The Uncertainty Principle limits the precision of measurement possible when associated variables (position and momentum, for example) are measured simultaneously. In general terms, if the position of an electron is known precisely, its momentum will always be uncertain, and vice-versa.
This problem is not a mystery of the physics of Nature. It is simply confusing because of Man's interpretion of the way Nature works.
For Man to define the location of an electron precisely, it must be entirely a particle. To define its momentum with the same precision, it must be entirely a wave. It cannot be both simultaneously. Nature does not have this problem.
You sound somewhat....er...uh...uncertain.
The OP is utter crap. The primary reason is that the uncertainty principle is derived using quantum mechanics which assumes only particles exist and there are no waves. Later it was discovered that one could have quantum fields too that give rise to theories where the number of particles can change, but quantum theories contain no waves.
QUOTE (Lunarlanding+Jul 27 2009, 07:44 PM)
You sound somewhat....er...uh...uncertain.
Is that a, er , .. you know .. "subtle" disagreement.
Is that a, er , .. you know .. "subtle" disagreement.
QUOTE (prometheus+Jul 27 2009, 10:57 PM)
The OP is utter crap. The primary reason is that the uncertainty principle is derived using quantum mechanics which assumes only particles exist and there are no waves. Later it was discovered that one could have quantum fields too that give rise to theories where the number of particles can change, but quantum theories contain no waves.
I said that this problem is not a mystery of Nature (suggesting it is mathematical).
You said that Quantum Mechanics does not include waves. Therefore, the problem (as you stated it) is in the limitation of the mathematics involved, i.e. mathematical.
Could we do without the reference to your dear departed dinner.
I said that this problem is not a mystery of Nature (suggesting it is mathematical).
You said that Quantum Mechanics does not include waves. Therefore, the problem (as you stated it) is in the limitation of the mathematics involved, i.e. mathematical.
Could we do without the reference to your dear departed dinner.
QUOTE (Nowtime+Jul 27 2009, 11:16 PM)
Is that a, er , .. you know .. "subtle" disagreement.
Well; ....er...if what you say is true, uh...then how are you going to expalin the 'energy - time' uncertainty relation....
(Delta E)(delta t ) > h/2
....
QUOTE (Nowtime+Jul 27 2009, 11:24 PM)
I said that this problem is not a mystery of Nature (suggesting it is mathematical).
And I pointed out that you are wrong because you invoke waves to explain it. In reality there are no waves, only fields and particles.
And I pointed out that you are wrong because you invoke waves to explain it. In reality there are no waves, only fields and particles.
QUOTE (prometheus+Jul 28 2009, 07:18 AM)
And I pointed out that you are wrong because you invoke waves to explain it. In reality there are no waves, only fields and particles.
Does this mean that there is no issue of wave/particle duality? And should we discard equations like E=hn?
Does this mean that there is no issue of wave/particle duality? And should we discard equations like E=hn?
The Heisenberg Principle illustrates a systemic problem in Man's scientific study of Nature. What Man wants to know, to understand Nature, is not necessarily what Nature needs to do in order to produce objects and events.
In the Heisenberg example, Man wants to know the position and momentum of a moving electron. Nature doesn't need to "know" that, it just does it, and interactive forces on the way determine the result.
This fundamental difference between Man's needs to learn something and Nature's actions in just doing it, affects every method of Man's investigation, producing anomalies due to Man's technique, rather than Nature's activity.
(See Special Relativity Theory, Paradoxes)
In the Heisenberg example, Man wants to know the position and momentum of a moving electron. Nature doesn't need to "know" that, it just does it, and interactive forces on the way determine the result.
This fundamental difference between Man's needs to learn something and Nature's actions in just doing it, affects every method of Man's investigation, producing anomalies due to Man's technique, rather than Nature's activity.
