| Topic: |
Science > Physics |
| User: |
"Joe Jakarta" |
| Date: |
07 Jun 2006 04:28:54 AM |
| Object: |
The Imperious Demands of Quantum Mechanics |
The position of an electron, photon etc at an unmeasured time is,
according to QM, totally unrestricted. It could be *anywhere*.
This appears not only to ***** a snook at special relativity, which
requires a body not to exceed c (from a measured position at time t[0]
to another at time t[1]), but also appears to rule out finite, closed
universes (possible in GR), DEMANDING INFINITE EUCLIDEAN SPACE --
otherwise it would be restricted, mais oui?
Your comments on this matter, ladies and gentlemen?
.
|
|
| User: "Bill Hobba" |
|
| Title: Re: The Imperious Demands of Quantum Mechanics |
07 Jun 2006 08:22:33 PM |
|
|
"Joe Jakarta" <brightice2001@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:1149672534.341224.48290@f6g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
The position of an electron, photon etc at an unmeasured time is,
according to QM, totally unrestricted. It could be *anywhere*.
Where do you get that idea from? If we know it position exactly then its
momentum can be anything so it could scoot of anywhere. If fact it is this
juggling act that stops an electron collapsing into the nucleus - if it was
in the nucleus then we know its position very accurately so it will soon
depart.
This appears not only to ***** a snook at special relativity, which
requires a body not to exceed c (from a measured position at time t[0]
to another at time t[1]), but also appears to rule out finite, closed
universes (possible in GR), DEMANDING INFINITE EUCLIDEAN SPACE --
otherwise it would be restricted, mais oui?
Your comments on this matter, ladies and gentlemen?
Learn what QM actually says before making comments.
Bill
.
|
|
|
| User: "Joe Jakarta" |
|
| Title: Re: The Imperious Demands of Quantum Mechanics |
08 Jun 2006 06:29:04 AM |
|
|
Bill Hobba wrote:
"Joe Jakarta" <brightice2001@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:1149672534.341224.48290@f6g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
The position of an electron, photon etc at an unmeasured time is,
according to QM, totally unrestricted. It could be *anywhere*.
Where do you get that idea from? If we know it position exactly then its
momentum can be anything so it could scoot of[f] anywhere.
Well, there you are. (Wherever "there" might be ...)
This appears not only to ***** a snook at special relativity, which
requires a body not to exceed c (from a measured position at time t[0]
to another at time t[1]), but also appears to rule out finite, closed
universes (possible in GR), DEMANDING INFINITE EUCLIDEAN SPACE --
otherwise it would be restricted, mais oui?
Your comments on this matter, ladies and gentlemen?
Learn what QM actually says before making comments.
A wise old owl sat in an oak,
The more he heard, the less he spoke;
The less he spoke, the more he heard;
Why aren't we all like that wise old bird?
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "N:dlzc D:aol T:com \dlzc\ N: dlzc1 D:cox" |
|
| Title: Re: The Imperious Demands of Quantum Mechanics |
07 Jun 2006 08:17:43 AM |
|
|
Dear Joe Jakarta:
"Joe Jakarta" <brightice2001@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:1149672534.341224.48290@f6g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
The position of an electron, photon etc at an
unmeasured time is, according to QM, totally
unrestricted. It could be *anywhere*.
Position and *momentum* are conjugate pairs, not position and
"unmeasured time".
This appears not only to ***** a snook at
special relativity, which requires a body not to
exceed c (from a measured position at time
t[0] to another at time t[1]),
A body is not a quantum particle. It takes a *system* to enforce
c.
but also appears to rule out finite, closed
universes (possible in GR),
No it does not.
DEMANDING INFINITE EUCLIDEAN SPACE --
otherwise it would be restricted, mais oui?
No. Spacetime is a statistical artifact of large systems, and
isn't "demanded" to do anything other than allow the various
conservation laws to play out. And they don't do that if the
spacetime is Euclidian, and they don't and can't do that in
infinite spacetime.
Your comments on this matter, ladies
and gentlemen?
Have another beer.
