Discover the world's scientific knowledge

I have the following 'ranges' that describe the full breadth of uncertainty range from a number of interdependent parameter inputs in building energy simulation. There is no single formula that describes the relationship between these variables. These variables however interact via a complex number of schedules, fundamental equations and coding modules.

Is there any publication that can advice on how to combine these uncertainties to arrive at a single overall value? If I use ordinary compound error formula (or uncertainty propagation formula), I lose the negative ranges that are just as important to me and I end up with positive values only (which isn't what i want and perceive to be a reflection of the overall uncertainty).

Weather : -4% to 6.1%

Occupant: 4 to 26%

Mechanical systems: -15.3% to 70.3%

Controls: -28.7% to 79.2%

Overall uncertainty ???

I have, on the one hand the measurements Y(s)=Y, and on the otrher hand the model Y(m)=B+D+E. That is, I have the following equation

Y(s) = Y(m)

Y = B + D + E

Then, its combined typical uncertainty is

u2(A) = C2(B)u2(B) + C2(D)u2(D) + C2(E)u2(E)

But, I want to get the uncertainty of D, and in this case, and applying fundamental algebra, we can obtain

C2(D)u2(D) = u2(A) - C2(B)u2(B) - C2(E)u2(E)

and then

u2(D) < 0

and these are complex uncertainties.

What is the physical meaning?

is this the correct way to work to get the uncertainty of D?

Thank you!!

There is no established method for building models. Neither the scientific nor the philosophical literature has succeeded in generalizing the design process as a whole, which suggests that model building involves an element of skill and ingenuity, such as experimental design, or intangible aspects of creativity and art that avoid generalization (Morgan & Morrison, 1999). The discussions in (Grecis, 2018) lead to a fundamental idea in estimating the uncertainties in model formulation: model uncertainty can only be derived from what we know. Once the model has been built, experimenters calculate the uncertainty budget using only the identified sources of uncertainty, although there is always agreement with the existence of “unknown unknowns” (Pommé, 2016). Thus, the uncertainty of the model should be better understood as an indicator that the structure of the formulated model allows the experimenter to be confident in its reliability. Experimenters can then adhere to this confidence or not, depending on how confident they are of the measurement results. Such confidence does not depend on the very uncertainty of the model.

Recently the article "Tricking the Uncertainty Principle" speaks about the team in Caltech they try to do that. The original paper was "Mechanically Detecting and Avoiding the Quantum Fluctuations of a Microwave Field." I am interested in hearing an opinion of a quantum mechanic expert about this claim. In addition other researcher claim same Research team challenges the limits of famous quantum principle see. The study was published in January in the journal Physical Review Letters. Experimental Joint Quantum Measurements with Minimum Uncertainty.

The velocity of photons is isotropic property in vacuum, while in fermions it's affected by the uncertainty principle. How can we understand this conflict. If there is a velocity transformation between a fermion and a classical observer. Do you think it will be real or imaginary?

and If there is a velocity transformation between a photon and a classical observer do you think it will be real or imaginary? with the reason please.

On the site are presented:

1) Analyses of all “unexpected” and “inexplicable” results of the most famous experiments related to the behavior and measurement of the speed of light, including the analysis of the “Michelson-Morley experiment” which proves that the inappropriate conceptual design of Michelson’s interferometer is actually the primary cause for the delusion that “the speed of light is the same for all inertial frames of reference”, which is the core of the special relativity;

2) Analysis of "Analysis of the article “On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies”;

3) The "New Model of the Uncertainty of the Universe" (THE FABRIC OF THE UNIVERSE), which explains the delusion that the "speed of light in vacuum" is constant for the whole Universe...

3) Revealing the essence of all the so-called “fundamental tests” that supposedly prove the truth of the special theory of relativity.

Let's discuss with SCIENTIFIC ARGUMENTS every detail of the evidence presented on this site!

I am eager to know why Heisenberg himself introduced an observation-based experiment to demonstrate his intuitive explanation of his uncertainty formula. Does his microscope experiment show that Heisenberg initially believed that his uncertainty principle had been a measurement effect rather than something inherent?

On the other hand, we know that, according to special relativity, the physical shape or path of a fast-moving object is complicatedly deformed due to the non-simultaneous arrival of the signals emitted from the different parts of the object if we tend to observe the object. However, we rule out those observation effects by imagining the real shape or the motion path rather than observing them. In this case, no one, rationally enough, asserts that since non-simultaneity is an inherent property of nature, the so-called observable deformations are all inherent and they rule the reality!

Does the same happen for judging Heisenberg's uncertainty formula? Is there any interpretation of quantum mechanics in which case there is a certain path for any fundamental particle and Heisenberg's principle is a measurement effect contrary to the Copenhagen interpretation?

Hello everyone,

I am trying to reproduce the calculations from an old article by J.J. Hopfield (J. Phys. Chem. Solids, vol.10, pp.110-119 (1959) - A theory of edge emission phenomena in CdS, ZnS and ZnO -attached here). In the fourth section "The systematics of edge emission", he starts to calculate the probabilities of photon emission with the simultaneous emission of n phonons.

Here he employs an approximation for the thermal spread of the hole in k-space, which I assume comes from the Heisenberg uncertainty principle: k0=(kBT*m/2hbar^2)^1/2, where the spread in real space is given by the fundamental length scale for a polaron r=(hbar/2m*omega)^1/2, and using kBT instead of hbar*omega.

Later, after stating that W1, the transition probability with the emission of 1 phonon is simply W0 multiplied by the Huang-Rhys factor (sum|f(q)|^2, for q smaller than the thermal spread of the hole), there is another approximation which I cannot understand no matter how much I think about it: W1=W0*N(kBT/hbar*omega)^1/2, using a certain approximation for f(q) (which I also don't understand).

To me, it looks as if the sum over |f(q)|^2 is approximated as N(kBT/hbar*omega)^1/2, and I simply can't figure out how that happens.

If anyone has some insight into these approximations, it would help me immensely. Thank you!

Claudiu

In rainfall-runoff modeling, it is often not possible to find the unique best parameter set, different parameter sets may be given similar good results during calibration. To reduce uncertainty and to define the optimum parameter set, it is a fundamental analysis of model parameters.

Heisenberg famously introduced and illustrated the uncertainty principle with a hypothetical gamma-ray microscope experiment. The diffraction limit played a central role in this derivation. Meanwhile the diffraction limit has been shown to be no fundamental limitation at all and "super-resolution" is achieved by a number of novel imaging techniques. Does this imply trouble for the uncertainty principle?