(See Special Relativity Theory, Paradoxes)
QUOTE (Nowtime+Jul 28 2009, 09:39 AM)
The Heisenberg Principle illustrates a systemic problem in Man's scientific study of Nature. What Man wants to know, to understand Nature, is not necessarily what Nature needs to do in order to produce objects and events.
Looks like you looked up a scientific term in the encyclopedia, read half way through the article, gave up, and wrote your own definition. Produce Objects and Events? What crack are you smoking?
For the record, Nature can't "know" anything, since it is not a sentient organism. You are wrong. Nature depends on that fundamental unpredictability. Just because man can't directly observe subatomic particles doesn't mean that their interactions are meaningless.
For the record, Nature can't "know" anything, since it is not a sentient organism. You are wrong. Nature depends on that fundamental unpredictability. Just because man can't directly observe subatomic particles doesn't mean that their interactions are meaningless.
This fundamental difference between Man's needs to learn something and Nature's actions in just doing it, affects every method of Man's investigation, producing anomalies due to Man's technique, rather than Nature's activity.
Sounds like useless philosophical rambling to me.
Looks like you looked up a scientific term in the encyclopedia, read half way through the article, gave up, and wrote your own definition. Produce Objects and Events? What crack are you smoking?
QUOTE
In the Heisenberg example, Man wants to know the position and momentum of a moving electron. Nature doesn't need to "know" that, it just does it, and interactive forces on the way determine the result.
For the record, Nature can't "know" anything, since it is not a sentient organism. You are wrong. Nature depends on that fundamental unpredictability. Just because man can't directly observe subatomic particles doesn't mean that their interactions are meaningless.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| In the Heisenberg example, Man wants to know the position and momentum of a moving electron. Nature doesn't need to "know" that, it just does it, and interactive forces on the way determine the result. |
For the record, Nature can't "know" anything, since it is not a sentient organism. You are wrong. Nature depends on that fundamental unpredictability. Just because man can't directly observe subatomic particles doesn't mean that their interactions are meaningless.
This fundamental difference between Man's needs to learn something and Nature's actions in just doing it, affects every method of Man's investigation, producing anomalies due to Man's technique, rather than Nature's activity.
Sounds like useless philosophical rambling to me.
QUOTE (Edward 3+Jul 28 2009, 11:51 AM)
Does this mean that there is no issue of wave/particle duality? And should we discard equations like E=hn?
Quantum field theory throws out the idea of waves and to a certain extent, particles as well. The fundamental objects are fields out of which we get excitations that we call particles, although they aren't always a good description of the physics.
Of course, what you see depends very much on where you look and at the scales that people can access, waves are a very useful description of what is observed. By that I mean that one can calculate things using a wave model and get the answer almost right, and close enough so that we don't need to worry about errors too much. When you go to very high energy scales like you see in a particle accelerator or a collapsing star or some such, or when you go to very low temperatures and see things like superconductivity the quantum field theory corrections to the classical wave behaviour becomes more important, and the wave description ceases to be a good description of what you are seeing.
Quantum field theory throws out the idea of waves and to a certain extent, particles as well. The fundamental objects are fields out of which we get excitations that we call particles, although they aren't always a good description of the physics.
Of course, what you see depends very much on where you look and at the scales that people can access, waves are a very useful description of what is observed. By that I mean that one can calculate things using a wave model and get the answer almost right, and close enough so that we don't need to worry about errors too much. When you go to very high energy scales like you see in a particle accelerator or a collapsing star or some such, or when you go to very low temperatures and see things like superconductivity the quantum field theory corrections to the classical wave behaviour becomes more important, and the wave description ceases to be a good description of what you are seeing.
RECAP
1. I made a post that Heisenberg is a problem of Man's interpretation rather than a mystery of Nature.
2. Lunarlanding introduced uncertainty as a sort of criticism.
3. Prometheus excreted his disapproval by denying one of the factors as being incorrectly labelled.
4. Edward3 caught him on it and Prometheus gracefully sidestepped Edward's specifics.
5. Flyingbuttressman suggested crack explained my problem, while acknowledging that Nature does not need to "know" stuff, and suggested this is a useless philosophical point.