David A. Smith
.
|
|
|
| User: "Joe Jakarta" |
|
| Title: Re: The Imperious Demands of Quantum Mechanics |
08 Jun 2006 06:20:10 AM |
|
|
Dear N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc), aka
N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc) wrote:
Dear Joe Jakarta:
"Joe Jakarta" <brightice2001@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:1149672534.341224.48290@f6g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
The position of an electron, photon etc at an
unmeasured time is, according to QM, totally
unrestricted. It could be *anywhere*.
Position and *momentum* are conjugate pairs, not position and
"unmeasured time".
Position is measured at t(0). The probably wave then spreads out, so
that at any later time t(1) it is *infinitely uncertain* (though some
places are more likely than others).
This appears not only to ***** a snook at
special relativity, which requires a body not to
exceed c (from a measured position at time
t[0] to another at time t[1]),
A body is not a quantum particle. It takes a *system* to enforce
c.
but also appears to rule out finite, closed
universes (possible in GR),
No it does not.
DEMANDING INFINITE EUCLIDEAN SPACE --
otherwise it would be restricted, mais oui?
No. Spacetime is a statistical artifact of large systems, and
isn't "demanded" to do anything other than allow the various
conservation laws to play out. And they don't do that if the
spacetime is Euclidian, and they don't and can't do that in
infinite spacetime.
Your comments on this matter, ladies
and gentlemen?
Have another beer.
I will if you're buying.
David A. Smith
.
|
|
|
| User: "N:dlzc D:aol T:com \dlzc\ N: dlzc1 D:cox" |
|
| Title: Re: The Imperious Demands of Quantum Mechanics |
08 Jun 2006 08:22:10 AM |
|
|
Dear Joe Jakarta:
"Joe Jakarta" <brightice2001@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:1149765610.077107.266750@g10g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Dear N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc), aka
N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc) wrote:
Dear Joe Jakarta:
"Joe Jakarta" <brightice2001@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:1149672534.341224.48290@f6g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
The position of an electron, photon etc at an
unmeasured time is, according to QM, totally
unrestricted. It could be *anywhere*.
Position and *momentum* are conjugate pairs,
not position and "unmeasured time".
Position is measured at t(0). The probably wave
then spreads out, so that at any later time t(1) it
is *infinitely uncertain* (though some places are
more likely than others).
What is "unmeasured" about t(0) and t(1)?
David A. Smith
.
|
|
|
| User: "Joe Jakarta" |
|
| Title: Re: The Imperious Demands of Quantum Mechanics |
10 Jun 2006 05:30:49 AM |
|
|
N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc) wrote:
Dear Joe Jakarta:
"Joe Jakarta" <brightice2001@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:1149765610.077107.266750@g10g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Dear N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc), aka
N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc) wrote:
Dear Joe Jakarta:
"Joe Jakarta" <brightice2001@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:1149672534.341224.48290@f6g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
The position of an electron, photon etc at an
unmeasured time is, according to QM, totally
unrestricted. It could be *anywhere*.
Position and *momentum* are conjugate pairs,
not position and "unmeasured time".
Position is measured at t(0). The probably wave
then spreads out, so that at any later time t(1) it
is *infinitely uncertain* (though some places are
more likely than others).
What is "unmeasured" about t(0) and t(1)?
Do excuse my over-brevity. I meant "unmeasured time" as shorthand for
(any particular --obviously measured!) later time t(1), for which the
*physical parameters of the particle* are unmeasured.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Phineas T Puddleduck" |
|
| Title: Re: The Imperious Demands of Quantum Mechanics |
08 Jun 2006 06:22:07 AM |
|
|
In article <1149765610.077107.266750@g10g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>, Joe
Jakarta <brightice2001@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
Dear N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc), aka
N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc) wrote:
Dear Joe Jakarta:
"Joe Jakarta" <brightice2001@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:1149672534.341224.48290@f6g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
The position of an electron, photon etc at an
unmeasured time is, according to QM, totally
unrestricted. It could be *anywhere*.
Position and *momentum* are conjugate pairs, not position and
"unmeasured time".
Position is measured at t(0). The probably wave then spreads out, so
that at any later time t(1) it is *infinitely uncertain* (though some
places are more likely than others).
How can it be infinitely uncertain and yet more like at others.
