great conversation. Recommend reading Alexander's post in the "God and Science" forum where he explains the Uncertainty Principle via acoustics.
Good explanation with vectors, smartguy; my reading's paying off- I get it! Of course, if physics phenomena are reducible to ratios; that backs Dick's assertion that it's all circular. That physics is a giant mental construct of interdependent ratios. But I think he makes the mistake of equivocating a theory that excludes some reality, with reality; in fact you actually always do have some reality.
Would life be clearer if the phrase "Uncertainty Principle" was dropped, and replaced by the phrase "The Ratio Principle", or the "Spread/unspread complementary principle"?
Of couse you get 'manufactured uncertainty' when you try to tie down that which is spread and complementary. So one must question why try to tie it down? "Predictability" in some respects may be an illusion. Has mankind forgotten how to play the cosmic game, so he tries to predict it?
If you were paddling a Kayak against a strong current and making no headway; even also paddling diagonally because the whole current-stream is drifting sideways, and making no net headway- well if you measured your exact position by satellite-GPS you might notice your net 'stationary position' was fluctuating a lot.
Thus giving the game away that your 'zero movement' was really the approximate sum of your active paddling cancelling the active current cancelling the sideways drift of the current stream.
(That is, almost cancelling in each case). So you get little fluctuations. So to, vacuum fluctuations betray that the 'vacuum' may be a 'false vacuum'; that three almost cancelling accelerations may lie beyond this.
One of these accelerations may be the accelerating expansion of the universe. Another may be the acceleration due to gravity/space/time. The third may be ?
By the way, you always get 'manufactured uncertainty' when you isolate one part of a three-part harmony where the whole totally requires the contribution of each part.
At least where each part is in 'jumps'. If you can only measure in discrete units (corresponds to wave number in light), the number for example of units of the kayak's displacement relative to the current-sideways drift in units, the units might not match up exactly (only when one has the displacement in units of the current-in-itself movement might the three fit together in the sum of the 'stationary' kayak.)
Why isolate momentum or position? To make a 'prediction'? Why try and predict? Why not play the reality game with reality, make a contract with reality? If physicists were as interested in playing as predicting; maybe they would learn the co-operation with reality that allows teleportation?
If gravity is 'curved' or 'accelerated' or distinguished 'space-time'; maybe 'space' is an acceleration and 'time' is an acceleration.
So 'time' is accelerated gravity-space; space is accelerated gravity-time, with
gravity as accelerated space-time.
Since 'gravity' is 'accelerated space-time'; 'time is accelerated (gravity)time' = 'time is accelerated (accelerated space-time) time' probably cancels to 'time is accel. time (accel. time)space ; the second acceleration effectively a deceleration; so time is a form of space?
Uh-oh, we travel in space so we can travel in time? But who ever travelled in space, JUST in space (now I see what Luis is getting to)?
Whenever you travel in space, you travel in time (reference-space). If you JUST space-travelled, you would travel back (or forewards) in time and gravity.
If you JUST time-travelled, you would re-trace your path back (or forewards) in space and gravity.
I guess if you JUST gravity-travelled, you would be eg. less heavy (on the moon) so would have gone back or forth in space and time.
Teleportation still looks O.K. as it is a quantum jump. Jump a 'Planck moment' into the future: go anywhere in the universe? Understand how you are made of jumps- then be yourself (via another dimension) anywhere?
(Uh-oh, that's deep.)
Also; absolute simultaneity: Two supernovas go off. From Earth, you see both go at the same Earth-time. But one may be further than the other, its light taking longer to get here. To know if they were really simultaneous, you have to map these events in both space and reference-space (time).
Something like that anyway. Just dashing this off somewhat, probably mistakes here.