Mr Penner can correct me if I am misrepresenting anyone. It is not my intention.
No one has commented on the connection between Heisenberg's confusion and the corollary to Einstein's Special Relativity with its Paradox confusions. This problem, as I have said, is systemic to Man's study of Nature and warrants serious consideration.
1. I made a post that Heisenberg is a problem of Man's interpretation rather than a mystery of Nature.
2. Lunarlanding introduced uncertainty as a sort of criticism.
3. Prometheus excreted his disapproval by denying one of the factors as being incorrectly labelled.
4. Edward3 caught him on it and Prometheus gracefully sidestepped Edward's specifics.
5. Flyingbuttressman suggested crack explained my problem, while acknowledging that Nature does not need to "know" stuff, and suggested this is a useless philosophical point.
Mr Penner can correct me if I am misrepresenting anyone. It is not my intention.
No one has commented on the connection between Heisenberg's confusion and the corollary to Einstein's Special Relativity with its Paradox confusions. This problem, as I have said, is systemic to Man's study of Nature and warrants serious consideration.
If I can offer a possible theoretical explanation. If you knew a particles absolute location, you could say that given distance contains x amount of mass, if you knew its momentum that same amount of mass would no longer fit inside that same distance so it encompasses a larger area such as a field or a wave.
This has to be the most biased recap I've ever seen!
QUOTE (Nowtime+Jul 29 2009, 04:47 AM)
RECAP
1. I made a post that Heisenberg is a problem of Man's interpretation rather than a mystery of Nature.
...
3. Prometheus excreted his disapproval by denying one of the factors as being incorrectly labelled.
You argued that the HUP was wrong because of wave particle duality. I pointed out your logic was flawed because there are no waves in quantum mechanics. It's hardly a case of incorrect labels is it? Also, you are wrong in the OP because a particle certainly can have a position and momentum - I have no idea why you claim for something to have momentum it must be a wave. Unfortunately, your argument falls apart in about 30 seconds proper thought.
4. Edward3 caught him on it and Prometheus gracefully sidestepped Edward's specifics.
If this is true you'll be able to point out in quantum mechanics and quantum field theory where exactly the waves enter. Wave particle duality is a semi-classical effect that only manifests in certain regimes.
No one has commented on the connection between Heisenberg's confusion and the corollary to Einstein's Special Relativity with its Paradox confusions. This problem, as I have said, is systemic to Man's study of Nature and warrants serious consideration.
You are very confused. Special relativity is a classical theory and as such knows nothing at all about the HUP. Even if you'd disproved the HUP, which you haven't, special relativity wouldn't care a jot.
1. I made a post that Heisenberg is a problem of Man's interpretation rather than a mystery of Nature.
...
3. Prometheus excreted his disapproval by denying one of the factors as being incorrectly labelled.
You argued that the HUP was wrong because of wave particle duality. I pointed out your logic was flawed because there are no waves in quantum mechanics. It's hardly a case of incorrect labels is it? Also, you are wrong in the OP because a particle certainly can have a position and momentum - I have no idea why you claim for something to have momentum it must be a wave. Unfortunately, your argument falls apart in about 30 seconds proper thought.
QUOTE (Nowtime+Jul 29 2009, 04:47 AM)
4. Edward3 caught him on it and Prometheus gracefully sidestepped Edward's specifics.
If this is true you'll be able to point out in quantum mechanics and quantum field theory where exactly the waves enter. Wave particle duality is a semi-classical effect that only manifests in certain regimes.
QUOTE (Nowtime+Jul 29 2009, 04:47 AM)
No one has commented on the connection between Heisenberg's confusion and the corollary to Einstein's Special Relativity with its Paradox confusions. This problem, as I have said, is systemic to Man's study of Nature and warrants serious consideration.
