My brain just went somewhere, because of the Large Hadron Collide r, and came back with...

The Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle

Heisenberg postulates that the observer effect is magnified the closer one
observes an event. In theory, the only way to observe very small events is
to illuminate them in some manner (making them visible). To do this one has
to interact with them (or entangle oneself in their environment). Thus the
Observer Effect comes into play (where one changes an event by one's very
act of observing it, as one is forced to interact with it). This mainly
seems to be the case in the microscopic environment and much less so in the
macroscopic environment. Remembering that it's not the act of observation
which is the problem in this princible, but the measurement of the outcome.

The hard part of the theory seems to be that Heisenberg suggests that when
one observes an event (thus bombarding it with a means *to* observe it) the
event is changed in an uncertain (unpredictable) manner - of course I could
be misunderstanding the explanation. My question is... What makes it an
uncertain outcome? If one is observing a small particle, where one logically
knows the properties of that particle (ie: location, speed, direction), and
one illuminates that particle for observation, one knows the direction and
vector of the illumination source, and the properties of the illuminating
particles. Therefore, why can't one mathematically predict how the
interaction will occur?

Yes, Jurassic Park explained (using rudimentary chaos theory) that a falling
drop of water will not repeat the same track on any given surface, but that
was a gross example, as the forces and surfaces of the demonstration cannot
be reproduced exactly each and evey time. Does this then suggest that the
very fabric of space is so fluid that exact circumstances cannot be
reproduced and so results cannot be duplicated? What is the cause of this
dynamic nature? And what is the tangible proof that this dynamism exists? To
state that the dynamism is proved by the inability for a result to be
reproduced is not a proof in itself (a self-referential theory is really a
spurious explanation and doesn't answer the question). It doesn't explain
why, it merely suggests (for example) that fluid dynamism *could* be the
reason, with no real proof to that effect.

I guess that's why it's only a theory.
--

Australia Post is committed to providing our customers with excellent service. If we can assist you in any way please telephone 13 13 18 or visit our website.

The information contained in this e-mail communication may be proprietary, confidential or legally professionally privileged. It is intended exclusively for the individual or entity to which it is addressed. You should only read, disclose, re-transmit, copy, distribute, act in reliance on or commercialise the information if you are authorised to do so. Australia Post does not represent, warrant or guarantee the integrity of this e-mail communication has been maintained nor that the communication is free of errors, virus or interference.

If you are not the addressee or intended recipient please notify us by replying direct to the sender and then destroy any electronic or paper copy of this message. Any views expressed in this e-mail communication are taken to be those of the individual sender, except where the sender specifically attributes those views to Australia Post and is authorised to do so.

Please consider the environment before electing to print this e-mail.