It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by off2_infinity
Originally posted by Rasobasi420
I see, because the the quantum state of matter is so "uncertain", by that I mean particles bouncing in and out of existence, relying on probability to control their states, measuring anything at any particular time does little good because it won't be in that exact state again.
what exactly does it mean for something to rely on probability? i mean, prob isnt a law, its not even mathematically sound... prob is like escapism... there must be some hidden variable or an undiscovered law that can explain the apparent randomness observed in quantum systems... declaring that such things are 'governed by probability' is like trying to shirk from findin the right description...
Originally posted by Byrd
It simply shows that the writers of Star Trek iddn't hold PhDs in physics.
Originally posted by Valhall
Originally posted by off2_infinity
there must be some hidden variable or an undiscovered law that can explain the apparent randomness observed in quantum systems...
Very good point! We are only constrained by the knowledge envelope we are working within right now! No telling what tomorrow will bring!
Onward and upward!
The only way to measure exactly the position and velocity of a particle would be to measure it from another dimension that would not affect the particle. For example, if we had access to Star Trek's subspace, we could measure the particle from there.
Originally posted by d60944
The only way to measure exactly the position and velocity of a particle would be to measure it from another dimension that would not affect the particle. For example, if we had access to Star Trek's subspace, we could measure the particle from there.
No. As I said before..... the properties of velocity/momentum and location at the quantum level are quantum properties. It is impossible for a particle to possess the two properties precisely simultaneously. Forget about the macroscopic labels of "momentum" and "location" and substitute lables "blahness" and "blingness" if you like - at the quantum scale the terms don't mean quite what they do on the macroscopic one. Even could you measure without disturbing the system at all, you would find that the properties did not exist precisely simultaneously.