You are very confused. Special relativity is a classical theory and as such knows nothing at all about the HUP. Even if you'd disproved the HUP, which you haven't, special relativity wouldn't care a jot.
QUOTE (D=E/pi+Jul 29 2009, 05:14 AM)
If I can offer a possible theoretical explanation. If you knew a particles absolute location, you could say that given distance contains x amount of mass, if you knew its momentum that same amount of mass would no longer fit inside that same distance so it encompasses a larger area such as a field or a wave.
I hope I speak for the lucid readers of this forum when I suggest that you keep your rubbish to yourself.
I hope I speak for the lucid readers of this forum when I suggest that you keep your rubbish to yourself.
4. Edward3 caught him on it and Prometheus gracefully sidestepped Edward's specifics.
It was not the purpose of my question to "catch anyone out". I actually value a response as unequivocal as that by Prometheus in regard to waves.
Prometheus,
Thank you for the response. Are you, in effect, saying that once we stray from our own comfort zone into more extreme physical conditions that a wave ceases to be an accurate description of what we observe - and that even in non-extreme conditions, a description of anything in terms of waves is just a good approximation - and that equations such as E=hn really only describe an approximate relationship within this limited physical environment ?
It was not the purpose of my question to "catch anyone out". I actually value a response as unequivocal as that by Prometheus in regard to waves.
Prometheus,
Thank you for the response. Are you, in effect, saying that once we stray from our own comfort zone into more extreme physical conditions that a wave ceases to be an accurate description of what we observe - and that even in non-extreme conditions, a description of anything in terms of waves is just a good approximation - and that equations such as E=hn really only describe an approximate relationship within this limited physical environment ?
QUOTE (Nowtime+Jul 28 2009, 11:47 PM)
5. Flyingbuttressman suggested crack explained my problem, while acknowledging that Nature does not need to "know" stuff, and suggested this is a useless philosophical point.
I think you summed it up nicely.
I think you summed it up nicely.
It is fairly obvious, now, to see that Special Relativity is a construct of explanation to help Man understand Nature, rather than a description of Natural processes. Thus, it has the problem inherent in Man's explanations, as in Heisenberg, above. (In this case the problem shows itself as "paradoxes").
Even though the explanation is brilliant and its results are verified by experiment, Man may still misinterpret Nature's actual functions. Thus, in General Relativity, the explanation interprets space as "curving", when space is empty and does not possess any physical attributes that can "curve". (Yet, something must be curving, and what else is there?)
Even though the explanation is brilliant and its results are verified by experiment, Man may still misinterpret Nature's actual functions. Thus, in General Relativity, the explanation interprets space as "curving", when space is empty and does not possess any physical attributes that can "curve". (Yet, something must be curving, and what else is there?)
QUOTE (Nowtime+Jul 29 2009, 08:38 AM)
It is fairly obvious, now, to see that Special Relativity is a construct of explanation to help Man understand Nature, rather than a description of Natural processes. Thus, it has the problem inherent in Man's explanations, as in Heisenberg, above. (In this case the problem shows itself as "paradoxes").
It's not a construct, it's an explanation of natural phenomena. Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle states that we cannot measure something without altering it. You are again injecting some weird philosophical statement into a scientific principle.
Obviously, it's not "curving" in 3 dimensions, it's curving in 5 dimensions (or 4 depending on your interpretation). These theories don't just help us understand the universe, they describe the universe itself. All phenomena that have been observed can be explained by scientific theories (except for those which have yet to be explained).
It's not a construct, it's an explanation of natural phenomena. Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle states that we cannot measure something without altering it. You are again injecting some weird philosophical statement into a scientific principle.
QUOTE
Even though the explanation is brilliant and its results are verified by experiment, Man may still misinterpret Nature's actual functions. Thus, in General Relativity, the explanation interprets space as "curving", when space is empty and does not possess any physical attributes that can "curve". (Yet, something must be curving, and what else is there?)
