Understanding the HUP
Ranando King
dx * dp > h_bar/2 (Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle)
accompanied by a description like this:
The better you know the position x, the larger the momentum p becomes, and
the better you know the momentum p, the larger the position x becomes.
Don't those of you spouting this realize that
1. this makes no sense! and
2. this is NOT what that formula states?
How can a POSITION as defined by a single coordinate in space ever become
large? It's a theoretical point. Points are by definition infinitesimally
small. Further, how can it be possible that the momentum of a stationary
elementary particle can become larger than the total momentum of our entire
galaxy? Since momentum requires motion, how can a stationary particle even
have an momentum?
Don't try to answer these questions. They only come up because of a
misunderstanding of what the HUP means. Here's the real breakdown...
dx <-> the error of the position value
Put another way, dx represents the range of possible values for the position
of the particle. It's not the actual position, but rather just a delta
corresponding to the experimental uncertainty in the position.
dp <-> the error of the momentum value
Much like dx, dp is just another range of values that might be the actual
momentum of the particle.
It's actually a matter of common sense why you cannot know x and p with near
absolute accuracy at the same time. Consider the formula for momentum:
p = m * v
Of course, there's a different formula for massless stuff, but this one
works well enough. Where
p <-> momentum
m <-> particle mass
v <-> particle velocity
we can replace v with dx/s where
dx <-> change in position
s <-> elapsed time
This leaves us with
p = m * dx / s
So for low values of dx, p will become less and less accurate. After all,
our experiment equipment is only just so accurate. Therefore dp will
increase as dx decreases. Likewise dp will decrease as dx increases. Similar
simple observations can be used to verify this interpretation of the HUP for
all of its variations.
Remember, the bottom line is that the HUP doesn't determine the values, or
for that matter even constrain them. The only thing the HUP does is give a
reasonable minimum MARGIN OF ERROR in measuring the values of certain
property pairs. Nothing more. Nothing less.
R.
FrediFizzx
news:43060...@news.vic.com...
| Too many times I've seen this formula:
|
| dx * dp > h_bar/2 (Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle)
|
| accompanied by a description like this:
|
| The better you know the position x, the larger the momentum p becomes,
and
| the better you know the momentum p, the larger the position x becomes.
Nope.
| Don't those of you spouting this realize that
|
| 1. this makes no sense! and
| 2. this is NOT what that formula states?
|
| How can a POSITION as defined by a single coordinate in space ever
become
| large? It's a theoretical point. Points are by definition
infinitesimally
| small. Further, how can it be possible that the momentum of a
stationary
| elementary particle can become larger than the total momentum of our
entire
| galaxy? Since momentum requires motion, how can a stationary particle
even
| have an momentum?
|
| Don't try to answer these questions. They only come up because of a
| misunderstanding of what the HUP means. Here's the real breakdown...
No one that has studied QM correctly misunderstands HUP. Apparently you
have been suffering from the misunderstanding.
| dx <-> the error of the position value
| Put another way, dx represents the range of possible values for the
position
| of the particle. It's not the actual position, but rather just a delta
| corresponding to the experimental uncertainty in the position.
|
| dp <-> the error of the momentum value
| Much like dx, dp is just another range of values that might be the
actual
| momentum of the particle.
Anyone that has studied QM already knows this.
Uncertainty is a natural phenomenon of wave mechanics.
FrediFizzx
Ranando King
"FrediFizzx" <fredi...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3mmmu3F...@individual.net...
I have no misunderstandings regarding the HUP. However, in reading 1000's of
posts in this newsgroup, I have noticed that others have stated the exact
same misconception that I mentioned above. Seeing as how the information in
my post does indeed state the proper understanding of the HUP, I do not
understand your reason for even interjecting those somewhat trifling
comments.
It is not true that anyone who has studied QM already understands the HUP.
This should be very evident from the number of students taking a course in
the subject and walking away confused, and even in observing pop scientists.
And as for Uncertainty being a natural phenomena of wave mechanics, I will
agree only in the contingency that you are referring to the *study and
research of* wave mechanics since the actual physical phenomena involves no
provable uncertainties that cannot be shown to be simple physical
limitations in the human ability to study the physical phenomena.
The physical cause of the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle is that humans
are incapable of physically studying a quantum system without involving a
controlled secondary quantum system in the form of a measuring device or
interactive catalyst. Such a limitation means that all we can know of a
quantum system is contained within those brief moments of interaction. The
nature of anything occuring outside of those moments can only be speculated
upon.
This is the ugly truth. QM, for all of its successes, will always come up
short and leave uncertainties in our knowledge. For now, this is an
unavoidable truth.
R.
FrediFizzx
So what? If our "speculations" guide us to producing the correct real
results, we then have some verification that they could be correct.
| This is the ugly truth. QM, for all of its successes, will always come
up
| short and leave uncertainties in our knowledge. For now, this is an
| unavoidable truth.
Perhaps, but I highly doubt it.
FrediFizzx
Autymn D. C.
Fredi, learn how not to quote!
Y.Porat
too much importance was given to the HUP
in many cases hand waving with it even if not relevant
and i showed that it can be bypassed by other knowledge
and even *should be bypassed by other experimental knowledge*-
if you want to make some progress in physics .
ATB
Y.Porat
----------------------
brian a m stuckless
[TheHUP.wpd]: Ass backwards before cart.!! (..a rePOST)
Especially with an electron particle's 'POSiTiON', no matter where
you point or place its exact coordinates (i mean on top of your lab
bench, under your lab bench, or here, there, or any ELSEwhere ..it
DOES NOT matter); SURELY, there will certainly be one RiGHT THERE.!!
Momentum UNCERTAiNTY decreases with increased STRAiGHTness of path.
THEREFORE:
a. SiNCE the electron (if its going ANYwhere) is going around in
little cycles at an EXACT tiny spot on your bench (or where-ever);
..THEN its orbital path CANNOT BE very STRAiGHT ..now CAN it.?!!
b. AND since its PATH obviously CANNOT BE very STRAiGHT; So, its
Momentum VECTOR, then, obviously likewise CANNOT BE very CERTAiN.!!
Momentum UNCERTAiNTY has nothing PRACTiCAL to do with ANY sort of
'canonical conjugate'. Even if EVERY point on a path is ABSOLUTELY
known, its VELOCiTY vector still depends ARBiTRARiLY on YOUR choice
of ANY TWO pre-REQUiSiTE VELOCiTY vector END-points ON its path.!!
At what LiMiT does the TWO endPOiNTs of a VECTOR become jUST ONE?
At what LiMiT is a VELOCiTY numerator NOT a 'delta' function.?!!
--or a velocity DENOMiNATOR suddenly NOT be a DELTA function.?!!
At what LiMiT and how is the following mathematics transformed?:
(DiFFERENCE in COORDiNATEs)/(DiFFERENCE in TiMEs)=VELOCiTY.
Note ANY velocity NUMERATOR is STiLL a DELTA function EVEN iF the
TWO delta-function COORDiNATES are equal (both located at the same
position) ..or EVEN if that DENOMiNATOR has 'limit zero' TiMiNG.
The MORE focus applied to ONE PART of any MOMENTUM velocity VECTOR;
the LESS focus there CAN be (at SAME time) on ANY OTHER PART of it.
