1.0 How the mechanics earn Nobels The Principle of Indeterminacy, more commonly known as the Uncertainty Principle (UP), is the bedrock of Quantum Mechanics (QM).
" The uncertainty principle is one of the cornerstones of quantum mechanics" 
" the uncertainty principle is a fundamental feature of the universe we live in. A successful unified theory must, therefore, necessarily incorporate this principle." (p. 155-156) 
Mathematical physicists rely on the UP to justify counter-intuitive phenomena of the subatomic world such as why light has a dual nature or why we can’t get a grip on a point particle:
" the Heisenberg uncertainty principle is the statement that locating a particle in a small region of space makes the momentum of the particle uncertain; and conversely, that measuring the momentum of a particle precisely makes the position uncertain."  " If the photon has a short wavelength, and therefore a large momentum, the position can be measured accurately. But the photon will be scattered in a random direction, transferring a large and uncertain amount of momentum to the electron. If the photon has a long wavelength and low momentum, the collision will not disturb the electron's momentum very much, but the scattering will reveal its position only vaguely."  " the uncertainty principle means that even 'empty' space is filled with pairs of virtual particles and antiparticles." (p. 157) 
Without this supernatural principle, Quantum Mechanics would be unable to survive. Researchers like it because, since its invention, they are relieved of the burden of having to explain the ultimate reason for why things happen. The explanation is left open-ended. You figure what the mechanics was talking about on your own. The worldly wisdom is that, in the end, Physics is magical. We cannot show you the photon because it doesn’t stand still. The spiritualists like it because they feel vindicated in their long-held belief that only God has the ultimate answers. The UP places limits on human knowledge. Apparently, there are some things God would rather keep to Himself. This state of affairs makes for a fascinating, exciting, and unpredictable universe. Unfortunately for the bozos of Quantum and their allies the spiritists, Science cannot live with such preposterous proposals and I have no alternative but to pound this sacred foundation of theirs to pieces. Let's put the UP in more familiar terms. Imagine that in order to see a basketball you would have to bounce spherical marbles off its surface. These marbles would rebound and convey the image of the basketball to your eyes. Hence, if we attempted to determine the exact position or trajectory of the ball, the marbles that serve as intermediaries would strike this object and change its position or trajectory. Indeed, Heisenberg relies on a similar analogy in his seminal paper to illustrate his UP:
“ To see an electron, and thus determine it’s position, you might use a powerful light microscope. For the electron to be visible, at least one photon of light must bounce off of it, and then pass through the microscope into your eye. A problem occurs here, as the photon transfers some unknown amount of its momentum to the electron. Thus, in the process of finding an accurate position of the electron (by making Δx really small), the same light that allows you to see it changes the electron’s momentum to an undeterminable extent (makes Δp very large).” W. Heisenberg, Quantum-Theoretical Reinterpretation of Kinematic and Mechanical Relations, Zeitschrift fur Physik 33, (1925) 879-893. Trans. in Sources of Quantum Mechanics, B. van der Waerden, ed., Dover (1967), 261-276.
[You wonder how Werner transferred momentum every time he went to his car! Maybe he carried 'it' under his armpits or in a backpack.]
The point that Heisenberg is trying to get across is that you cannot hope to have absolute knowledge of a particle’s position and momentum simultaneously. The more we know about one, the less we know about the other. The mathematical reason for this is that the product of these two quantities cannot be less than a universal constant. Heisenberg synthesizes his 'Principle' in the following statement:
" The more precisely the POSITION is determined, the less precisely the MOMENTUM is known" 
Heisenberg's pronouncement can better be understood in terms of a wave:
" It is meaningless to ask about the frequency spectrum at a single moment in time, because the measure of frequency is the measure of a repetition recurring over a period of time." 
Let’s again reduce Heisenberg’s mathematical poppycock to laymen’s terms so even a baby can understand the idiocy he is proposing. From a physical perspective, what Heisenberg discovered is that when the basketball moves it doesn’t stand still, and when it stands still, it doesn’t move. Of course, it follows that it is impossible to determine both the velocity and the position of the ball (or of an elephant for that matter) simultaneously. We don’t need to stand in awe of the unfathomable subatomic world to understand this. We don’t need marbles, photons, or electrons to understand this. For sure we don’t need equations or numbers to understand this. We just need to regain a little bit of sanity in Science to understand this. Heisenberg simply needs to look up the definitions of the words motion and position (actually location; he couldn't tell the difference between position and location either). He will discover that these words are not synonyms. Position is a static concept. Momentum is a dynamic concept. Never the twain shall meet. To think that his peers awarded good old Werner the 1932 Nobel Prize in Relativity for sharing his profound insights with humanity! 2.0 The nature of the problem: semantics, always semantics You may agree that my argument seems straight forward and ask yourself, 'How come the mechanics never discovered this obvious objection?' Where's the catch? The problem has its roots in the faulty language of Mathematical Physics. If I ask you over a cell phone, 'Where are you?', you may answer: ' I'm at the bank' or ' I am driving home on the highway' or something along these lines. These are qualitative replies. You don't need numbers to tell me that you are standing on a bridge or clinging from a parachute. In the idiotic language that the mathematicians have developed, there is no such thing as position. Mathematics has no use for static concepts such as position, location, direction, dimension, coordinate, straight, curved, flat, spherical, angle, parallel, or perpendicular. There are no qualitative concepts in Mathematics. When you ask a mathematician 'Where are you?', he doesn't answer with something stale like 'I'm at the bank.' He reads out to you an ordered pair or triplet: ' I'm at (5, 6, 0).' A mathematician replies with a set of number lines. This wouldn't be a problem if the mathematicians kept their nonsense within their discipline. However, the mathematicians believe that Math is the language of Physics. They believe that the stupid, idiotic 'position' of Math is the same intuitive position of the real world, of Physics, of Science. In their tiny minds, the morons believe that an ordered pair or triplet is synonymous with qualitative location (which they incongruously call 'position'). Therefore, when the mathematician mentions the word 'position' he is thinking about ordered pair, yet he phrases his reply in ordinary terms, in terms most people identify with position. He tells you that the more he knows about momentum (mass times velocity) the less information he has about the values in his ordered pair (x, y), but he insinuates or thinks he is saying that the more he knows about motion, the less he knows about where the thing is located! In 2500 years, the mathematicians never realized that in order to determine their dynamic 'position' they had to walk ten paces north and 5 west. The 'position' of Mathematics is a set of instructions. They don't tell you where he is. They tell you how to get there. That's how stupid the mathematicians of the world really are!