Position and momentum are linked and the uncertainty in delta p delta x
is h bar over 2
--
The greatest enemy of science is psuedoscience.
Jaffa cakes. Sweet delicious orangey jaffa goodness, and an abject lesson why
parroting information from the web will not teach you cosmology.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Phineas T Puddleduck" |
|
| Title: Re: The Imperious Demands of Quantum Mechanics |
07 Jun 2006 04:34:25 AM |
|
|
In article <1149672534.341224.48290@f6g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>, Joe
Jakarta <brightice2001@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
The position of an electron, photon etc at an unmeasured time is,
according to QM, totally unrestricted. It could be *anywhere*.
This appears not only to ***** a snook at special relativity, which
requires a body not to exceed c (from a measured position at time t[0]
to another at time t[1]), but also appears to rule out finite, closed
universes (possible in GR), DEMANDING INFINITE EUCLIDEAN SPACE --
otherwise it would be restricted, mais oui?
Your comments on this matter, ladies and gentlemen?
The fact that QM and Relativity don't mesh isn't exactly new news. Also
see the fact QM should predict a tumultous spacetime at incredibly
small scales, where GR says spacetime is smooth. Its known.
--
The greatest enemy of science is psuedoscience.
"Time is pseudo-directional because randomness is always pseudo-random..."
Jeff revolutionises physics in sci.physics.
"Now there's two stuck naysay lose cannons and a third sick puppy on the way."
Brad tries to reason with the voices in his head...
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: The Imperious Demands of Quantum Mechanics |
07 Jun 2006 05:54:04 AM |
|
|
Phineas T Puddleduck wrote:
In article <1149672534.341224.48290@f6g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>, Joe
Jakarta <brightice2001@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
The position of an electron, photon etc at an unmeasured time is,
according to QM, totally unrestricted. It could be *anywhere*.
Nope. Violates constructivism.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Rock Brentwood" |
|
| Title: Re: The Imperious Demands of Quantum Mechanics |
08 Jun 2006 05:57:48 PM |
|
|
Joe Jakarta wrote:
The position of an electron, photon etc at an unmeasured time is,
according to QM, [sic] totally unrestricted. It could be *anywhere*.
It's only partially unrestricted.
In what is known as a coherent state, a system's position and momentum
are given by Gaussian distributions at what are generally very narrow
widths -- usually less than that resolvable by a mere human.
Thus, it's your eyes that make everything seem everywhere, as smeared
out in both space and time as your vision actually makes things appear
to be; much more so than physics, per se. So it's a little ironic to
condemn modern physics for a feature that you, yourself, possess at
1000's or 1000000's time greater degree!
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Ali Tavakoly" |
|
| Title: Re: The Imperious Demands of Quantum Mechanics |
07 Jun 2006 12:44:33 PM |
|
|
Joe Jakarta wrote:
The position of an electron, photon etc at an unmeasured time is,
according to QM, totally unrestricted. It could be *anywhere*.
This appears not only to ***** a snook at special relativity, which
requires a body not to exceed c (from a measured position at time t[0]
to another at time t[1]), but also appears to rule out finite, closed
universes (possible in GR), DEMANDING INFINITE EUCLIDEAN SPACE --
otherwise it would be restricted, mais oui?
Your comments on this matter, ladies and gentlemen?
the electron can be anywhere within the space of it's orbit.
The net velocity of any electron is 0 though it's speed is very
high(relatively speaking). It cannot go as fast as light a and still be
within the confides of it's orbit. If you think about the distance it
needs to travel, even with high pi orbitals. you can walk at a literary
pace and still go several magnitudes of speed higher then an electron.
here is a good analogy. Ever see the stunt bike drivers who ride their
bikes around a metal see through sphere?
I have no idea about a photon. Do you mean photon of light?
--
<a href="http://www.livejournal.com/users/ali_sama/">My Live Journal</a>
"In eternal damnation we sow the seeds of man, so we may delight in
their pain and sorrow, basking them in our infinite love.."
Charles reed March 21, 2230
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Dave" |
|
| Title: Re: The Imperious Demands of Quantum Mechanics |
07 Jun 2006 02:31:26 PM |
|
|
Joe Jakarta wrote:
The position of an electron, photon etc at an unmeasured time is,
according to QM, totally unrestricted. It could be *anywhere*.