NoBODY CAN FOCUS on BOTH ENDs of a VELOCiTY VECTOR, at once, duh.!!
(Let alone measuring MOMENTUM ..DURiNG that SAME PERiOD, too, duh.)
NOTE: Heisenberg's UNcertainty Principle (..or more appropriately,
Heisenberg's UN-NECESSARY Principle), delivers superb COLLATERAL
BENEFiTs and economic TURNOVER for HORDs in PULP & paper FiCTiON.!!
COLLATERAL BENEFiTs caused Heisenberg's UN-NECESSARY UNcertainty.!!
(Sure, COLLATERAL BENEFiTs even caused SPACEtime CURVATURE.!!)
Momentum VECTOR ABCs and quantum gravity:
Momentum is a VECTOR quantity --NOT conjugate of POSiTiON. Vectors
cannot be 'measured'. Vectors can only be 'imagined' BETWEEN TWO
coordinate positions (located on ANY path). ANY OTHER TWO points,
on the SAME path, will constitute ANOTHER imaginary VECTOR ..even
though these OTHER TWO vector points are ALSO on the SAME PATH.!!
THEREFORE any 'momentum UNCERTAiNTY' for ANY particle 'decreases'
with any 'increase' in the STRAiGHTNESS of the particle's path.!!
o o o o
o o o vector
o o o projection
A - - - VELOCiTY vector - -> B - - - - -> C
o o o
o o o
o o
ANY path.
Note velocity (A->B) / t is independent of the speed (A~~B) / t.!!
Again, ANY OTHER 'imagined' VELOCiTY BETWEEN any OTHER TWO points
(each located on the SAME path) will indicate a DiFFERENT VELOCiTY
VECTOR, ..albiet, even though that SAME path DOES NOT CHANGE.!!
Where-as PRE-REQUiRED vector of Momentum POSiTiON A is known, the
PRE-REQUiRED pre-vector-POSiTiON B on the path is ARBiTRARY ..and
NOT, and indeed CANNOT BE 'conjugate' of the SUBSEQUENT momentum.
A Momentum VELOCiTY VECTOR is DiRECTLY DEPENDENT on POSiTiON B, ..
..and, therefore, CANNOT be 'conjugate'.!!
Vector PROjECTiON is independent of POSiTiON B on a STRAiGHT path.
Vectors and VECTOR PROjECTiONs are ALWAYS STRAiGHT, like a CHORD,
(..BETWEEN ANY TWO coordinate positions A & B located on ANY path).
A VECTOR is the ‘ONLY' path BETWEEN ADjACENT POiNTs on ANY path.!!
THEREFORE, any NON-zero GR-Tivity QUANTA could ONLY ever have been
the 'AFFiNE gaps BETWEEN ADjACENT POiNTs', mathematically speaking.
><> ><> ><> ><> ><>
Sincerely,
```Brian
Ranando King
news:1124861598.6...@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
I agree that too much importance is lain on the HUP. Do to this indulgance,
many misunderstandings proliferate among scientists and hobbyists on issues
involving the HUP. However, the HUP is not bypassable. No matter how
accurate equipment becomes, there will always be a limit to how precise a
measurement can be when certain other measurements are made. That doesn't
mean that you cannot infer some things based on the information you can get,
but it does limit your ability to prove those inferences directly in
measurement.
R.
Y.Porat
you can bypass the HUP by *other experimental data
and i bring the Deuteron case:
if you are an HUP parrot you will say:
the size of the deuteron is so small that you can never tell
about its inner structure right??
but if you are not a parrot and start thinking
and use other indirect experimental data , you can know that
in the die tron you have the proton and neutron side by side
if you are a parrot you will say
may be it is one inside the other ?? why not ??
but then comes the 'Grey stuff' in your had and filters nonsense
possibilities
and you get the Right answer
i call it ;
'to see with the power of thinking!! (and additional knowledge )
if you dont have it
you remain a parrot forever.
ATB
Y.Porat
------------------------------
Ranando King
Seeing as how you're not trying to determine the relative positions and
momentum of the nucleons in a deuteron atom, I don't see any problems. Then
again, I also don't see how this is a violation of the HUP. Any one property
(say position) can be measured with arbitrary accuracy without incurring any
Heisenberg penalties.
However...
The shape of a deuteron atom is not so easily determined as you would seem
to want to believe, and the HUP has little or nothing to do with it. The
real problem is in determining the shapes of the neutron and proton
comprising the deuteron nucleus. Experiments have shown that protons aren't
always spherical. If the quark conjecture is correct, then the same would be
true of neutrons. This would mean you've got 6 particles to consider instead
of 2 in order to determine the shape of the deuteron atom.
R.
Autymn D. C.
> I agree that too much importance is lain on the HUP. Do to this indulgance,
> many misunderstandings proliferate among scientists and hobbyists on issues
> involving the HUP. However, the HUP is not bypassable. No matter how
> accurate equipment becomes, there will always be a limit to how precise a
> measurement can be when certain other measurements are made. That doesn't
> mean that you cannot infer some things based on the information you can get,
> but it does limit your ability to prove those inferences directly in
> measurement.
Do -> Due
Cheat the HUP:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/The_Discipline_Group/message/12206
http://www.npl.washington.edu/AV/altvw53.html
-Aut
Ranando King
"Autymn D. C." <lysd...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:1124914404.4...@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
No offense Autymn, but little is to be gained from your constant attempts at
being an English teacher in this newsgroup. All but too often I've seen you
post little more than a grammar correction and an insult. My understanding
of the English language as used in the US is comprehensive enough to ensure
that I get my point across whether or not my statements include typos. So
please, refrain from playing editor and stick to the discussion of physics.
Now as for your question...
> Say there's an atom or particle in a box, and roams around like a gas.
> If you bounce a photon off it, you'll know where it is but not where it's
> going because the photon either contributes or steals momentum from the
> particle, depending on both their momenta. So, what if we send photons
> in the box from every direction, or at least from a certain number of
> axes, so that the radiation pressure on the particle is uniform in every
> direction? Would we be able to find its position and momentum to
> arbitrary degrees?
The simple answer to your question is no. The first thing that you have to
consider is that a photon is not an actual particle per se, but rather the
simple physics notation for a single cycle of energy released as an EM wave.
When an actual particle, preferably one that participates in EM
interactions, especially an electron, encounters a photon, it absorbs the
photon.
So, if multiple photons met a particle, the photons themselves having a net
0 momentum, indeed there would be no net momentum change in the encountered
particle. HOWEVER, in order to do such a thing, the photons would have to be
targeted and timed in such a way that they meet the particle simultaneously.
Any time delay at all between the encounters and the particle will have
incurred a change in momentum.
To do such a precise targeting in an experiment would require knowledge of
where the particle is and where it is going to a high degree of accuracy,
i.e. precise knowledge of position and momentum simultaneously. So, in order
to "cheat the HUP", you would need knowledge that violates the HUP.
R.
Autymn D. C.
> No offense Autymn, but little is to be gained from your constant attempts at
> being an English teacher in this newsgroup. All but too often I've seen you
no point in your message
> post little more than a grammar correction and an insult. My understanding
> of the English language as used in the US is comprehensive enough to ensure
> that I get my point across whether or not my statements include typos. So
> please, refrain from playing editor and stick to the discussion of physics.