Obviously, it's not "curving" in 3 dimensions, it's curving in 5 dimensions (or 4 depending on your interpretation). These theories don't just help us understand the universe, they describe the universe itself. All phenomena that have been observed can be explained by scientific theories (except for those which have yet to be explained).
If the Twin Paradox, for example, is a function of explanation rather than a feature of Natural activity, then the slowing down of time (as registered by clocks) due to the effect of speed, would simply be a function of the explanation and this 'philosophical' point would become of some significance. (Despite increments of billionths of a second that have been posited as 'proving' this feature.)
In favor of this position (that the effect of speed slowing time) is not a Natural activity, is the fact that Natural time and clock time are separate and distinctly different 'times'. (That they both flow continuously is their only similarity).
All clocks could be switched off without affecting Natural time.
Also the joining of two rivers of time should tend to synchronize their flow rate into one, with that time being the more-prevalent Natural time.
In favor of this position (that the effect of speed slowing time) is not a Natural activity, is the fact that Natural time and clock time are separate and distinctly different 'times'. (That they both flow continuously is their only similarity).
All clocks could be switched off without affecting Natural time.
Also the joining of two rivers of time should tend to synchronize their flow rate into one, with that time being the more-prevalent Natural time.
QUOTE (Nowtime+Jul 29 2009, 09:39 PM)
If the Twin Paradox, for example, is a function of explanation rather than a feature of Natural activity, then the slowing down of time (as registered by clocks) due to the effect of speed, would simply be a function of the explanation and this 'philosophical' point would become of some significance. (Despite increments of billionths of a second that have been posited as 'proving' this feature.)
The Twin Paradox works anything, not just humans. Take 2 identical samples of Carbon 14 and keep on on Earth, and send the other on a high speed trip through space. When sample 2 returns, it will have significantly more mass than sample 1 that stayed on Earth.
Natural time and clock time are the same. What you are forgetting is that there is no "absolute" time. Time flows at different rates in different places and velocities.
Natural time and clock time are the same. What you are forgetting is that there is no "absolute" time. Time flows at different rates in different places and velocities.
All clocks could be switched off without affecting Natural time.
So? Clocks only measure the passage of "natural time." They don't represent time itself.
You don't understand that time itself can flow at different rates. Your opinion that time should "synchronize" is completely and utterly unfounded.
Well; ....er...if what you say is true, uh...then how are you going to expalin the 'energy - time' uncertainty relation....
(Delta E)(delta t ) > h/2
....
I'm not back to continue yet, but I would like to acknowledge that I haven't the faintest idea what the energy-time uncertainty relation is, but I would like to understand it (if you would kindly explain it) so that I can see how it might fit (or not).
The Twin Paradox works anything, not just humans. Take 2 identical samples of Carbon 14 and keep on on Earth, and send the other on a high speed trip through space. When sample 2 returns, it will have significantly more mass than sample 1 that stayed on Earth.
QUOTE
In favor of this position (that the effect of speed slowing time) is not a Natural activity, is the fact that Natural time and clock time are separate and distinctly different 'times'. (That they both flow continuously is their only similarity).
Natural time and clock time are the same. What you are forgetting is that there is no "absolute" time. Time flows at different rates in different places and velocities.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| In favor of this position (that the effect of speed slowing time) is not a Natural activity, is the fact that Natural time and clock time are separate and distinctly different 'times'. (That they both flow continuously is their only similarity). |
Natural time and clock time are the same. What you are forgetting is that there is no "absolute" time. Time flows at different rates in different places and velocities.
All clocks could be switched off without affecting Natural time.
So? Clocks only measure the passage of "natural time." They don't represent time itself.
QUOTE
Also the joining of two rivers of time should tend to synchronize their flow rate into one, with that time being the more-prevalent Natural time.
You don't understand that time itself can flow at different rates. Your opinion that time should "synchronize" is completely and utterly unfounded.
I have to take a few days off the board but I have a little more to say.
