Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Uncertainty Principle Violated

page: 2
11
<< 1   >>

log in

join

posted on Sep, 9 2012 @ 07:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by Astyanax
reply to post by Aeons
 

No. Not unless feeling horribly violated is what pushes your button.

If such is the case, I suggest finding a like-minded spirit to push your button for you.

I'm afraid I'm not willing to perform that particular office.

Science thread and all that, you know.


"OW" dude. As a pile of quantum states weighed down by gravity and density, I'm afraid my states are uncertain and do violate expected norms. Maybe you'd like to experience some of the fluctuations that led to the current state of this pile of matter? A thousand miles in someone else's shoes and all that. In the name of science. I bet not...

Anyways.

What you are missing for that great discussion about quantum consciousness is that special way to tie this into entanglement.
edit on 2012/9/9 by Aeons because: (no reason given)




posted on Sep, 9 2012 @ 08:54 PM
link   
reply to post by Astyanax
 

I don't get it. What are you trying to say? And what is so certain about a principle in the first place? The only thing certain in any of it is that it has yet to truly be put to the test. Is there a majority certainty here? Because that's all it really needs.

And you cant measure momentum if momentum is the thing used to measure things, because there are no positions but those you want to measure.



posted on Sep, 10 2012 @ 02:26 AM
link   
reply to post by Aeons
 


What you are missing for that great discussion about quantum consciousness is that special way to tie this into entanglement.

If that's what I'm missing, I hope it stays lost. I'm certainly not planning to mount a search to find it.

It's all right to think about quantum mechanics without getting metaphysical about it, you know.

*


reply to post by galadofwarthethird
 


I don't get it. What are you trying to say?

Not me, some physicists in Canada. They say they were able to obtain an accurate measurement of the polarity of a photon as well as an accurate measurement of how much the system was affected by the measurement. That is, they have been able to eliminate the measurement-related uncertainty predicted by Heisenberg.


And what is so certain about a principle in the first place?

Quantum uncertainty very certainly exists, but it seems that we don't necessarily produce it by taking measurements, as is generally (if a little sloppily) thought.


The only thing certain in any of it is that it has yet to truly be put to the test.

Actually, it has been put to the test; that's what the news is all about. They did an experiment. It worked.


Is there a majority certainty here? Because that's all it really needs.

This happened at a Canadian university, not in the Canadian Parliament.


And you cant measure momentum if momentum is the thing used to measure things, because there are no positions but those you want to measure.

Eh?



posted on Sep, 12 2012 @ 03:05 AM
link   
reply to post by Astyanax
 

Ah good enough, its not like it matters when its all said and done anyways. Didn't even read this paper that your talking about, sounds sort of interesting though.



Eh?


Ahha ya um. In-between a point and another point there is an infinity. And there not measuring anything, there linking points which in-turn are linked to other points, and by disregarding everything else they are dispelling there uncertainty.



posted on Sep, 12 2012 @ 12:19 PM
link   
Asty - tsk tsk. Scientific method requires that others confirm experimental results. Parliamentary procedure requires no such thing, though it occassionally requires a whip and sometimes a cudgel. I think that they might have gotten rid of the cudgel though.

That would make scientific method more like fascism - Majority Rules.



Originally posted by galadofwarthethird
reply to post by Astyanax
 

Ah good enough, its not like it matters when its all said and done anyways. Didn't even read this paper that your talking about, sounds sort of interesting though.



Eh?


Ahha ya um. In-between a point and another point there is an infinity. And there not measuring anything, there linking points which in-turn are linked to other points, and by disregarding everything else they are dispelling there uncertainty.


That is a great way of putting it.



posted on Sep, 13 2012 @ 09:05 AM
link   
reply to post by Aeons
 

Can't understand a word you're saying. I've been editing a book about marine mammals all day, and I must say whale song is currently making a lot more sense.



posted on Sep, 13 2012 @ 10:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by Astyanax
reply to post by Aeons
 

Can't understand a word you're saying. I've been editing a book about marine mammals all day, and I must say whale song is currently making a lot more sense.