This appears not only to ***** a snook at special relativity, which
requires a body not to exceed c (from a measured position at time t[0]
to another at time t[1]), but also appears to rule out finite, closed
universes (possible in GR), DEMANDING INFINITE EUCLIDEAN SPACE --
otherwise it would be restricted, mais oui?
Your comments on this matter, ladies and gentlemen?
Quantum mechanics does "***** a snook" at special relativity, because
the propogation amplitudes of non-relativistic and even relativistic QM
violate causality, the premise that no information may propogate
between two points of space-like separation. The propogation amplitude
for two position eigenstates is small but non-zero for any arbitrary
time of propogation. This is not because a particle can be anywhere
though.
However there is no problem if one turns to quantum field theory, which
solves the causality problem. Quantum field theory is the formalism
that the standard model is done in.
As for the size of the universe QM imposes no restrictions on the size
of the universe: a particle can be contained within a finite universe,
the normalisation of the wave-function (where possible) is then for
this whole finite universe. It is often an assumption in quantum
mechanical calculations that wave-functions tend to zero at infinity or
on the boundary of the region one is dealing with (for one thing it
allows one to assume the Hermiticity of the dynamical operators on the
whole Hilbert space). Though one usually confines processes to finite
areas of space anyway, boxes and such like.
QM as a formalism does not demand that the global nature of space-time
be Euclidean. Since such small distances are involved in the process QM
deals with it is a sensible simplification to take space-time to be
Euclidean, i.e. the local geometry of space-time, which is almost
Euclidean any way (as space-time is a manifold). However, QM does not
impose any requirement on the global properties of space-time, i.e. its
properties over large distances, and quantum field theory is perfectly
compatable with curved space-times. [I said curved space-times, not
gravity, there's a difference, before anyone jumps on me for saying no
one has united QFT and GR.]
Phineas T Puddleduck wrote:
The fact that QM and Relativity don't mesh isn't exactly new news. Also
see the fact QM should predict a tumultous spacetime at incredibly
small scales, where GR says spacetime is smooth. Its known.
QM and general relativity don't go well together, to clarify, in case
any one reads this as QM and special relativity don't mesh. They do of
course, and rather well.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Joe Jakarta" |
|
| Title: Re: The Imperious Demands of Quantum Mechanics |
08 Jun 2006 06:32:48 AM |
|
|
Dave wrote:
[...]
As for the size of the universe QM imposes no restrictions on the size
of the universe: a particle can be contained within a finite universe,
the normalisation of the wave-function (where possible) is then for
this whole finite universe.
So what happens in smaller and smaller universes? Particle randomness
is increasingly restricted ....
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Phineas T PuddleDuck" |
|
| Title: Re: The Imperious Demands of Quantum Mechanics |
07 Jun 2006 02:33:57 PM |
|
|
In article <1149708686.283791.48900@i39g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
"Dave" <general_sniper@hotmail.com> wrote:
Phineas T Puddleduck wrote:
The fact that QM and Relativity don't mesh isn't exactly new news. Also
see the fact QM should predict a tumultous spacetime at incredibly
small scales, where GR says spacetime is smooth. Its known.
QM and general relativity don't go well together, to clarify, in case
any one reads this as QM and special relativity don't mesh. They do of
course, and rather well.
Poor choice of English on my part.
--
The greatest enemy of science is psuedoscience.
"Time is pseudo-directional because randomness is always pseudo-random..."
Jeff revolutionises physics in sci.physics.
"Now there's two stuck naysay lose cannons and a third sick puppy on the way."
Brad tries to reason with the voices in his head...
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: The Imperious Demands of Quantum Mechanics |
10 Jun 2006 07:57:37 AM |
|
|
Joe Jakarta wrote:
The position of an electron, photon etc at an unmeasured time is,
according to QM, totally unrestricted. It could be *anywhere*.
Well according to QM wave-functions also exist.
But QM has never really cared about such things
as accuracy of representation and completeness of models.
