I'm really embarrassed that my "understanding" of physics is so provencial. In my attempts at understahding I'm not exactly on the same level with Bohr, Heisenberg, and others. I'm flattered, but mine is ignorance. Here are some examples:
1) 'Position' and 'momentum' are concepts I can mentally differentiate as two, disparate characteristics of the same "particle," but I can't seem to do the same with 'momentum' and 'energy.'
2) The statement "I am referring to the absence of matter; granted space-time itself is not 'nothingness' per se" leaves me dumbfounded, as I still don't understand *what* there is to spacetime, outside of the particle interactions the UP focuses on (and the virtual particles that only exist for a brief time).
3) My second question (the one you want me to rephrase) is only confusing because of its source. I'm going to 'regoup' and bring that one up in my next post.
4) As for my perception that relativity should have led us to the UP, it's another notion that might be rooted in my lack of knowledge. I'm going to work on reassembling that one, or dissolving it altogether.
However, I'm still aware of the problems with the principle that "states that we cannot know both the exact energy of a system and the duration in time for which it was measured." Seems to me that this principle, expressed mathematically or philosophically, only concerns waves/particles that come in contact with other waves/particles. I still have to allow myself time to sit down and digest the Copenhagen interpretation, but at the moment I still am under the impression that the act of observation is what makes this principle so bizarre, and not the interactions themselves.
More to come...