| Topic: |
Science > Physics |
| User: |
"Jimmy" |
| Date: |
25 Oct 2005 09:58:23 AM |
| Object: |
Quantum physics |
Hi! Can a particle be on 2 places at the same time? So no time exist on
there? Is it our perception that "creates" time then?
Thanks
.
|
|
| User: "Tice with a J" |
|
| Title: Re: Quantum physics |
25 Oct 2005 04:57:46 PM |
|
|
A particle cannot be in two places at once. Left to its own devices, a
particle can literally be everywhere, so it is nowhere. When it finally
interacts with another particle or group of particles, the particle's
position is defined and we know exactly where it is. It is only in one
place.
As for time, time is mostly a macroscopic phenomenon, linked to energy
flow. To an individual particle, time is arbitrary, but as particles
interact, entropy enters the equation, and from entropy comes time.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Androcles Androcles@ MyPlace.org" |
|
| Title: Re: Quantum physics |
25 Oct 2005 07:33:13 PM |
|
|
"Tice with a J" <lodo.bear@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1130277466.150551.49210@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
|A particle cannot be in two places at once. Left to its own devices, a
| particle can literally be everywhere
A particle cannot be in more than one place at a time.
Androcles.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Lefty" |
|
| Title: Re: Quantum physics |
26 Oct 2005 12:19:59 AM |
|
|
|A particle cannot be in two places at once. Left to its own devices, a
| particle can literally be everywhere
A particle cannot be in more than one place at a time.
Androcles.
If time is unobservable on that scale, then all dynamics "appear"
simultaneous. I dont know how much more obvious soemthing could possibly be.
And it makes perfect sense that something could be in two places at once,
but ONLY if time is either unobservable or nonexistent in that context.
Nonexistent time is absurd, time is not observable on all scales.
But this "two places at once" thing, this is an illusion.
My 2 cents.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Androcles Androcles@ MyPlace.org" |
|
| Title: Re: Quantum physics |
26 Oct 2005 04:22:15 AM |
|
|
"Lefty" <Ye@h.Right> wrote in message
news:XPednbaNR8JmaMPeRVn-rw@comcast.com...
|
| > |A particle cannot be in two places at once. Left to its own
devices, a
| > | particle can literally be everywhere
| >
| > A particle cannot be in more than one place at a time.
| >
| > Androcles.
| >
|
|
| If time is unobservable on that scale
Yawn...
Androcles.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Quantum physics |
25 Oct 2005 11:36:30 PM |
|
|
Lefty Where would time be unobservable?
You keep saying that scale causes it?
That means nothing to me.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Lefty" |
|
| Title: Re: Quantum physics |
26 Oct 2005 09:39:45 AM |
|
|
Lefty Where would time be unobservable?
You keep saying that scale causes it?
That means nothing to me.
Anywhere and everywhere that one might try to observe it for shorter than
Planck time.
No matter where you are, if you try to observe an interval of time which is
shorter than Planck time you wont be able to make the observation. Further
subdivisions really do exist, but are not observable by us.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Nick" |
|
| Title: Re: Quantum physics |
27 Oct 2005 12:37:58 AM |
|
|
Why lefty? WHY can't you measure shorter?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Lefty" |
|
| Title: Re: Quantum physics |
27 Oct 2005 10:15:01 AM |
|
|
Why lefty? WHY can't you measure shorter?
It's easier to think of the converse.
Try to measure something which is longer than the diameter of the universe.
This is easier to visualize. You have a rope which stretches all the way
across the universe, and each end actually just keeps on going.
However, because your ability to observe time is restricted, you can only
see part of the rope and the actual ends appear nonexistent because they are
too far away.
Same thing is true on Planck scale, just a slightly different arugment.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Nick" |
|
| Title: Re: Quantum physics |
27 Oct 2005 08:23:59 PM |
|
|
Lefty wrote:
Why lefty? WHY can't you measure shorter?
It's easier to think of the converse.
Try to measure something which is longer than the diameter of the universe.
This is easier to visualize. You have a rope which stretches all the way
across the universe, and each end actually just keeps on going.
However, because your ability to observe time is restricted, you can only
see part of the rope and the actual ends appear nonexistent because they are
too far away.
Same thing is true on Planck scale, just a slightly different arugment.
But you won't give the "slightly different" argument!!!
Lefty?
You crapped out.
What if light is emitted so close to a "black hole" that it is
redshifted such that it is larger than the universe? Where is it gonna
fit?
It's a Redshift Paradox.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Lefty" |
|
| Title: Re: Quantum physics |
27 Oct 2005 10:49:19 PM |
|
|
Lefty wrote:
Why lefty? WHY can't you measure shorter?
It's easier to think of the converse.
Try to measure something which is longer than the diameter of the
universe.
This is easier to visualize. You have a rope which stretches all the way
across the universe, and each end actually just keeps on going.
However, because your ability to observe time is restricted, you can
only
see part of the rope and the actual ends appear nonexistent because they
are
too far away.
Same thing is true on Planck scale, just a slightly different arugment.
But you won't give the "slightly different" argument!!!
Dude, it's the inverse of he argument I just gave.
Lefty?
You crapped out.
OK. You cant build a clock out of the whole universe, and you cant build a
clock smaller than Planck length, or a clock which ticks faster than Planck
time.
Imagine a piece of string which is 1 Planck length long. Planck says that
you cannot measure from the midpoint to an end of that string, and I dont
disagree with him. You just cant measure it, and the reason is because such
a small length is unobservable.
