Originally posted by Moldy CrowFun (and somewhat related) physics fact: If you walk slowly enough through a doorway, you'll be seen to diffract. 😲
Physicist - Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle basicly states you can know either the velocity of a thing , or it's location , but you can't know both as they are exclusive of one another .
Originally posted by Moldy CrowHence, for all you Star Trek buffs, the scriptwriters invented a "Heisenberg Compensator" to enable the transporter to work.
Physicist - Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle basicly states you can know either the velocity of a thing , or it's location , but you can't know both as they are exclusive of one another .
"How does it work?" I hear you ask?
Very well, apparently. 😵
1 edit
Originally posted by squaccermanNice! You've got my rec!
Werner Heisenberg was driving his car at great speed along the autobahn when a traffic police car pulled him over. The police officer approached the car, and as Heisenberg opened his window enquired of him "Do you know how fast you wer ...[text shortened]... ng, sir?". "No," replied Heisenberg. "But I know where I am."
Michael
1 edit
Originally posted by BowmannDude you are something else. You state that something is quite incorrect wihtout offering any reasons and in fact you are also quite wrong.
That's quite incorrect.
This is Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle:
In the Quantum Mechanical world, the idea that we can measure things exactly breaks down. Let me state this notion more precisely. Suppose a particle has momemtum p and a position x. In a Quantum Mechanical world, I would not be able to measure p and x precisely. There is an uncertainty associated with each measurement, e.g., there is some dp and dx, which I can never get rid of even in a perfect experiment!!!. This is due to the fact that whenever I make a measurement, I must disturb the system. (In order for me to know something is there, I must bump into it.) The size of the uncertainties are not independent, they are roughly related by
* (uncertainty in p) x (uncertainty in position) is larger than h (= Planck's constant)
So basically you can never be sure of both location and momentum of a particle. An easier way of saying this is that you cannot acuurately measure all the properties of a system because by taking that measurement you are disturbing the system, thereby causing error in the accuracy of those measurements.
Next time you butt in with a statement like 'you are wrong' please a) be sure of your statement b)back it up with evidence.
Originally posted by Starrmani think he meant it was wrong because the post he was referring generalised it to any 'thing', whereas it only applies to subatomic particles.
Dude you are something else. You state that something is quite incorrect wihtout offering any reasons and in fact you are also quite wrong.
This is Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle:
In the Quantum Mechanical world, the idea that we can measure things exactly breaks down. Let me state this notion more precisely. Suppose a particle has momemtum p an ...[text shortened]... tatement like 'you are wrong' please a) be sure of your statement b)back it up with evidence.
Normal things like cars arent significantly affected by the things u use to look at them and determine their location/speed (such as the photons in light, or electrons in an electron microscope)
Originally posted by Starrmanwell - he was kinda right with his statement of wrongness. people were saying velocity, but it's actually the momentum you cannot measure...
Dude you are something else. You state that something is quite incorrect wihtout offering any reasons and in fact you are also quite wrong.
This is Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle:
In the Quantum Mechanical world, the idea that we can measure things exactly breaks down. Let me state this notion more precisely. Suppose a particle has momemtum p an ...[text shortened]... tatement like 'you are wrong' please a) be sure of your statement b)back it up with evidence.
and as to it only referring to microscopic and not macroscopic (😉) thigns, that was the point of schrodingers cat, that the cat's wave function depended upon the wave function of the radioactive particle...although if it all related absolutly, due to quantum tunnelling i can walk through walls! 🙂
Originally posted by geniusSorry, I don't think I can. I watched too much TV as a child, and my imagination is therefore too lightweight to deal with your request. I don't know exactly how lightweight because I have my imagination localised within my skull.
i can't edit my post for some reason, so can you all imagine that i spelled "things" right, and i put a full stop after "schrodingers cat" instead of a comma and took away the "that" from after it?
thanks
🙂
Originally posted by geniusI'm not pretending to be a physisict . I knew there's much more to it , I was inaccurate to the point of "wrong" , and that I was also grossly over-simplifying . I did this to A-Play off the origional joke . B- Explaining it to someone completely unfamiliar with it . C-Setting up a new joke .
well - he was kinda right with his statement of wrongness. people were saying velocity, but it's actually the momentum you cannot measure...
and as to it only referring to microscopic and not macroscopic (😉) thigns, that was the point of schrodingers cat, that the cat's wave function depended upon the wave function of the radioactive particle...although if it all related absolutly, due to quantum tunnelling i can walk through walls! 🙂