I refrain from nothing.
> The simple answer to your question is no. The first thing that you have to
> consider is that a photon is not an actual particle per se, but rather the
> simple physics notation for a single cycle of energy released as an EM wave.
> When an actual particle, preferably one that participates in EM
> interactions, especially an electron, encounters a photon, it absorbs the
> photon.
I know about that, which takes you to the squeezed state concept in my
second link, that measures a particle more precisely than the simple
HUP expression allows at the expense of fase information.
> So, if multiple photons met a particle, the photons themselves having a net
> 0 momentum, indeed there would be no net momentum change in the encountered
> particle. HOWEVER, in order to do such a thing, the photons would have to be
> targeted and timed in such a way that they meet the particle simultaneously.
> Any time delay at all between the encounters and the particle will have
> incurred a change in momentum.
Read the rest of the thread about cancelling this side-effect.
> To do such a precise targeting in an experiment would require knowledge of
> where the particle is and where it is going to a high degree of accuracy,
> i.e. precise knowledge of position and momentum simultaneously. So, in order
> to "cheat the HUP", you would need knowledge that violates the HUP.
Foreknowledge or hindknowledge will do it.
-Aut
Y.Porat
what are those abstract items that you used??
can you be specific??
(the old system of QM crooking is to be abstract as much as
possible.....)
so do you agree with me at the end of the day that
;'The HUP can be bypassed' ??
TIA
Y.Porat
-------------------------------
Y.Porat
Ranando King wrote:
> "Y.Porat" <map...@012.net.il> wrote in message
> news:1124900497.2...@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> > i said
> > you can bypass the HUP by *other experimental data
> >
> > and i bring the Deuteron case:
> >
> > possibilities
> > and you get the Right answer
> > i call it ;
> > 'to see with the power of thinking!! (and additional knowledge )
> > if you dont have it
> > you remain a parrot forever.
> >
> > ATB
> > Y.Porat
> > ------------------------------
>
>
> Seeing as how you're not trying to determine the relative positions and
> momentum of the nucleons in a deuteron atom, I don't see any problems. Then
there is an expert for the HUP called Feuerbacher
who does see a problem with that can imagine his argument that
since the sizes of the deuteron nuc are so small
you can never measure it at all
so if not to measure you cant be sure (verify) anything!!
yet about that 'anything'
that is the main 'battle ' between me and him
because he claimed that my model that maps
all the nuclei of the periodic table
is 'dead by arrival' according the HUP .
so the dispute is not with me but with that expert]
so i brought the deuteron example just as the simplest case
to show that we can still know a lot!! about the nuclei
as i did by introducing a whole map of all the periodic table
that is not with any length scale but only
RELATIVE LOCATION of the sub particles
and all that is by bypassing the HUP by other knowledge
and thinking.
like excluding unreasonable possibilities as
the possibility that the proton and deuteron will be
one inside the other......which seems to be the only
'other possibility!!
---
that indeed there is nothing like that anywhere!!
---------
> again, I also don't see how this is a violation of the HUP. Any one property
see above
--
> (say position) can be measured with arbitrary accuracy without incurring any
> Heisenberg penalties.
at the small size of the deuteron you cannot speak about any accuracy
at all or may be not even any measuring??
>
> However...
>
> The shape of a deuteron atom is not so easily determined as you would seem
we can say it is side by side sub particles
and that is a goo enough knowledge to say.....
and if so ........ you fill it in .......(:-)
---------------
> to want to believe, and the HUP has little or nothing to do with it. The
not all along 'nothing to do !!
> real problem is in determining the shapes of the neutron and proton
> comprising the deuteron nucleus. Experiments have shown that protons aren't
> always spherical.
what are those experiments
too little scientists know it !!
If the quark conjecture is correct, then the same would be
> true of neutrons. This would mean you've got 6 particles to consider instead
> of 2 in order to determine the shape of the deuteron atom.
agree with you
see my 'chain of orbitals' in my site.so i am the last one on this
world that you have to tell him about that .....
>
ATB
Y.Porat
-------------------
> R.
brian a m stuckless
> R.
><> ><> ><> ><> ><>
Heisenberg's UN-NECESSARY UNCERTAiNTY PRiNCiPLE.!!
HUP is the NOTiON of ONE measure limiting ACCURACY for ANOTHER.!!
1. MOMENTUM is a VECTOR quantity for which TWO (2) POSiTiONs
are NON-SiMULTANEOUSLY REQUiRED ..(the POSiTiONs of BOTH ENDs).!!
2. ANY one (1) single-measure ACCURACY is ALSO limited by hbar.!!
Therefore, Heisenberg's UNCERTAiNTY PRiNCiPLE is NULL and VOiD.!!
Autymn D. C.
> 'Foreknowledge or Hinderknowlwdge Will do it '
I didn't say this.
> what are those abstract items that you used??
> can you be specific??
which?
> (the old system of QM crooking is to be abstract as much as
> possible.....)
> so do you agree with me at the end of the day that
>
> ;'The HUP can be bypassed' ??
Anything can. Another way is to change h by giving light some of that
"dark" or "missing" energy.
-Aut
Ranando King
"brian a m stuckless" <bas...@nf.sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:430EDE...@nf.sympatico.ca...
To do such gross editing of a comment to suit your particular purposes is a
skill necessary for "spin doctors," politicians, and tabloid writers. Maybe
you should seek such a position.
R.
Ranando King
> Ranando King wrote:
> > No offense Autymn, but little is to be gained from your constant
attempts at
> > being an English teacher in this newsgroup. All but too often I've seen
you
>
> no point in your message
Not that I fully comprehend this sentence fragment you've posted, but to
break my comment in such a way is almost guaranteed to render it pointless
since it only maintains its point in the context of the paragraph in which
it was written. Take more care to reply appropriately.
> > post little more than a grammar correction and an insult. My
understanding
> > of the English language as used in the US is comprehensive enough to
ensure
> > that I get my point across whether or not my statements include typos.
So
> > please, refrain from playing editor and stick to the discussion of
physics.
>
> I refrain from nothing.
The inability to accept sage advice in combination with the inability to
show tactful restraint is often the sign of either a foolish or immature
mind. Take care not to further define yourself as such.
> > The simple answer to your question is no. The first thing that you have
to
> > consider is that a photon is not an actual particle per se, but rather
the
> > simple physics notation for a single cycle of energy released as an EM
wave.
> > When an actual particle, preferably one that participates in EM
> > interactions, especially an electron, encounters a photon, it absorbs
the
> > photon.
>
> I know about that, which takes you to the squeezed state concept in my
> second link, that measures a particle more precisely than the simple
> HUP expression allows at the expense of fase information.
I'll assume you meant "phase" where you wrote "fase" as the word you used
has no definition within the context of this discussion. As far as the
"squeezed vacuum" idea is concerned, it has yet to be proven, and further,
it only seems to occur under conditions involving extremely strong fields
such as the gravity near a neutron star. I would wager that the process of
finding such a "squeezed vacuum" would suffer from the same limitations as
are imposed by the HUP.