None of the points made yet are more than hectoring, cant or generally-accepted opinion. Although you are getting closer with your comments about time, you are still way off the mark.
None of the points made yet are more than hectoring, cant or generally-accepted opinion. Although you are getting closer with your comments about time, you are still way off the mark.
QUOTE (Lunarlanding+Jul 28 2009, 03:37 AM)
Well; ....er...if what you say is true, uh...then how are you going to expalin the 'energy - time' uncertainty relation....
(Delta E)(delta t ) > h/2
....
I'm not back to continue yet, but I would like to acknowledge that I haven't the faintest idea what the energy-time uncertainty relation is, but I would like to understand it (if you would kindly explain it) so that I can see how it might fit (or not).
QUOTE (Nowtime+Aug 13 2009, 07:36 PM)
I'm not back to continue yet, but I would like to acknowledge that I haven't the faintest idea what the energy-time uncertainty relation is, but I would like to understand it (if you would kindly explain it) so that I can see how it might fit (or not).
If you measure the energy of a particle again and again and again the variance in the measured values gets larger if you make the time gaps smaller, so the more frequently you measure the energy the more the energy changes.
The derivation follows in the same manner as position and momentum because time and energy are conjugate variables too.
If you measure the energy of a particle again and again and again the variance in the measured values gets larger if you make the time gaps smaller, so the more frequently you measure the energy the more the energy changes.
The derivation follows in the same manner as position and momentum because time and energy are conjugate variables too.
QUOTE (AlphaNumeric+Aug 13 2009, 07:34 PM)
If you measure the energy of a particle again and again and again the variance in the measured values gets larger if you make the time gaps smaller, so the more frequently you measure the energy the more the energy changes.
The derivation follows in the same manner as position and momentum because time and energy are conjugate variables too.
Thank you Alphanumeric,
May I ask how one measures the enrgy of a particle in this instance?
Your explanation is that the frequency of measurement affects the definition of measurement of a particle?
I apologize that you believe my ideas are rubbish. I can't do more than that.
The derivation follows in the same manner as position and momentum because time and energy are conjugate variables too.
Thank you Alphanumeric,
May I ask how one measures the enrgy of a particle in this instance?
Your explanation is that the frequency of measurement affects the definition of measurement of a particle?
I apologize that you believe my ideas are rubbish. I can't do more than that.
QUOTE (Nowtime+Jul 28 2009, 02:39 PM)
The Heisenberg Principle illustrates a systemic problem in Man's scientific study of Nature. What Man wants to know, to understand Nature, is not necessarily what Nature needs to do in order to produce objects and events.
Your point is that electrons don't need to understand physics to conduct electricity, no? This is a valid observation, and philosophically interesting, but I don't think it applies more so to HUP than any other human knowledge of nature.
On the other hand, you could say that a particle "knows" to move with a certain momentum based on its mass. Whoever said that only sentient beings can "know" at all makes a good point, but what would be a better word to use for the fact when natural objects appear to behave according to laws?
Is the point of HUP to assert a general principle or is it only applicable to electrons as they are measured by certain instruments in a specific situation? Or is it just a mathematical paradox?
Your point is that electrons don't need to understand physics to conduct electricity, no? This is a valid observation, and philosophically interesting, but I don't think it applies more so to HUP than any other human knowledge of nature.
On the other hand, you could say that a particle "knows" to move with a certain momentum based on its mass. Whoever said that only sentient beings can "know" at all makes a good point, but what would be a better word to use for the fact when natural objects appear to behave according to laws?
Is the point of HUP to assert a general principle or is it only applicable to electrons as they are measured by certain instruments in a specific situation? Or is it just a mathematical paradox?
QUOTE (light in the tunnel+Aug 21 2009, 02:22 AM)
Your point is that electrons don't need to understand physics to conduct electricity, no? This is a valid observation, and philosophically interesting, but I don't think it applies more so to HUP than any other human knowledge of nature.
