- #36
alxm
Science Advisor
- 1,848
- 9
Seems you're just disagreeing on what 'fundamental' means.
The HUP is 'fundamental' in the sense that it's a basic, and very general result of QM.
But it's not 'fundamental' in the sense of being a fundamental postulate QM is built on.
You have to have QM to derive the result.
Sure, it makes for a nice heuristic which can be used to explain why atoms are stable, but you're just explaining one QM result in terms of another then.
Similarly, you could explain the atom in terms of the 1d particle-in-a-box, showing that the energy levels increase as the size decreases,
and thus it's this 'confinement energy' which balances the nuclear attraction. (and as an added bonus, you also explain the Rydberg formula)
The HUP is 'fundamental' in the sense that it's a basic, and very general result of QM.
But it's not 'fundamental' in the sense of being a fundamental postulate QM is built on.
You have to have QM to derive the result.
Sure, it makes for a nice heuristic which can be used to explain why atoms are stable, but you're just explaining one QM result in terms of another then.
Similarly, you could explain the atom in terms of the 1d particle-in-a-box, showing that the energy levels increase as the size decreases,
and thus it's this 'confinement energy' which balances the nuclear attraction. (and as an added bonus, you also explain the Rydberg formula)