> > So, if multiple photons met a particle, the photons themselves having a
net
> > 0 momentum, indeed there would be no net momentum change in the
encountered
> > particle. HOWEVER, in order to do such a thing, the photons would have
to be
> > targeted and timed in such a way that they meet the particle
simultaneously.
> > Any time delay at all between the encounters and the particle will have
> > incurred a change in momentum.
>
> Read the rest of the thread about cancelling this side-effect.
I read the entire thread and found no information useful for cancelling this
side effect that is not subject to the following statement:
> > To do such a precise targeting in an experiment would require knowledge
of
> > where the particle is and where it is going to a high degree of
accuracy,
> > i.e. precise knowledge of position and momentum simultaneously. So, in
order
> > to "cheat the HUP", you would need knowledge that violates the HUP.
>
> Foreknowledge or hindknowledge will do it.
>
> -Aut
>
Given that foreknowledge would require omniscience, and hindknowledge is
unavailable without foreknowledge due to HUP-related issues, it is safe to
say that such targeting is *currently* impossible.
R.
brian a m stuckless
Action ONLY happens 'BETWEEN' ADjACENT POiNTs.!!
You CAN'T measure POSiTiONs for BOTH END-POiNTs of ANY VECTOR, at once.
You CAN'T measure A and B SiMULTANEOUSLY unless PATH A-B took '0' TiME.
You DON'T need ANY VECTOR for ANY PARTiCLE that's GOiNG-in-CYCLEs,
duh.
$ ><> ><> ><> ><> ><>
Autymn D. C.
> Not that I fully comprehend this sentence fragment you've posted, but to
> break my comment in such a way is almost guaranteed to render it pointless
> since it only maintains its point in the context of the paragraph in which
> it was written. Take more care to reply appropriately.
The pointless message didn't change.
> The inability to accept sage advice in combination with the inability to
> show tactful restraint is often the sign of either a foolish or immature
> mind. Take care not to further define yourself as such.
You gave no sage advice; tact is nothing more than pseudointellectual
red tape; and stop obstructing the dialogue to point out how you can't
accept my corrections.
> I'll assume you meant "phase" where you wrote "fase" as the word you used
> has no definition within the context of this discussion. As far as the
No, I meant fase where you write "phase". The standard spelling has no
justification.
> "squeezed vacuum" idea is concerned, it has yet to be proven, and further,
> it only seems to occur under conditions involving extremely strong fields
> such as the gravity near a neutron star. I would wager that the process of
> finding such a "squeezed vacuum" would suffer from the same limitations as
> are imposed by the HUP.
Stop ignoring the proven measurement technique told of later in the
article. Squeezed light is real and factual.
> I read the entire thread and found no information useful for cancelling this
> side effect that is not subject to the following statement:
That's a personal problem. You are, however, welcome to reply to the
statements in the thread.
> Given that foreknowledge would require omniscience, and hindknowledge is
> unavailable without foreknowledge due to HUP-related issues, it is safe to
> say that such targeting is *currently* impossible.
Omniscience has nothing to do with foreknowledge, and hindknowledge has
nothing to do with foreknowledge. You are making lots of nonsense.
-Aut
Y.Porat
Y.Porat
---------------------
Ranando King
> Ranando King wrote:
> > Not that I fully comprehend this sentence fragment you've posted, but to
> > break my comment in such a way is almost guaranteed to render it
pointless
> > since it only maintains its point in the context of the paragraph in
which
> > it was written. Take more care to reply appropriately.
>
> The pointless message didn't change.
>
> > The inability to accept sage advice in combination with the inability to
> > show tactful restraint is often the sign of either a foolish or immature
> > mind. Take care not to further define yourself as such.
>
> You gave no sage advice; tact is nothing more than pseudointellectual
> red tape; and stop obstructing the dialogue to point out how you can't
> accept my corrections.
I guess that's why you actions in this newsgroup tend to lack a certain
measure of tact and decorum. Enough said on this issue. You've explained
yourself well enough. As for my acceptance of your correction: given that
this is a type-written communications medium, and given that the subject
matter of a post need only be reasonably understood from the content of the
post, it is not entirely necessary that one always achieves perfection in
grammar and spelling except where errors in the same would cause an
unreasonable difficulty in understanding the meanings of the ideas
presented. I.e. When I admitted that I had made a typo, I implicitly
accepted your correction. My comment, however, was to inform you that your
correction was a waste of time since the meaning of my post was reasonably
understandable even with the typographical error. Your correction added
nothing to the meaning. Your correction changed nothing in the meaning.
Therefore your correction was irrelevant. Enough said.
> > I'll assume you meant "phase" where you wrote "fase" as the word you
used
> > has no definition within the context of this discussion. As far as the
>
> No, I meant fase where you write "phase". The standard spelling has no
> justification.
>
The fact that the word as spelled, "phase," is the *standard spelling* as
you admitted, is in itself justification enough. Otherwise, there's no
justification for using "due" when "do" is equivalent in sound and context
supplies the needed meaning. If you choose to be the English professor of
this newsgroup, please use standardized proper English yourself. Otherwise,
you are not qualified to correct anyone else. Enough said.
> > "squeezed vacuum" idea is concerned, it has yet to be proven, and
further,
> > it only seems to occur under conditions involving extremely strong
fields
> > such as the gravity near a neutron star. I would wager that the process
of
> > finding such a "squeezed vacuum" would suffer from the same limitations
as
> > are imposed by the HUP.
>
> Stop ignoring the proven measurement technique told of later in the
> article. Squeezed light is real and factual.
I did not ignore anything in the article. You, however, ignored the focus of
my comment. "Squeezed vacuum" is, as yet, unproven. It requires a dense
source of gravity to create such regions.
> > I read the entire thread and found no information useful for cancelling
this
> > side effect that is not subject to the following statement:
>
> That's a personal problem. You are, however, welcome to reply to the
> statements in the thread.
It is a scientific issue, not a personal problem. The bottom line is that
even in the case of "squeezed light," they are trading accuracy in their
phase measurements for an increase in the accuracy of their energy
(frequency) measurements, primarily because they don't really care about the
phase in most cases. This is still subject to the HUP's limitations however.
> > Given that foreknowledge would require omniscience, and hindknowledge is
> > unavailable without foreknowledge due to HUP-related issues, it is safe
to
> > say that such targeting is *currently* impossible.
>
> Omniscience has nothing to do with foreknowledge, and hindknowledge has
> nothing to do with foreknowledge. You are making lots of nonsense.
>
> -Aut
>
Check your dictionary. Omniscience, or the ability to know all details, is
foreknowledge if it is available before a given event. In this case, the
details are the exact position and momentum of a moving particle, and the
event is targeting that particle. Given that hindknowledge has the
capability of verifying or falsifying foreknowledge, the two concepts are
intimately related, especially in scientific contexts. Are you sure you
understand English?
R.
Ranando King
<snipped>
> $ ><> ><> ><> ><> ><>
> Action ONLY happens 'BETWEEN' ADjACENT POiNTs.!!
> You CAN'T measure POSiTiONs for BOTH END-POiNTs of ANY VECTOR, at once.
> You CAN'T measure A and B SiMULTANEOUSLY unless PATH A-B took '0' TiME.