On the other hand, you could say that a particle "knows" to move with a certain momentum based on its mass. Whoever said that only sentient beings can "know" at all makes a good point, but what would be a better word to use for the fact when natural objects appear to behave according to laws?
Is the point of HUP to assert a general principle or is it only applicable to electrons as they are measured by certain instruments in a specific situation? Or is it just a mathematical paradox?
Light in the tunnel,
No !
Sorry.
My point is that the mathematics man uses is to understand the world as he sees it.
Of course. What else.
(But that is not necessarily the way that Nature works)
If true... This leads to some explanations of Natural curiosities that are really only mathematically-derived problems.
I give Heisenberg Uncertainty as an example. (Challenged). I say that to measure motion an electron must be a wave, to locate its position it must be a particle. They can't both occur at the same time. A problem of mathematics not Nature.
So let's leave this as a mathematical paradox.
Cus. I don't know what HUP means
But what I'm really getting at is space curvature in the General Theory
On the other hand, you could say that a particle "knows" to move with a certain momentum based on its mass. Whoever said that only sentient beings can "know" at all makes a good point, but what would be a better word to use for the fact when natural objects appear to behave according to laws?
Is the point of HUP to assert a general principle or is it only applicable to electrons as they are measured by certain instruments in a specific situation? Or is it just a mathematical paradox?
Light in the tunnel,
No !
Sorry.
My point is that the mathematics man uses is to understand the world as he sees it.
Of course. What else.
(But that is not necessarily the way that Nature works)
If true... This leads to some explanations of Natural curiosities that are really only mathematically-derived problems.
I give Heisenberg Uncertainty as an example. (Challenged). I say that to measure motion an electron must be a wave, to locate its position it must be a particle. They can't both occur at the same time. A problem of mathematics not Nature.
So let's leave this as a mathematical paradox.
Cus. I don't know what HUP means
But what I'm really getting at is space curvature in the General Theory
QUOTE (Nowtime+Aug 21 2009, 03:51 AM)
They can't both occur at the same time. A problem of mathematics not Nature.
So let's leave this as a mathematical paradox.
Cus. I don't know what HUP means
I suspected this was a mathematical paradox that didn't refer to anything in reality. Nevertheless, people who are good at writing math are often trying to communicating something deeper than a language-glitch (math is a language, right?). I dislike it when language becomes its own game, especially in science, and especially with math because I don't read or comprehend it as well as qualitative science written in languages I do read and comprehend well.
"HUP" was my abbreviation for "Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle." I though other posts used the same abbreviation.
So let's leave this as a mathematical paradox.
Cus. I don't know what HUP means
I suspected this was a mathematical paradox that didn't refer to anything in reality. Nevertheless, people who are good at writing math are often trying to communicating something deeper than a language-glitch (math is a language, right?). I dislike it when language becomes its own game, especially in science, and especially with math because I don't read or comprehend it as well as qualitative science written in languages I do read and comprehend well.
"HUP" was my abbreviation for "Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle." I though other posts used the same abbreviation.
QUOTE (flyingbuttressman+Jul 29 2009, 01:52 PM)
Obviously, it's not "curving" in 3 dimensions, it's curving in 5 dimensions (or 4 depending on your interpretation).
Or rather, 4-dimensional space-time is curved.
We need not have a higher-dimensional space in which to embed the universe, as the analogy of ants on a differentially heated hot plate used by Einstein and later Feynman in popular addresses demonstrates.
Or rather, 4-dimensional space-time is curved.
We need not have a higher-dimensional space in which to embed the universe, as the analogy of ants on a differentially heated hot plate used by Einstein and later Feynman in popular addresses demonstrates.
QUOTE (Nowtime+Aug 21 2009, 03:51 AM)
I say that to measure motion an electron must be a wave, to locate its position it must be a particle. They can't both occur at the same time. A problem of mathematics not Nature.