This appears not only to ***** a snook at special relativity, which
requires a body not to exceed c (from a measured position at time t[0]
to another at time t[1]), but also appears to rule out finite, closed
universes (possible in GR), DEMANDING INFINITE EUCLIDEAN SPACE --
otherwise it would be restricted, mais oui?
The only people who ever required bodies to not exceed
are physics internet Al Gore retards
The only thing Einstein ever required is
that the v and c are not interchangable.
Your comments on this matter, ladies and gentlemen?
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "PD" |
|
| Title: Re: The Imperious Demands of Quantum Mechanics |
07 Jun 2006 09:49:54 AM |
|
|
Joe Jakarta wrote:
The position of an electron, photon etc at an unmeasured time is,
according to QM, totally unrestricted. It could be *anywhere*.
No, you do not understand what QM is saying.
It does NOT say, for example, that if you measure the position to be A
at some time t0, and then you measure the momentum at some later time
t1, that the position is so undetermined that it could be *anywhere*
relative to A. I don't know where you got that idea.
This appears not only to ***** a snook at special relativity, which
requires a body not to exceed c (from a measured position at time t[0]
to another at time t[1]), but also appears to rule out finite, closed
universes (possible in GR), DEMANDING INFINITE EUCLIDEAN SPACE --
otherwise it would be restricted, mais oui?
Your comments on this matter, ladies and gentlemen?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bill Hobba" |
|
| Title: Re: The Imperious Demands of Quantum Mechanics |
07 Jun 2006 08:29:25 PM |
|
|
"PD" <TheDraperFamily@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1149691794.934848.69530@g10g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Joe Jakarta wrote:
The position of an electron, photon etc at an unmeasured time is,
according to QM, totally unrestricted. It could be *anywhere*.
No, you do not understand what QM is saying.
It does NOT say, for example, that if you measure the position to be A
at some time t0, and then you measure the momentum at some later time
t1, that the position is so undetermined that it could be *anywhere*
relative to A. I don't know where you got that idea.
Just to expand a bit on what PD says: if we know the position exactly it
could have any momentum - but also from the principles of QM such an state
immediately 'spreads out' ie its position is no longer known exactly so its
momentum becomes more certain. Look up the behavior of wave packets.
Thanks
Bill
This appears not only to ***** a snook at special relativity, which
requires a body not to exceed c (from a measured position at time t[0]
to another at time t[1]), but also appears to rule out finite, closed
universes (possible in GR), DEMANDING INFINITE EUCLIDEAN SPACE --
otherwise it would be restricted, mais oui?
Your comments on this matter, ladies and gentlemen?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ali Tavakoly" |
|
| Title: Re: The Imperious Demands of Quantum Mechanics |
08 Jun 2006 05:57:30 AM |
|
|
Bill Hobba wrote:
"PD" <TheDraperFamily@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1149691794.934848.69530@g10g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Joe Jakarta wrote:
The position of an electron, photon etc at an unmeasured time is,
according to QM, totally unrestricted. It could be *anywhere*.
No, you do not understand what QM is saying.
It does NOT say, for example, that if you measure the position to be A
at some time t0, and then you measure the momentum at some later time
t1, that the position is so undetermined that it could be *anywhere*
relative to A. I don't know where you got that idea.
Just to expand a bit on what PD says: if we know the position exactly it
could have any momentum - but also from the principles of QM such an state
immediately 'spreads out' ie its position is no longer known exactly so its
momentum becomes more certain. Look up the behavior of wave packets.
Thanks
Bill
This appears not only to ***** a snook at special relativity, which
requires a body not to exceed c (from a measured position at time t[0]
to another at time t[1]), but also appears to rule out finite, closed
universes (possible in GR), DEMANDING INFINITE EUCLIDEAN SPACE --
otherwise it would be restricted, mais oui?
Your comments on this matter, ladies and gentlemen?
once you know where it is, you alter it's position. We see it by
essentially hitting it. It is like playing blind billiards with your
cue ball being the only visible object. You know you hit a ball and it
existed at that position once. One you did find that out, you changed
it's position, hence, you know jack.
--
<a href="http://www.livejournal.com/users/ali_sama/">My Live Journal</a>
"In eternal damnation we sow the seeds of man, so we may delight in
their pain and sorrow, basking them in our infinite love.."