> You DON'T need ANY VECTOR for ANY PARTiCLE that's GOiNG-in-CYCLEs,
> duh.
> $ ><> ><> ><> ><> ><>
>
Let me see if I can help you understand. The reason the HUP is necessary is
because, sad to admit, scientists are highly intelligent morons. Their
intellectual acuity is usually stellar, while their common sense level is
generally too low to mention tactfully. As such, you will more likely than
not find scientists trying to do the same thing millions of different times
in millions of different ways until someone manages to prove that what they
were trying is impossible. So to prevent scientists from wasting time trying
to make absolutely precise measurements on pairs of values that cannot be
measured together beyond a certain level of precision, Heisenberg wrote the
HUP, which has since been proven, or rather verified without being disproven
yet.
As for your assertions above, I'm not entirely convinced of their relevance.
Let's review:
> Action ONLY happens 'BETWEEN' ADjACENT POiNTs.!!
Particle spin happens at a single point. It's an action, but doesn't involve
any known form of physical motion.
> You CAN'T measure POSiTiONs for BOTH END-POiNTs of ANY VECTOR, at once.
Assuming you're referring to momentum, thing about the speed gun a cop uses.
Momentum is not determined by 2 positions of the moving particle, but rather
by the starting and ending positions of a deflected detection particle. So
the momentum of the particle being measured can be taken at a single point.
> You CAN'T measure A and B SiMULTANEOUSLY unless PATH A-B took '0' TiME.
...hence the uncertainty between time and energy.
> You DON'T need ANY VECTOR for ANY PARTiCLE that's GOiNG-in-CYCLEs,
...only true if you don't plan on counting cycles.
R.
Autymn D. C.
> I guess that's why you actions in this newsgroup tend to lack a certain
> measure of tact and decorum. Enough said on this issue. You've explained
> yourself well enough. As for my acceptance of your correction: given that
> this is a type-written communications medium, and given that the subject
> matter of a post need only be reasonably understood from the content of the
> post, it is not entirely necessary that one always achieves perfection in
No perfection was brought up, strawman.
> grammar and spelling except where errors in the same would cause an
> unreasonable difficulty in understanding the meanings of the ideas
Bring everyone up to a decency that keeps confusions and conflations
away.
> presented. I.e. When I admitted that I had made a typo, I implicitly
> accepted your correction. My comment, however, was to inform you that your
> correction was a waste of time since the meaning of my post was reasonably
> understandable even with the typographical error. Your correction added
> nothing to the meaning. Your correction changed nothing in the meaning.
> Therefore your correction was irrelevant. Enough said.
All different spellings have different meanings. So you're wrong, and
irrelevant.
> The fact that the word as spelled, "phase," is the *standard spelling* as
> you admitted, is in itself justification enough. Otherwise, there's no
> justification for using "due" when "do" is equivalent in sound and context
> supplies the needed meaning. If you choose to be the English professor of
> this newsgroup, please use standardized proper English yourself. Otherwise,
> you are not qualified to correct anyone else. Enough said.
Wrong, ue and o are different vowels. How people speak or will or
think has nothing to do with making it right; you are deluded to think
so. "ph" is a mindless Greek-Latin corruption of "f" when the Greek
dialects had already moved on from the redundant sound; your support
for it is also blind, deaf, and dumb, unless you say it the same as the
old Greeks did, as written. Also, the indefensible American convention
of putting extraneous marks in quotes came about after their shoddy
tupewriters' hammers would break off if the marks were tuped in the
right order. So you are also wrong in your ""phase,"". /People/ are
by and in themselves improper, as they are the agents of unaware
breakings up of their own languages and others'. I can compare one
time with an older and show the older better and greater. Borrowing
from other languages only distracted these speakers from their own
mistakes and was not a bandage; it kept spreading their mind-filth in
their inability to pronounce foreign words right. (I'm talking about
all peoples here.)
> I did not ignore anything in the article. You, however, ignored the focus of
> my comment. "Squeezed vacuum" is, as yet, unproven. It requires a dense
> source of gravity to create such regions.
When was that ever your focus? The efficient petawatt laser, however,
is described to put electrons two inches from a black hole.
> It is a scientific issue, not a personal problem. The bottom line is that
> even in the case of "squeezed light," they are trading accuracy in their
> phase measurements for an increase in the accuracy of their energy
> (frequency) measurements, primarily because they don't really care about the
> phase in most cases. This is still subject to the HUP's limitations however.
You're not replying about the thread, where the random walk was brought
up. But the HUP's terms can be split into any number of factors,
including other variables and "constants". If the squeezing uses a
different-than-standard expression, then the limit has been changed,
where the limit is compared to the background (vacuum) rather than the
provisional constant h.
> Check your dictionary. Omniscience, or the ability to know all details, is
> foreknowledge if it is available before a given event. In this case, the
> details are the exact position and momentum of a moving particle, and the
> event is targeting that particle. Given that hindknowledge has the
> capability of verifying or falsifying foreknowledge, the two concepts are
> intimately related, especially in scientific contexts. Are you sure you
> understand English?
Knowing English won't let you understand how not to think. Exact
knowledge is not all knowledge, and the knowledge is no longer behind
when it's used now.
-Aut
Autymn D. C.
> Particle spin happens at a single point. It's an action, but doesn't involve
> any known form of physical motion.
Spin and action are orthogonal dimensions. But particles with finite
mass-energy are extended, and to claim other than a classical spin and
speed is nonsense:
http://www.advancedphysics.org/viewthread.php?tid=974&page=2#pid12856.
-Aut
Ranando King
> Ranando King wrote:
<snipped: irrelevant>
> > I did not ignore anything in the article. You, however, ignored the
focus of
> > my comment. "Squeezed vacuum" is, as yet, unproven. It requires a dense
> > source of gravity to create such regions.
>
> When was that ever your focus?
Pay more attention before conveniently trimming that which you wish to
ignore. Here it is again from 2 posts ago:
> > > > As far as the "squeezed vacuum" idea is concerned, it has
> > > > yet to be proven, and further, it only seems to occur under
> > > > conditions involving extremely strong fields such as the gravity
> > > > near a neutron star. I would wager that the process of finding
> > > > such a "squeezed vacuum" would suffer from the same limitations
> > > > as are imposed by the HUP.
> The efficient petawatt laser, however,
> is described to put electrons two inches from a black hole.
Your point? I was raising issue with the "squeesed vacuum" idea.
> > It is a scientific issue, not a personal problem. The bottom line is
that
> > even in the case of "squeezed light," they are trading accuracy in their
> > phase measurements for an increase in the accuracy of their energy
> > (frequency) measurements, primarily because they don't really care about
the
> > phase in most cases. This is still subject to the HUP's limitations
however.
>
> You're not replying about the thread, where the random walk was brought
> up. But the HUP's terms can be split into any number of factors,
> including other variables and "constants". If the squeezing uses a
> different-than-standard expression, then the limit has been changed,
> where the limit is compared to the background (vacuum) rather than the
> provisional constant h.
