that it was in error with his neutron beam experiments.  He came up with an uncertainty principle that has two additional factors.  The Heisenberg uncertainty principle was wrong.  This current experiment is likely further proof.  But with people making reflexive answers and swallowing things without question, I doubt anyone will check.

The point being not that there is anything wrong with the concept of uncertainty, but rather that when experiments show problems (like our first pass calcs of the IBM experiment), we don't reflexively dismiss them, but take a second look.  In this way science is refined.

[cgraye]

A reflexive answer.  This is the sad state of science.

Mass of an electron 1x10^-27g
Picometer 1x 10^-12  m (we might be down to femto meter scale actually).

Planck:  6.6 x 10^-34

This was likely done very close to absolute zero, so given the miniscule mass of an electron, the uncertainty in momentum is small, probably on the order of mass.  So not only is this not far, far beyond the scale (2 fars?), it likely violates the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle.  It clearly deserves consideration.

Where are you getting these numbers?  And what is the calculation you are trying to show?  If the uncertainty principle is violated, the product of the uncertainties would have to be less than h bar over 2.  I can't tell what you are proposing it is.  But the distances between the electrons in the crystal are extremely large compared to electrons, on the order of nanometers.

Which is not surprising since Ozawa showed that it was in error with his neutron beam experiments.  He came up with an uncertainty principle that has two additional factors.  The Heisenberg uncertainty principle was wrong.  This current experiment is likely further proof.  But with people making reflexive answers and swallowing things without question, I doubt anyone will check.

That's not what Ozawa showed.  He showed that interpreting Heisenberg's relation as a limit on how little a measurement could disturb a system was wrong.  And despite that being Heisenberg's initial idea, that's not what the uncertainty principle came to refer to, which was a limit on how much you could suppress the quantum fluctuations of position and momentum (or whatever), which has nothing to do with measurement.  Ozawa actually combined these ideas and produced a relation which combines error and disturbances as well as fluctuations.

The point being not that there is anything wrong with the concept of uncertainty, but rather that when experiments show problems (like our first pass calcs of the IBM experiment), we don't reflexively dismiss them, but take a second look.  In this way science is refined.

Obviously no one has a problem studying the question of uncertainty - otherwise Ozawa's work would have been ignored.  If the Wigner crystals showed a violation of the uncertainty principle, that would be a momentous discovery.  Don't you think physicists would jump on that if it were the case?

[james03]

Don't you think physicists would jump on that if it were the case?

No.