“Illusion of understanding”—I don’t see what’s so illusory about understanding one case—the most commonly met case, the one people hear about and get confused by.
What I mean is that the position-momentum case is explained so well and so convincingly by EY (took me quite a bit of thinking to convince myself that the other examples are not covered by his explanation), that an uninitiated reader gets an illusion of understanding the general principle, not just this one specific case. And a misled disciple is the worst kind.
What would fix it for you? A brief disclamer, “This is a sample for the most common case of the HUP; related but non-identical processes apply to other cases.”??
But as an aside -
How is the angle/action case not meaningfully connected to the momentum/position case, such that really getting one doesn’t hands you the other one on a silver platter? After all, momentum/position is the special case of angle/action where the origin of rotation is placed at infinity (at least, classically—you can’t make angular momentum eigenstates without enveloping the origin of rotation).
I doubt that a disclaimer would dissuade an aspired non-expert reader from proudly proclaiming her deep understanding of the uncertainty principle and looking down at those who cannot see the proverbial forest for the (QM math) trees.
The only honest position, in my opinion, is to expressly declare that the whole QM sequence is pop-science, not real science, and, while an engaging read, has no meaningful connection to the rest of the sequences.
As for angle/action vs momentum/position vs components of spin, they all are rather different beasts, originally corresponding to different spacetime symmetries to begin with, so I would not feel comfortable trying to salvage a flawed explanation by stretching an analogy.
The separate symmetries that underly linear momentum and angular momentum themselves have a deep connection.
Components of spin are definitely a separate issue. I did not (mean to?) imply that it was the same thing.
The only honest position, in my opinion, is to expressly declare that the whole QM sequence is pop-science, not real science...
If by this you mean, “This is the general idea. If you don’t push too hard on it, it will serve you well, but a lot has been left out, so don’t go extending the arguments too far, because you could easily reach a point where yet more of your fundamental assumptions are wrong.” Then yes, that would be a good thing to have put back in “Quantum Explanations”, and maybe repeated at the top of each page.
If you mean, “This is basically bullshit”, well, no.
… and, while an engaging read, has no meaningful connection to the rest of the sequences.
It connects directly to zombies and addresses anti-realist positions. Both of these are well within the ‘solid’ portions of the sequence. It also connects to the nature of probability, which is a core issue for Bayesian inference of real situations (as opposed to general theories).
I doubt that a disclaimer would dissuade an aspired non-expert reader from proudly proclaiming her deep understanding of the uncertainty principle and looking down at those who cannot see the proverbial forest for the (QM math) trees.
I’m having a hard time coming up with an objectionable statement that reading this (this article in particular) would produce in someone who read it at all carefully. This article hit the main point on the head, which is that the HUP is totally consistent with physical realism. It gave a correct account of the HUP for position and momentum, and showed exactly where it was skipping the work.
Someone who doesn’t understand Fourier already isn’t going to read this explicit ‘here be technicals I’m not covering’ and think ’Aha! I know it all!” unless they’re the kind of person who’s basically out to do what you’re describing anyway, in which case this hasn’t made matters any worse.
“This is the general idea. If you don’t push too hard on it, it will serve you well, but a lot has been left out, so don’t go extending the arguments too far, because you could easily reach a point where yet more of your fundamental assumptions are wrong.”
Basically, yes. This is what pop-sci means to me: providing some understanding of the concepts, without the ability to calculate anything of value.
It connects directly to zombies and addresses anti-realist positions… It also connects to the nature of probability
Are you saying that in a fully classical universe, with a random number generator instead of QM, p-zombies are OK and Bayes is invalid? If yes, feel free to explain, if no, you don’t need this sequence.
This article hit the main point on the head, which is that the HUP is totally consistent with physical realism. It gave a correct account of the HUP for position and momentum, and showed exactly where it was skipping the work.
Having looked through it again, I suppose I agree with that. I just wish it gave explicit examples of what was left out.
What I mean is that the position-momentum case is explained so well and so convincingly by EY (took me quite a bit of thinking to convince myself that the other examples are not covered by his explanation), that an uninitiated reader gets an illusion of understanding the general principle, not just this one specific case. And a misled disciple is the worst kind.
What would fix it for you? A brief disclamer, “This is a sample for the most common case of the HUP; related but non-identical processes apply to other cases.”??
But as an aside -
How is the angle/action case not meaningfully connected to the momentum/position case, such that really getting one doesn’t hands you the other one on a silver platter? After all, momentum/position is the special case of angle/action where the origin of rotation is placed at infinity (at least, classically—you can’t make angular momentum eigenstates without enveloping the origin of rotation).
I doubt that a disclaimer would dissuade an aspired non-expert reader from proudly proclaiming her deep understanding of the uncertainty principle and looking down at those who cannot see the proverbial forest for the (QM math) trees.
The only honest position, in my opinion, is to expressly declare that the whole QM sequence is pop-science, not real science, and, while an engaging read, has no meaningful connection to the rest of the sequences.
As for angle/action vs momentum/position vs components of spin, they all are rather different beasts, originally corresponding to different spacetime symmetries to begin with, so I would not feel comfortable trying to salvage a flawed explanation by stretching an analogy.
(taking this in reverse order)
The separate symmetries that underly linear momentum and angular momentum themselves have a deep connection.
Components of spin are definitely a separate issue. I did not (mean to?) imply that it was the same thing.
If by this you mean, “This is the general idea. If you don’t push too hard on it, it will serve you well, but a lot has been left out, so don’t go extending the arguments too far, because you could easily reach a point where yet more of your fundamental assumptions are wrong.” Then yes, that would be a good thing to have put back in “Quantum Explanations”, and maybe repeated at the top of each page.
If you mean, “This is basically bullshit”, well, no.
It connects directly to zombies and addresses anti-realist positions. Both of these are well within the ‘solid’ portions of the sequence. It also connects to the nature of probability, which is a core issue for Bayesian inference of real situations (as opposed to general theories).
I’m having a hard time coming up with an objectionable statement that reading this (this article in particular) would produce in someone who read it at all carefully. This article hit the main point on the head, which is that the HUP is totally consistent with physical realism. It gave a correct account of the HUP for position and momentum, and showed exactly where it was skipping the work.
Someone who doesn’t understand Fourier already isn’t going to read this explicit ‘here be technicals I’m not covering’ and think ’Aha! I know it all!” unless they’re the kind of person who’s basically out to do what you’re describing anyway, in which case this hasn’t made matters any worse.
Basically, yes. This is what pop-sci means to me: providing some understanding of the concepts, without the ability to calculate anything of value.
Are you saying that in a fully classical universe, with a random number generator instead of QM, p-zombies are OK and Bayes is invalid? If yes, feel free to explain, if no, you don’t need this sequence.
Having looked through it again, I suppose I agree with that. I just wish it gave explicit examples of what was left out.