That's just it. "Squeezing" **does not** use non-standard expressions. The
concept is basically a refined way of trading increased accuracy in one
measurement for increased noise in an associated pair measurement so that
the measure that is desired has increased accuracy. It's not much different
than what power companies do with transformers. They trade high current for
high voltage so they can send the energy further, then they use another
transformer at the destination to trade back to high current. All HUP
limitations still apply.
> > Check your dictionary. Omniscience, or the ability to know all details,
is
> > foreknowledge if it is available before a given event. In this case, the
> > details are the exact position and momentum of a moving particle, and
the
> > event is targeting that particle. Given that hindknowledge has the
> > capability of verifying or falsifying foreknowledge, the two concepts
are
> > intimately related, especially in scientific contexts. Are you sure you
> > understand English?
>
> Knowing English won't let you understand how not to think. Exact
> knowledge is not all knowledge, and the knowledge is no longer behind
> when it's used now.
>
> -Aut
>
Your point? All knowledge **is** exact knowledge. Reversing the terms
doesn't invalidate my point. The fact that foreknowledge is no longer
foreknowledge after the event is irrelevant to the point I made. Obfuscation
of the sort you're employing here is better suited for political debates
than scientific understanding.
R.
Ranando King
news:1125427682.6...@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
If I choose to refer to "classical spin," then I'll say "rotation". Particle
"spin," however, is not the same as rotation. In fact, as yet, there's no
classical analog for "spin," but since something is definitely changing with
respect to time, "spin" is indeed an action.
I too prefer to think that "particles with finite mass energy are extended."
However, at present, all attempts to measure electrons have returned results
that less than 1 std.dev. from 0. Put another way, based on the
measurements, they can't tell that an electron has a size at all!
Say what you like. Believe what you like. But until the measurements start
pointing to something different, your belief that "spin" other than
"rotation" is nonsense is very much irrelevant.
R.
Autymn D. C.
> Pay more attention before conveniently trimming that which you wish to
> ignore. Here it is again from 2 posts ago:
That wasn't the subject I brought up.
> Your point? I was raising issue with the "squeesed vacuum" idea.
You used it to dismiss the whole article.
> That's just it. "Squeezing" **does not** use non-standard expressions. The
> concept is basically a refined way of trading increased accuracy in one
> measurement for increased noise in an associated pair measurement so that
> the measure that is desired has increased accuracy. It's not much different
> than what power companies do with transformers. They trade high current for
> high voltage so they can send the energy further, then they use another
> transformer at the destination to trade back to high current. All HUP
> limitations still apply.
The standard expression does not consider fase, so your explanation is
irrelevant and futile.
> Your point? All knowledge **is** exact knowledge. Reversing the terms
> doesn't invalidate my point. The fact that foreknowledge is no longer
> foreknowledge after the event is irrelevant to the point I made. Obfuscation
> of the sort you're employing here is better suited for political debates
> than scientific understanding.
I'm not obfuscating; you're conflating. Your claim is the complement
of mine, and is trivially true and non sequitur. You took away the
present without reason.
-Aut
Autymn D. C.
> If I choose to refer to "classical spin," then I'll say "rotation". Particle
> "spin," however, is not the same as rotation. In fact, as yet, there's no
> classical analog for "spin," but since something is definitely changing with
> respect to time, "spin" is indeed an action.
The comma goes outside the quotes. Stop conflating spin and action.
They have different dimensions. You're like that shithead Frazir who
doesn't know what "is" means. Spin and classical angular momentum
(your so-called "rotation"), however, have the same dimensions, so they
are identical and inseparable.
> I too prefer to think that "particles with finite mass energy are extended."
> However, at present, all attempts to measure electrons have returned results
> that less than 1 std.dev. from 0. Put another way, based on the
> measurements, they can't tell that an electron has a size at all!
what measurements? those that increase the electron's mass-energy
toward infinity and therefore make the measurement and assumption
irrelevant and fraudulent?
> Say what you like. Believe what you like. But until the measurements start
> pointing to something different, your belief that "spin" other than
> "rotation" is nonsense is very much irrelevant.
If you could write coherently enough to represent what I was saying,
you wouldn't be disproving yourself.
-Aut
brian a m stuckless
NO SiNGLE measurement CAN BE made with ACCURACY (+ or -) hbar/2.!!
HEiSENBERG'S UN-necessary UNCERTAiNTY Principle is so REDUNDANT.!!
Momentum is a VECTOR quantity --NOT conjugate of POSiTiON. Vectors
cannot be 'measured'. Vectors can only be 'imagined' BETWEEN TWO
coordinate positions (located on ANY path). ANY OTHER TWO points,
on the SAME path, will constitute ANOTHER imaginary VECTOR ..even
though these OTHER TWO vector points are ALSO on the SAME PATH.!!
THEREFORE any 'momentum UNCERTAiNTY' for ANY particle 'decreases'
with any 'increase' in the STRAiGHTNESS of the particle's path.!!
o o o o
o o o vector
o o o projection
A - - - VELOCiTY vector - -> B - - - - -> C
o o o
o o o
o o
ANY path.
Note velocity (A->B) / t is independent of the speed (A~~B) / t.!!
Again, ANY OTHER 'imagined' VELOCiTY BETWEEN any OTHER TWO points
(each located on the SAME path) will indicate a DiFFERENT VELOCiTY
VECTOR, ..albiet, even though that SAME path DOES NOT CHANGE.!!
Where-as PRE-REQUiRED vector of VELOCiTY POSiTiON A is known, the
PRE-REQUiRED pre-vector-POSiTiON B on the path is but ARBiTRARY.!!
NON-ZERO particle VELOCiTY only happens BETWEEN ADjACENT POiNTs.!!
Sincerely,
```Brian
><> ><> ><> ><> ><>
Ranando King
> Ranando King wrote:
> > Pay more attention before conveniently trimming that which you wish to
> > ignore. Here it is again from 2 posts ago:
>
> That wasn't the subject I brought up.
>
> > Your point? I was raising issue with the "squeesed vacuum" idea.
>
> You used it to dismiss the whole article.
Again with your strategic snipping. Would you at least do the group the
courtesy of putting in a "<snipped>" tag in places where you're removing
content? Your method of marker-less trimming has me constantly going back to
previous posts to follow the conversation.
> > That's just it. "Squeezing" **does not** use non-standard expressions.
The
> > concept is basically a refined way of trading increased accuracy in one
> > measurement for increased noise in an associated pair measurement so
that
> > the measure that is desired has increased accuracy. It's not much
different
> > than what power companies do with transformers. They trade high current
for
> > high voltage so they can send the energy further, then they use another
> > transformer at the destination to trade back to high current. All HUP
> > limitations still apply.
>
> The standard expression does not consider fase, so your explanation is
> irrelevant and futile.
Incorrect... well... partially. The standard expression doesn't mention
"fase" because in science, there is no such thing. The standard expression
doesn't mention "phase" directly either, but it does mention "time". Here's
a similie to remember: "time" is to "phase" as "energy" is to "frequency".
This relationship means that "phase" can be substituted virtually anywhere
where "time" is used since "time" can be calculated from the "phase"
information just as "energy" can be calculated from "frequency" information.
Since "time" and "energy" are a pair subject to HUP limitations, "phase" and
"frequency" are also subject to the same limitation. As such, the only way
to increase the accuracy of "frequency" measurements is to "convert the
frequency noise into phase noise". That's a quote from the article you gave.