Whales have an excellent sense of humour I bet. Maybe you could sing my post to them and they'll epxlain it to you. While sonar laughing.


Any experiment should be confirmed by getting similar results from other experimenters.

Some of those experimenters should probably open up their experiments to include measuring the equipment and the experimenters AND an entangled photo that is not being worked on to see what happens to it.



posted on Sep, 13 2012 @ 10:07 PM
link   
reply to post by Aeons
 

You always have a way of putting things down so eloquently you know, it totally all makes sense now.


I was half ass'd in responding to this thread, and probably half asleep as well when I wrote whatever I wrote in response, in fact I would not even remember this thread if it were not for the "replies" section in the tools/messages. But when you agree with me in such a eloquent way, in fact when you agree with me in any way. It does make me wonder and even ask myself....What could she be up to?

So anyways.... Basically your saying is that maybe, just maybe, I should start reading the threads before responding to them?

I will ponder on it.



posted on Sep, 13 2012 @ 10:19 PM
link   
reply to post by galadofwarthethird
 


I have a few other talents. Your half asleep answers are more interesting than most people's totally awake answers.

See, I do compliments. Of course, you're now suspicious. And I'm amused.

A tiny reaction in one place, but if you look too another related place, maybe you may find that the change came out there instead. It is practically physics.



posted on Sep, 14 2012 @ 10:35 AM
link   
reply to post by Aeons
 

So I suppose this is the part were I raise my hand and say "oh oh I have a question! So were would this related place that the change took place be at?"

Or do I have to guess. Or can we play the hot and cold game...I will name a area or place and you tell me if I am hot or cold....OK, here goes...Did this change take place somewhere in this solar system? So... Am I hot or cold? Hum... K, Maybe I need to get a bit more specific. Did this change take place within the area of my personal space?

You know how much I like to play the guessing game. But if were going to play that game we will be playing it forever. Because there are just to many things that my mind will guess at and could guess at, and I will tell you now. That most of those queses would be pretty far out there, and in all probability way off the mark you set.


And why is it every time you get all vibey that I get a little voice whispering in my ear to ignore you because your just trying to cause trouble for me? Not that I don't mind trouble, but still you know it is a bit annoying and I seem to end up playing the bad guy more oft then not. And when I look at you I sometimes get the feeling that you must off been one heck of a little Trouble maker



posted on Sep, 14 2012 @ 11:47 AM
link   
Why you measure the experimenter who is thinking about the photon might find that the gap is found in the head of the experimenters. Or measure the entangled photon. Or the equipment. If you're missing something, the first reaction should be to LOOK for it.

These conclusions are that if you are missing your car keys, your car must be a Ford and not a Toyota.

And *I* was a tiny bit of mystery, a study in uneven development, rolled up in a ball of cute and a bit of hidden trouble in a cloud of curiousity, and was the kid that was a teacher's pet...except when they hated my guts and wanted to date me, but that was in high school.

I might not actually have changed all that much.
edit on 2012/9/14 by Aeons because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 14 2012 @ 08:58 PM
link   
reply to post by Aeons
 

None of us really change all that much, we just like to think we do.

Second.



posted on Sep, 16 2012 @ 07:59 PM
link   
reply to post by Aeons
 


I do not believe that what they have found disturbs Quantum Entanglement at all. (Hmmm being entangled and violated
Science can be so erotic don't you think?)

Getting back i feel this is just a paper title that jumps the shark, even though the paper seems very valid and interesting, to my mind it is not Heisenberg UP being violated, but the methods of measuring the former. Basically saying if you watch a particle then you can't know where it is going or how fast, if you watch where it is going then you can't see the particle you only see a wave form, headed that way, this fast.

This new paper is saying that you can have both. If true then finally we can learn why light behaves differently when observed or not observed.

So what does this all mean to the Cat is my question ? I vote for Alive. and S. had a cat phobia is all.





new topics




 
11
<< 1   >>

log in

join