uncertainty principle

Position information x Momentum information = a constant.

The more you know about one, the less you know about the other.

As I recall the attempt to determine its position changes it

From Wiki

not sure about the uncertainty principle, but the completion backwards principle was a decent album



nowhere near their best of course

no you are missing the point of my question, i want to know whether its is that we cannot know, or that it is actually random as in electrons moving places seemingly without cause.

There are certain pairs of variables that we cannot know exactly simultaneously, among them momentum and position. The theory is that the uncertainty reflects the fact that they actually don't have a value until it is measured. For instance, a system such as a particle may exist in a superosition state of possible momenta and will only obtain a single value when forced to by, say, a measurement. You should look up a theoretical experiment called "Schroedinger's Cat."

Yes, you can "know" one parameter but at the expense of not knowing the value of the other parameter.

The question has philosophical implications with respect to what "knowing" means (epistemology). For example "measuring" starts with "naming" (the nominal level of measurement) and "naming" implies an observer specific focus. Similarly your inclusion of the word "causality" is philosophically problematic. (Refer to Hume for this)

ok ok, but does the fact that we can not "know" position and velocity mean that it does not have a position and velocity. basically what i am saying is that if you were to be some all knowing being would it be possible to predict the path of electrons or would they remain unpredictable.

You cannot simultaneously know them both. As far as I know, we can predict the probability of electrons being on a particular paths but not the path of any specific electron because we would need full information on both parameters to do so. The uncertainty factor is directly related to electrons having both wave and particle properties. (...a wave being extended in space).

(IMO The predictability issue is a bit like that of "half life". We can predict with accuracy the time it takes for half of a radioactive mass to decay, but we cannot predict the decay of a particular molecule).

You're still missing the point, the question is not whether HUMANS can know and predict them but rather whether they actually HAVE a position and velocity. Take humans completely out of the equation- in the event that velocity and position could be known simultaneously would the path of electrons be predictable.

With respect, I think you are missing the point. What does your use of the word "actually" imply ? As Protagoras said....

...and that includes deciding what a "thing" is.(The nominal first level of measurement). Words such as "electron" denote a conjunction of observational measurements supported by theoretical models which may or may not correspond to familiar macro-objects. In the case of the electron the idea of it being "a particle" something like an orbiting satellite is only one type of picture to which we can relate. Another involves its wave properties which can be thought to extend indefinitely in space . "Wave packets" or "quanta" can be thought of as three dimensional nodes of reinforcement of interfering waves.
In short, these alternative models of "an electron" have reality only to the extent that they are useful in predicting observations. So your word "actually" has no ontological significance (existential status), it merely signifies what can be agreed regarding observations.

Ok let me reiterate is there true uncertainty as to the path of an electron, as in if you were to measure an electrons position at point A lets say, and then 1 second later measure it at point B, if you were to then rewind time to the point where you measured point A, when you proceeded to remeasure point B would it be in the same position as the first time you measured point B or would they in fact be in different positions: is there chance involved.

You don't understand. "It" has no continuous identity. A single flash of light in a detector might denote an "it" at a particular time, but generally speaking the continued existence of that "it" is probabilistic rather than perpetual.

So probability is absolutely intrinsically linked to quanta and there is no way you could predict events even in the hypothetical scenario that you knew everything there was to know in the universe.

You can predict macro-events but not micro events.

You are bogged down by the problematic relationship between ontology (existence) and epistemology (what can be "known"). In addition you exhibit a position called technically "naive realism" in which you consider the universe to be populated by "things" with "properties" independent of the observational functioning of observers. (See my posting history for extensive discussion of this).

Consider this...the "humors of the body" had their time when they had observational functionality...there is no reason why the functionality of "the electron" (like that of "phlogisten" or "the ether") may not also become defunct or restricted in times to come.

I can understand your reasoning, i think. But my problem is the relationship between macro events and micro events, to me logically it feels like if you can predict macro events you should be able predict micro events, though i am starting to see where you are coming from. Tbh i need to do some reading but its so daunting without a fully developed or proper grounding in science. Last question- could fate exist, are we pre-destined to do the things we do, and see the things we see.

Aah...that's what we philosophers call "determinism". The naive realist tends to argue reductively, i.e. that all events can be reduced to mechanical interactions between causal elements. Thus they may argue that the workings of the brain can be reduced to physics and chemistry. There are many problems in that sort of approach which implies for example that "free will is an illusion". Without going into detail, let us say that opponents of determinism argue that the workings of the brain are necessary for human functioning, but not sufficient to account for them. Thus our physiology determines our range of interactions with "the world" but those interactions change both "us" (our programming) and hence "the world we perceive". i.e. some would say that reality is a function of the evolving interactions between observer and observed. They are two sides of a single
coin and neither has "existence" without the other.

Yes i know and i was a determinist until having happened upon quantum mechanics via my physics teacher, i then proceeded to try to find out whether quanta were completely unpredictable from every perspective and while i am not sure whether i am still a determinist, i still believe free will is an illusion- that humans are not independent of the laws of physics and the microscopic interactions of particles and quanta, so i dont believe that a soul is making our decisions even if they are unpredictable but rather our projected decisions change as a result of something else. Still i would like to know YOUR opinion. Sorry about the caps dont know how activate italics on an ipad.

My view is that individual human behaviour is a function of both physiology andnon-reducible social forces (comparable with those which operate in insect colonies). Thus to argue that free will is an illusion is to throw out such social concepts as "guilt", and "responsibility". But not only would that have detrimental social consequences, but it ignores at its peril the power of human language which is both the substrate for "cognition" including scientific paradigms (such as determinism !) and also the transmission medium for social interaction.

In short reductionist science does not underpin "behaviour" even though the term "scientist" epitomizes the quest to predict and control such behavior.