If you had paid attention and noticed that, you'd realize that the HUP isn't
being violated at all. The accuracy of the frequency measurement is being
increased at the expense of phase information, which they really don't care
about.
> > Your point? All knowledge **is** exact knowledge. Reversing the terms
> > doesn't invalidate my point. The fact that foreknowledge is no longer
> > foreknowledge after the event is irrelevant to the point I made.
Obfuscation
> > of the sort you're employing here is better suited for political debates
> > than scientific understanding.
>
> I'm not obfuscating; you're conflating. Your claim is the complement
> of mine, and is trivially true and non sequitur. You took away the
> present without reason.
I neither conflated nor removed anything. You would be hard pressed to prove
such accusations. I did not "take away the present." Maybe you
misunderstood. In all that has been said, foreknowledge represents the past.
Hindsight represents the future. Therefore the present is the event, the
action of accurately targeting an particle in an enclosed space. If you're
failing to understand anything that is being told to you, then you should
ask rather than make assumptions.
R.
Ranando King
> Ranando King wrote:
> > If I choose to refer to "classical spin," then I'll say "rotation".
Particle
> > "spin," however, is not the same as rotation. In fact, as yet, there's
no
> > classical analog for "spin," but since something is definitely changing
with
> > respect to time, "spin" is indeed an action.
>
> They have different dimensions. You're like that shithead Frazir who
> doesn't know what "is" means. Spin and classical angular momentum
> (your so-called "rotation"), however, have the same dimensions, so they
> are identical and inseparable.
So much accusation compouded by so little understanding...
"Spin", as defined by quantum physics, has the same units as h-bar. H-bar is
the quantum of action. Therefore, "spin" *is* action. You might want to
review this with your local college physics professor if you cannot fathom
this.
> > I too prefer to think that "particles with finite mass energy are
extended."
> > However, at present, all attempts to measure electrons have returned
results
> > that less than 1 std.dev. from 0. Put another way, based on the
> > measurements, they can't tell that an electron has a size at all!
>
> what measurements? those that increase the electron's mass-energy
> toward infinity and therefore make the measurement and assumption
> irrelevant and fraudulent?
No. Scattering experiments that use the deflection angle of various
projectile particles to determine the nature of a given target particle.
> > Say what you like. Believe what you like. But until the measurements
start
> > pointing to something different, your belief that "spin" other than
> > "rotation" is nonsense is very much irrelevant.
>
> If you could write coherently enough to represent what I was saying,
> you wouldn't be disproving yourself.
If you understood the very language you seek to "correct" (and I use that
term loosely) within the scientific context that is appropriate to this
newsgroup, you'd realize that I have not contradicted or disproven myself
even once in this conversation.
R.
Autymn D. C.
> Again with your strategic snipping. Would you at least do the group the
> courtesy of putting in a "<snipped>" tag in places where you're removing
> content? Your method of marker-less trimming has me constantly going back to
> previous posts to follow the conversation.
No, if you had not already followed the conversation, you could not be
in it. Stop littering groups with old text and exercise your memory
for once.
> Incorrect... well... partially. The standard expression doesn't mention
> "fase" because in science, there is no such thing. The standard expression
Wrong, in reality, there is no such thing as "phase".
> doesn't mention "phase" directly either, but it does mention "time". Here's
> a similie to remember: "time" is to "phase" as "energy" is to "frequency".
simile
I don't need that. I already noticed the times. There's also no such
thing as frequency in reality, because it's derived from the inverse of
the period, which /is/ real.
> This relationship means that "phase" can be substituted virtually anywhere
> where "time" is used since "time" can be calculated from the "phase"
> information just as "energy" can be calculated from "frequency" information.
Tell me something I don't know. You still didn't reply to the thread's
statements.
> Since "time" and "energy" are a pair subject to HUP limitations, "phase" and
> "frequency" are also subject to the same limitation. As such, the only way
> to increase the accuracy of "frequency" measurements is to "convert the
> frequency noise into phase noise". That's a quote from the article you gave.
> If you had paid attention and noticed that, you'd realize that the HUP isn't
> being violated at all. The accuracy of the frequency measurement is being
> increased at the expense of phase information, which they really don't care
> about.
Frequency is from time though. Having two times would make them seem
to cancel to yield Planck's constant again. But you are beating a dead
horse because I was still talking about something different, which I
already told you, that the accuracy goes past the HUP-prohibited
/background/ limit. I also put elsewhere that h can be changed by
changing E and then c by dark or missing matter, from Lambda, alfa,
epsilon, and mu, which also changes the background. This would be
allowed from a perturbative interpretation of HUP. Using two fotons
with different constants will make the two time terms at a variance.
> I neither conflated nor removed anything. You would be hard pressed to prove
> such accusations. I did not "take away the present." Maybe you
present".
> misunderstood. In all that has been said, foreknowledge represents the past.
> Hindsight represents the future. Therefore the present is the event, the
> action of accurately targeting an particle in an enclosed space. If you're
> failing to understand anything that is being told to you, then you should
> ask rather than make assumptions.
To prove it, I'd have other people read your explanation of knowledge
and see if they have any clue what you're talking about either. In
your newer, at least your present is present and makes sense, but not
how they have anything to do with omniscience or the HUP prohibiting
the knowledges.
-Aut
Autymn D. C.
> So much accusation compouded by so little understanding...
you
> "Spin", as defined by quantum physics, has the same units as h-bar. H-bar is
> the quantum of action. Therefore, "spin" *is* action. You might want to
> review this with your local college physics professor if you cannot fathom
> this.
No, h is the unit of action. 'h' is the unit of angular momentum.
They have different spatial dimensions, though the scientists were
never smart enough to write them out. You are hence making the same
mistake that Dave Thomson and Tom Lockyer did, by thinking they were
associative.
> No. Scattering experiments that use the deflection angle of various
> projectile particles to determine the nature of a given target particle.
Prove that these did not alter the electron's energy inconsistently and
without limit.
> If you understood the very language you seek to "correct" (and I use that
> term loosely) within the scientific context that is appropriate to this
> newsgroup, you'd realize that I have not contradicted or disproven myself
> even once in this conversation.
That's not enough for you to be right, I'm afraid.
-Aut
Ranando King
> Ranando King wrote:
> > Again with your strategic snipping. Would you at least do the group the
> > courtesy of putting in a "<snipped>" tag in places where you're removing
> > content? Your method of marker-less trimming has me constantly going
back to
> > previous posts to follow the conversation.
>
> No, if you had not already followed the conversation, you could not be
> in it. Stop littering groups with old text and exercise your memory
> for once.
The point is that you must leave enough context material in the post for
*ANYONE* to understand what you are replying to without having to review
other posts, which may or may not have expired from the server. You should
also note when you have removed sections of someone else's comments by using
a tag of some kind. I tend to use "<snipped>". You should read up on
netiquette.
> > Incorrect... well... partially. The standard expression doesn't mention
> > "fase" because in science, there is no such thing. The standard
expression
>
> Wrong, in reality, there is no such thing as "phase".
So Webster's Unabridged Collegiate Dictionary is wrong? Interesting.
