09-21-2019, 05:41 PM
@tryp4vps: Are you speaking about Heisenberg's one? If so, that concerns the variation of momentum and position of a quantum particle and the uncertainty involved in the measurement of those. I don't think it has anything to do with energy generation out of nothing.
And even if it - or let's say other theories so, I'm afraid I'll still not agree. You see we uphold the Newton Mechanics to a certain extent due to experiments, but more importantly due to its relevance in our day-to-day life. However, Quantum Mechanics is to a large extent based on certain assumptions and otherwise too, purely on experimentation. We've never been able to independently obtain any, they're all derived be it Plank's constant, Rydberg's constant, Pauli's, Hund's, or anything such for that matter.
Ever wondered why couldn't we see any subatomic particle till date? No we didn't. So how come we're so sure about their behavior as much as we are regarding macro objects. Even that since experiments very well define and lay grounds for theories, still just give a thought to this - even orbitals are but probability of finding electrons, they don't have any boundary as such.
For sure, Bohr was proved wrong by Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle, but that doesn't confirm the later was right altogether. How did Heisenberg conclude? Based on de Broglie's dual behavior of matter. There's no end to this chain and can't be until an independent proof is designed solely based on logic and no theories, nothing at all.
Regards,
And even if it - or let's say other theories so, I'm afraid I'll still not agree. You see we uphold the Newton Mechanics to a certain extent due to experiments, but more importantly due to its relevance in our day-to-day life. However, Quantum Mechanics is to a large extent based on certain assumptions and otherwise too, purely on experimentation. We've never been able to independently obtain any, they're all derived be it Plank's constant, Rydberg's constant, Pauli's, Hund's, or anything such for that matter.
Ever wondered why couldn't we see any subatomic particle till date? No we didn't. So how come we're so sure about their behavior as much as we are regarding macro objects. Even that since experiments very well define and lay grounds for theories, still just give a thought to this - even orbitals are but probability of finding electrons, they don't have any boundary as such.
For sure, Bohr was proved wrong by Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle, but that doesn't confirm the later was right altogether. How did Heisenberg conclude? Based on de Broglie's dual behavior of matter. There's no end to this chain and can't be until an independent proof is designed solely based on logic and no theories, nothing at all.
Regards,