But "particle" and "wave" are just human terms to describe the physics and mathematics. Naturally, an electron is an electron. And when properly modeled as a relativistic quantum particle of characteristic mass, an electron is well-understood. The fact that "particle" has multiple meanings (one to intuitionist feeling developed playing with rubber balls and also Newton, and another to people exposed to hundreds of years of sensitive experiments since Newton to learn things about even rubber balls that can't be easily learned by accident) should quickly teach you that this whole "particle" versus "wave" thing is a consequence of your prejudices and clouded vision.
I, after all, have no problem being both gainfully employed and an insufferable know-it-all, so why cannot an electron be both "particle" and "wave"? Especially, when terms have been developed, like "relativistic quantum particle" which do cover both meanings. Waves can be be localized, approximately. Likewise a localized wave will have a wavelength that can't be exactly measured. A tsunami in a bay is a particularly good example of a particle-like classical wave. But the wave mechanics of de Broglie brings exactly these concepts in relation to position and momentum, and the uncertainty principle appears straight from wave assumption. (Similar statements appear in the classical theories of sound and water waves.) So your objection is based only on your untutored prejudices.
But "particle" and "wave" are just human terms to describe the physics and mathematics. Naturally, an electron is an electron. And when properly modeled as a relativistic quantum particle of characteristic mass, an electron is well-understood. The fact that "particle" has multiple meanings (one to intuitionist feeling developed playing with rubber balls and also Newton, and another to people exposed to hundreds of years of sensitive experiments since Newton to learn things about even rubber balls that can't be easily learned by accident) should quickly teach you that this whole "particle" versus "wave" thing is a consequence of your prejudices and clouded vision.
I, after all, have no problem being both gainfully employed and an insufferable know-it-all, so why cannot an electron be both "particle" and "wave"? Especially, when terms have been developed, like "relativistic quantum particle" which do cover both meanings. Waves can be be localized, approximately. Likewise a localized wave will have a wavelength that can't be exactly measured. A tsunami in a bay is a particularly good example of a particle-like classical wave. But the wave mechanics of de Broglie brings exactly these concepts in relation to position and momentum, and the uncertainty principle appears straight from wave assumption. (Similar statements appear in the classical theories of sound and water waves.) So your objection is based only on your untutored prejudices.
QUOTE (light in the tunnel+Aug 21 2009, 08:37 PM)
I dislike it when language becomes its own game, especially in science, and especially with math because I don't read or comprehend it as well as qualitative science written in languages I do read and comprehend well.
"HUP" was my abbreviation for "Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle." I though other posts used the same abbreviation.
Here you introduced language and it caused a lack of understanding in Nowtime.
So your objection to jargon being a "game" is based only on untutored prejudices and not how humans, including yourself, actually communicate. Jargon is invented in every field because language has to be invented to discuss efficiently the subjects mutual interesting to any group of people.
To the vast majority of professional physicists, when speaking among themselves, an unqualified use of the term "particle" means "relativistic quantum particle" and so "particle physics" is the study of relativistic quantum physics.
"HUP" was my abbreviation for "Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle." I though other posts used the same abbreviation.
Here you introduced language and it caused a lack of understanding in Nowtime.
So your objection to jargon being a "game" is based only on untutored prejudices and not how humans, including yourself, actually communicate. Jargon is invented in every field because language has to be invented to discuss efficiently the subjects mutual interesting to any group of people.
To the vast majority of professional physicists, when speaking among themselves, an unqualified use of the term "particle" means "relativistic quantum particle" and so "particle physics" is the study of relativistic quantum physics.
PhysOrg scientific forums are totally dedicated to science, physics, and technology. Besides topical forums such as nanotechnology, quantum physics, silicon and III-V technology, applied physics, materials, space and others, you can also join our news and publications discussions. We also provide an off-topic forum category. If you need specific help on a scientific problem or have a question related to physics or technology, visit the PhysOrg Forums. Here you’ll find experts from various fields online every day.
To quit out of "lo-fi" mode and return to the regular forums, please click here.