Frequency is not "from time" but rather time dependant. Frequency is an
energetic property. Frequency is not time, therefore you don't have "two
times" to cancel. You really need a better understanding of elementary
physics and the meaning of physics terms before you enter a discussion on
quantum issues.
> > I neither conflated nor removed anything. You would be hard pressed to
prove
> > such accusations. I did not "take away the present." Maybe you
> present".
> > misunderstood. In all that has been said, foreknowledge represents the
past.
> > Hindsight represents the future. Therefore the present is the event, the
> > action of accurately targeting an particle in an enclosed space. If
you're
> > failing to understand anything that is being told to you, then you
should
> > ask rather than make assumptions.
>
> To prove it, I'd have other people read your explanation of knowledge
> and see if they have any clue what you're talking about either. In
> your newer, at least your present is present and makes sense, but not
> how they have anything to do with omniscience or the HUP prohibiting
> the knowledges.
>
> -Aut
If those "other people" are associates of yours with a level of understand
roughly equal to yours, then their misunderstanding is perfectly
predictable. If they were not allowed to read the entire thread, then their
misunderstanding is again understandable. As far as the need for omniscience
goes, consider the following:
The HUP says that you cannot measure with arbitrary accuracy the values of
certain specific pairs
of properties on a quantum object. Put another way, if you want to know with
a high degree of accuracy how much energy a particle has, there's a limit on
how much you can know about how long the particle maintains that energy.
Using a pair better related to the conversation, if you want to know with a
high degree of accuracy the exact position of a given particle right now,
then there is a limit on how much you can know about where the particle is
going next.
Because targeting an object requires knowing both it's momentum and its
position at a certain time, the HUP can be read as stating that there is a
limit to how accurately an object can be targeted. In order to possess all
of the knowledge needed, including the knowledge that is humanly impossible
to know (knowledge violating the HUP), one would need to be omniscient or
all-knowing.
If you still don't understand this, then I will be forced to conclude that
it is impossible for you to understand this concept and that it is a waste
of time to converse with you any further.
R.
Ranando King
> Ranando King wrote:
> > So much accusation compouded by so little understanding...
>
> you
>
I find it hard to fathom that you have the nerve to try correcting other's
English when you are willing to write vague, syntactically incorrect,
grammatically incorrect, meaningless statements like the one above in a poor
attempt to reply to something of mine.
> > "Spin", as defined by quantum physics, has the same units as h-bar.
H-bar is
> > the quantum of action. Therefore, "spin" *is* action. You might want to
> > review this with your local college physics professor if you cannot
fathom
> > this.
>
> No, h is the unit of action. 'h' is the unit of angular momentum.
> They have different spatial dimensions, though the scientists were
> never smart enough to write them out. You are hence making the same
> mistake that Dave Thomson and Tom Lockyer did, by thinking they were
> associative.
Again, check your physics book. Planck's constant (h) as well as Dirac's
constant (h-bar) are scalar multiples of each other sharing the same units,
those being Js (Joule seconds). Written another way, Js is kg m^2 s^(-1).
Momentum (any kind) is kg m s^(-1), or written another way, Js/m. Please, go
study physics.
> > No. Scattering experiments that use the deflection angle of various
> > projectile particles to determine the nature of a given target particle.
>
> Prove that these did not alter the electron's energy inconsistently and
> without limit.
I have no need to do so. All needed experimental proofs are generally
written in the experimental write-ups. There's no need for me to reproduce
that work. All you need to do is **research**. Learn for yourself what I
already spent my valuable time learning.
> > If you understood the very language you seek to "correct" (and I use
that
> > term loosely) within the scientific context that is appropriate to this
> > newsgroup, you'd realize that I have not contradicted or disproven
myself
> > even once in this conversation.
>
> That's not enough for you to be right, I'm afraid.
>
> -Aut
True, but it is just enough to inform you of the incontrovertable fact that
virtually everything you've said in this thread is a fallacy of one form or
another. Have fun fighting the world. I'm done with you.
R.
Autymn D. C.
> The point is that you must leave enough context material in the post for
> *ANYONE* to understand what you are replying to without having to review
> other posts, which may or may not have expired from the server. You should
> also note when you have removed sections of someone else's comments by using
> a tag of some kind. I tend to use "<snipped>". You should read up on
> netiquette.
Expired from the server? What are you talking about? Quoting is a
grace and privilege, not a right. It hardly existed in handwritten
letters. Anyone wanting a reminder of the subject, due to a failing
mind or an itchy nose, can review the older messages. Snipping cues
are also boondoggle.
> So Webster's Unabridged Collegiate Dictionary is wrong? Interesting.
Dictionaries record words, not things. Learn how to think.
> Frequency is not "from time" but rather time dependant. Frequency is an
dependent
> energetic property. Frequency is not time, therefore you don't have "two
> times" to cancel. You really need a better understanding of elementary
> physics and the meaning of physics terms before you enter a discussion on
> quantum issues.
Time dependence means from time. Learn basic language terms and ideas
first before you make appeals from oblivion. Frequency is a whim
derived from time, arbitrarily applied to energy. It is no more
fundamental than current, no matter how much the dumb French or English
or Italian or American scientists and engineers may claim. Hertz is
nothing more than inverse seconds. The expression has time over time,
multiplied by Planck's constant. However would it remain dimensional
otherwise?
> Because targeting an object requires knowing both it's momentum and its
> position at a certain time, the HUP can be read as stating that there is a
> limit to how accurately an object can be targeted. In order to possess all
> of the knowledge needed, including the knowledge that is humanly impossible
> to know (knowledge violating the HUP), one would need to be omniscient or
> all-knowing.
If the measurement represents reality and not an estimate, then there
is no more knowledge to be had than was taken; what further knowledge
only applies to other interactions, So omniscience is irrelevant.
-Aut
Autymn D. C.
> I find it hard to fathom that you have the nerve to try correcting other's
> English when you are willing to write vague, syntactically incorrect,
> grammatically incorrect, meaningless statements like the one above in a poor
> attempt to reply to something of mine.
I do not.
> Again, check your physics book. Planck's constant (h) as well as Dirac's
> constant (h-bar) are scalar multiples of each other sharing the same units,
> those being Js (Joule seconds). Written another way, Js is kg m^2 s^(-1).
> Momentum (any kind) is kg m s^(-1), or written another way, Js/m. Please, go
> study physics.
You study fXsEcA (the right spelling). I expected you to reply as
such, because you have no idea what you're talking about. Decompose
the spatial units used in analyzing angular momentum and in energy: You
will find that they are orthogonal and must be labelled with their
respective axes. Thus, they are nonassociative, even if scientists
want to abuse the accounts by using Planck's constant and Planck's
reduced constant in the same expressions to confuse people like you.
> I have no need to do so. All needed experimental proofs are generally
> written in the experimental write-ups. There's no need for me to reproduce
> that work. All you need to do is **research**. Learn for yourself what I
> already spent my valuable time learning.
If you know what you're talking about, you can point me to or quote the
evidence.
> True, but it is just enough to inform you of the incontrovertable fact that
> virtually everything you've said in this thread is a fallacy of one form or
> another. Have fun fighting the world. I'm done with you.
At least the world will see that you're self-deluded.
-Aut