Debunking of Modern Evolutionary and Cosmological Theories

[Alex K]

@JuliaL

I'm pretty sure the p in the example specifies a range of momenta and q,r ranges in space. Then, the Heisenberg uncertainty is supposed to tell you that p and q can't be true at the same time because q is too small a spatial interval to allow that small a momentum uncertainty as given by p. The same for p and r. However, (q or r) together specifies a larger spatial range which is compatible with a momentum uncertainty small enough that it can be contained in p, and hence p and (q or r) can be true, while (p and q) as well as (p and r) must be false by Heisenberg.

That being said, the example seems to fail on a subtle technicality: as soon as you restrict the wave function to *any* finite space interval, its extent in momentum space is infinite by the laws of fourier analysis. So saying that the particle is absolutely certainly inside any finite space interval would not allow you to have any absolute restrictions on the momentum. Very large momenta are merely.very unlikely, not absolutely excluded. So one can't really do the example with intervals.

Thanks for the further clarification.
You've improved my understanding from mud (totally opaque) to sort of dark, dark translucent.
Your 'technicality' though (I think, maybe?), depends on the validity of the 'law' of uncertainty which, though fully verified empirically so far, is still a knowingly tentative statement as it pertains only to the consistency our observations have shown in the universe to date and our expectations going forward.

My brain hurts when I try to think too hard.  Life was simpler when I just took 'natural law' as absolute.

But...but...
Isn't the writer of the example going back and forth between the values of r,q & (r or q) being true/false values and their being intervals in space which can be added to reformulate the truth values of the expression?  Like, r is false and q is false (can't squeeze the particle into those boxes) but (r or q) is true (the box got bigger and now the particle fits?)  One case is logical rule following and the other is adding space.
I'm back to mud.

Don't feel bad, I don't find it particularly clear either. I tried to interpret it thusly: q is "particle is in a quantum superposition where it can have any location between -1 and 1",  and r is "particle is in a quantum superposition where it can have any location between 1 and 3". You then interpret the "or" *not in the sense*  "it's in this quantum superposition or in that", but instead as a sort of quantum or which puts all the things it or-s into one big quantum superposition. Then, r quantum-or q is tantamount to "particle is in a quantum superposition where it can be at any location between -1 ...1 or 1...3".


Concerning my technical concerns, I'm purely talking about how the maths of quantum mechanics works, not the empirical side. That being said, strongly modifying the heisenberg law would yield a radical departure from QM and I am not aware of any such thing that is empirically feasible.