Charles reed March 21, 2230
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bilge" |
|
| Title: Re: The Imperious Demands of Quantum Mechanics |
10 Jun 2006 12:12:44 PM |
|
|
Ali Tavakoly:
once you know where it is, you alter it's position.
While that might e an experimental reality, it has nothing to
do with the origin of the uncertainty relations. The indeterminacy
in conjugate observables is intrinsic. In other words, what quantum
mechanics is saying is that particles do not _have_ well defined
positions and momenta simultaneously. You can't measure something
that doesn't exist.
We see it by
essentially hitting it. It is like playing blind billiards with your
cue ball being the only visible object. You know you hit a ball and it
existed at that position once. One you did find that out, you changed
it's position, hence, you know jack.
If that were true, it would always be possible to construct some
experiment in which the disturbance created by the measurement allowed
a measurement of the conjugate observable such that the uncertainty
relations were violated. You are free to try and create such an
experiment. It would certainly win you a nobel prize, since you
will have proven quantum mechanics is wrong by succeeding.
.
|
|
|
| User: "brian a m stuckless" |
|
| Title: Re: The Imperious Demands of Quantum Mechanics |
12 Jun 2006 12:50:08 PM |
|
|
$$ Bilge wrote: > > Ali Tavakoly: >
once you know where it is, you alter it's position.
While that might e an experimental reality, it has nothing to
do with the origin of the uncertainty relations. The indeterminacy
in conjugate observables is intrinsic. In other words, what quantum
mechanics is saying is that particles do not _have_ well defined
positions and momenta simultaneously.
$$ Hiesenberg was NOT WRONG just because he got caught too OFTEN
$$ trying to (focus) on BOTH ends of a VELOCiTY vector, at ONCE.
$$
$$ ACTiON only HAPPENs *between* ADjACENT points, in SPACE-time.
$$ ACTiON only HAPPENs *between* ADjACENT points on a time-LiNE.
You can't measure something that doesn't exist.
$$ Like WHAT, AXLE-nut's mental CONE-of-DiVERGENT-EMPTiNESS?.
$$ Yet EMPHATiC about a CONE not getting BiGGER along it's axis.
$$ Yet EMPHATiC about a CONE mentally NOT getting BiG as MEASURED.
$$ Please explain this again, Bilge. What is it i'm missing there?.
$$ You're SO GOooOD with SR, QFT & GR ..even GR-"UNreachable" stuff.
$$ And PLEeeese Bilge, briefly explain your own term .."UNreachable".
We see it by essentially hitting it. It is like playing blind
billiards with your cue ball being the only visible object. You
now you hit a ball and it existed at that position once. One
you did find that out, you changed it's position, hence, you
know jack.
If that were true, it would always be possible to construct some
experiment in which the disturbance created by the measurement allowed
a measurement of the conjugate observable such that the uncertainty
relations were violated. You are free to try and create such an
experiment. It would certainly win you a nobel prize, since you
will have proven quantum mechanics is wrong by succeeding.
Re: The Imperious Demands of Quantum Mechanics.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Tom Roberts" |
|
| Title: Re: The Imperious Demands of Quantum Mechanics |
07 Jun 2006 05:36:57 PM |
|
|
Joe Jakarta wrote:
The position of an electron, photon etc at an unmeasured time is,
according to QM, totally unrestricted. It could be *anywhere*. [...]
I think you should learn what QM _actually_says_ rather than attempting
to encapsulate it in a sound bite and then pointing out how silly your
straw man is.
Tom Roberts
.
|
|
|
| User: "Joe Jakarta" |
|
| Title: Re: The Imperious Demands of Quantum Mechanics |
08 Jun 2006 06:12:41 AM |
|
|
Tom Roberts wrote:
Joe Jakarta wrote:
The position of an electron, photon etc at an unmeasured time is,
according to QM, totally unrestricted. It could be *anywhere*. [...]
I think you should learn what QM _actually_says_ rather than attempting
to encapsulate it in a sound bite and then pointing out how silly your
straw man is.
Unless it's Jack Straw! ;-D
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
