4 ms·
the actual publication is a little less cryptic: http://prl.aps.org/abstract/PRL/v109/i10/e100404 http://prl.aps.org/abstract/PRL/v109/i10/e100404 basically, t
by officialjunk 13y ago
the actual publication is a little less cryptic: http://prl.aps.org/abstract/PRL/v109/i10/e100404 http://prl.aps.org/abstract/PRL/v109/i10/e100404
basically, the uncertainty principle still stands. what is being questioned is the application of the uncertainty principle to describe the relationship between measurement and the disturbance it creates, which has never been proven, but is commonly taught as an application.
- mathattack 13y agoThanks! This makes some sense. It's basically saying that the uncertainty (if it still exists) is caused by something else than a disturbance from measurement?
- officialjunk 13y agoIt's not saying the uncertainty is from something else, but just the relationship of how much disturbance there is from a measurement is not fully understood and is not accurately described by the uncertainty principle.