What if light is emitted so close to a "black hole" that it is
redshifted such that it is larger than the universe? Where is it gonna
fit?
It's a Redshift Paradox.
Starting to sound like group velocity stuff Nick - if you're not careful
they'll give you a degree.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Nick" |
|
| Title: Re: Quantum physics |
27 Oct 2005 09:09:16 PM |
|
|
Lefty wrote:
Lefty wrote:
Why lefty? WHY can't you measure shorter?
It's easier to think of the converse.
Try to measure something which is longer than the diameter of the
universe.
This is easier to visualize. You have a rope which stretches all the way
across the universe, and each end actually just keeps on going.
However, because your ability to observe time is restricted, you can
only
see part of the rope and the actual ends appear nonexistent because they
are
too far away.
Same thing is true on Planck scale, just a slightly different arugment.
But you won't give the "slightly different" argument!!!
Dude, it's the inverse of he argument I just gave.
Lefty?
You crapped out.
OK. You cant build a clock out of the whole universe, and you cant build a
clock smaller than Planck length,
yes but I have to ask why that's not possible
or a clock which ticks faster than Planck
time.
OK then what is the timerate of planktime? * This is your only mistake
lefty!!!
Imagine a piece of string which is 1 Planck length long. Planck says that
you cannot measure from the midpoint to an end of that string, and I dont
disagree with him. You just cant measure it, and the reason is because such
a small length is unobservable.
What if light is emitted so close to a "black hole" that it is
redshifted such that it is larger than the universe? Where is it gonna
fit?
It's a Redshift Paradox.
Starting to sound like group velocity stuff Nick - if you're not careful
they'll give you a degree.
The only time I see the size of the clock makes a difference is when
the clock occupies a great differential of gravity lefty. A clock near
a black hole will have tidal effects and the timerate is different at
different positions on the clock. The timerate at one point of the
clock could be greatly different then at another point; many times
different. What a strange clock!
Bravo Lefty!
mitch
.
|
|
|
| User: "Nick" |
|
| Title: Re: Quantum physics |
27 Oct 2005 09:16:35 PM |
|
|
Lefty if clocks are made up of planklengths how can a larger clock
measure?
Its made up of nonexistent times according to you!!!
Timerate is absolute. its everywhere no matter how small
how will we know when we find "the smallest?"
I know your afraid of absolutes
.
|
|
|
| User: "Lefty" |
|
| Title: Re: Quantum physics |
28 Oct 2005 01:08:56 AM |
|
|
Lefty if clocks are made up of planklengths how can a larger clock
measure?
Its made up of nonexistent times according to you!!!
Timerate is absolute. its everywhere no matter how small
how will we know when we find "the smallest?"
I know your afraid of absolutes
That's why I think that planck was smoking pot seeds. Time is continuous,
just like R. However, you cannot observe it with infinite resolution, there
is a limit to how far down you can observe, and that limit is Planck time.
I recieved an email from a colleague informing me that physicists at the
Batavia collider have burned an effigy of me for saying these things, it was
fashioned similar to a piniata and the scene was reminiscent of crazed
Iranians burning US flags made of tissue paper. they all took turns stomping
on it and yelling "ay-yei-yei-yei-yei".
.
|
|
|
| User: "Nick" |
|
| Title: Re: Quantum physics |
28 Oct 2005 12:26:15 AM |
|
|
How funny Lefty!!!
..
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Sam Wormley" |
|
| Title: Re: Quantum physics |
25 Oct 2005 10:29:09 AM |
|
|
Jimmy wrote:
Hi! Can a particle be on 2 places at the same time? So no time exist on
there? Is it our perception that "creates" time then?
Just because a particle can be many places simultaneously... why
do you think that implies "no time"?
.
|
|
|
| User: "eddie jw" |
|
| Title: Re: Quantum physics |
25 Oct 2005 10:25:07 AM |
|
|
I don't think they can be as particles at the same place at the same time
but probably as waves and when you look at it it manifests where you look.
If you had looked at the other place it would have been seen there.
"Sam Wormley" <swormley1@mchsi.com> wrote in message
news:9bs7f.475326$_o.256224@attbi_s71...
Jimmy wrote:
Hi! Can a particle be on 2 places at the same time? So no time exist on
there? Is it our perception that "creates" time then?
Just because a particle can be many places simultaneously... why
do you think that implies "no time"?
.
|
|
|
| User: "PD" |
|
| Title: Re: Quantum physics |
25 Oct 2005 02:28:58 PM |
|
|
eddie jw wrote:
I don't think they can be as particles at the same place at the same time
but probably as waves and when you look at it it manifests where you look.
If you had looked at the other place it would have been seen there.
"Sam Wormley" <swormley1@mchsi.com> wrote in message
news:9bs7f.475326$_o.256224@attbi_s71...
Jimmy wrote:
Hi! Can a particle be on 2 places at the same time? So no time exist on
there? Is it our perception that "creates" time then?
Just because a particle can be many places simultaneously... why
do you think that implies "no time"?
Then stop talking about them as particles or waves. What they are, are
things, like basketballs or electrons or photons. Those things are what
they are, exhibiting some properties like particles and some properties
like waves.
A thing, as it turns out, can be in more than one place at one time
(despite the adage). In fact, to get any predictability out of physics,
one has to include that likelihood in your calculations.
PD
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
