It’s worth pointing out that the Uncertainty Principle is not just postulated, and its proof is not limited to the hand-waving “if you hit a particle with a photon…” ideas with which it is usually explained. Rather, the UP is a mathematical consequence of the operator description of quantum mechanics, arising from the non-commutivity of the position and momentum operators and the mathematical descriptions of uncertainty (there are probably other proofs as well, but this is the one I’m familiar with). If a situation were found where the UP did not hold, there would have to be some rather deep flaws in the basics of quantum theory.
Homer, I usually talk myself out of commenting on your posts, because I really don’t want to discourage you. Who knows, maybe you’ll someday come up with a breakthrough insight.
However, I’m doing it now. First, many variables don’t have a ‘highest possible value’, so your concept of Absolute One makes no sense whatsoever. Second, try to learn a bit more about the uncertainty relations.
You have made the same mistake as the OP, assuming that Heisenberg was just describing the limitations of our technology when it comes to studying particle interactions. In fact, he was showing a fundemental fact of the universe. It is the basic uncertainty of quantum physics that allows virtual particles to exist. Since these ghost particles have such a large part to play in our understanding of physics, we’d all better hope that some future gadget doesn’t make the uncertainty principle go away. If it did, we’d suddenly have no idea where the basic forces of nature come from, just when we were starting to get it all nailed down.
Homer, just to add to Saltire’s comments:
I think you’re assigning too much importance to temperature. Particles don’t lose their properties at zero temperature, they simply have no thermal kinetic energy. That’s it.
However, you raise an interesting point when you say that if the particle’s energy were known to be exactly zero, then that would make its velocity exactly known, giving infinite uncertainty in the position. If this were the case, as you cool to zero, your box of particles would disappear. But that’s wrong. The mistake is in assuming you know that the energy of a box of particles is exactly zero at zero temperature. Actually, atoms have what is known as “zero-point energy”, which is the energy associated with the uncertainty in the velocity.
Helium stays liquid even at exactly zero temperature, due to its large zero-point energy.
Most of what I have read implies that gravity will be adopted into a quantum framework, not the other way around. I don’t think any physicists actively think that the HUP is wrong on some level, it has simply been confirmed in too many experiments.
The HUP has nothing to do with measurement.
I think the thing that is most illustrative of this are the “super atoms” that some team of scientists made (unfortunately the article was in my mother’s scientific american and she live 10 hours away), otherwise known as Bose-Einstein Condensates. Supercooling atoms to just above absolute zero will indeed make their velocities(momentum) very precisely known. Their position, however, begins to be a bit murky and the effect, if it is done with a pure element, is that all the individual atoms disappear and one “large atom” is made. Others can fill in the necessary details, but the upshot is that the HUP ain’t wrong.
I’m just crazy enough to realize it. 
Saltire, I appreciate your candor. However, how can we prove that there is not an absolute possible highest value for all variables? Such an idea, at this time, can only be theorized, correct? When I was speaking of Absolute Zero in the sense that reaching it removes all characteristics from a particle, I meant Absolute Zero inclusive of all known^h^h^h^h real forces, not ‘just’ heat energy. Such a thing would likely be found only in deep space, because we retain magnetic and gravitational influence on particulate matter here on earth. But by all means, in the future, tear my postulations to shreds. Unless I know that they are false, I cannot begin to construct true ones.
Giraffe: When cooled to as close as possible to absolute zero, particles do disappear, lending a slight credence to my posulation.
http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/releases/tn6240.htm Also interesting is their discussion of ‘dark solitons’, or a wave-form made up of the absence of something.
I speculate that these atoms have become removed from each variable and ceased to exist; their entirety was released in the explosion and absorbed as various energies by the measurment devices.
I cannot learn truth unless I also learn what is false. Hence, destroy my speculations so I may rebuild them correctly.
–Tim
Also of interest:
Am I crazy, or am I completely sane and the rest of the world is nuts? 
–Tim
Homer: Blame it on the Bosenova.
From “Bosenova” (that’s Homer’s url)
and
So, they don’t know exactly where some of the atoms go after the explosion. But, if the atoms just “vanished”, there would be more than a “tiny” amount of energy released (by Conservation of Mass-Energy).
About “zeroed-out” variables–in an atom, you can never zero these observables:
[ol]
[li]The variance of the position, or the variance of the momentum. Even in the lowest energy state, there is motion (as explained by Giraffe).[/li][li]The nucleon number (count the number of protons and neutrons) is conserved. Unless you add anti-matter, nucleons are just going to vanish.[/li][li]The lepton number (count the number of electrons) is conserved. Same thing as nucleons.[/li][/ol]
Even when an atom is in it’s lowest energy state, there are still non-zero forces acting between the parts of the atom. You can’t ignore these forces, and they don’t ever become zero.
Homer, your ideas are crazy (but I’m reserving judgment on you ). However, the Absolute One idea is interesting. I’ve never really thought about it before in these terms, but current physics breaks down at the Planck scale. See this thread Planck length question. At some extremely high energy, the wavelength of a particle would be about the Planck length. I’m not sure what it’d mean for a particle to have a higher energy (and thus shorter wavelength). Any particle physicists want to tackle this one?
Pleonast, if you’d like to read some of my more out-there ramblings from the height of my stoner-scientist days last semester, please read through this thread. I admit I was rather stoned during the length of it, either while thinking of the ideas or typing them. You should see the stuff I thought too crazy to submit! I’ve written up a lot about some stuff, and am trying to organize my thoughts on the four dimensional math model, the repeating -inf,-1…,0,1…,inf cycle, and the law of fours to demonstrate to a physics professor. He’ll likely look at me funny then throw me from his office, but it’s worth a try.
As for the value of AO, I think it’s probably Einstein’s Constant, but I can’t prove it.
–Tim