derek w

So the uncertainty is a question of the scale of the superposition of waves in the electrons environment? For example in a copper wire with a voltage applied across it,the scale of the superposition of waves would be high,therefore the uncertainty would be high. Where as in a vacuum the scale of superposition of waves would be very low but not zero,therefore the uncertainty would be low but not zero.

Whether it's the observer effect or the uncertainty principle,both come down to a superposition of waves.

And of what use is it to know this if it has changed. But this goes back to what i said in post(4) about the large hadron collider.

Yep,I think you have summed it up pretty well there. One question is the frequency of the photon changed when it bounces of the electron?

I agree with you,it's ElasticCollision you need to convince.And you don't know it's momentum after point B.

If you know the electron passed a detector at point A (x,y,z)=0,then 1 second later passed a detector a point B (x=10,y=0,z=0). Then your argument is that it has travelled 10 metres along the x axis in 1 second and should thereby in 1 second time arrive at point C (x=20,y=0,z=0). There would be an uncertainty about where point C is.

No,the double slit experiment produces the same result with electrons. And all sub atomic particles,atoms and some molecules such as Buckyballs.

The double slit experiment,proves that the electron does not simply go from point A to point B.

In an elastic collision the energy is conserved within the two particles. In a non elastic collision a photon would take away some of the energy,therefore the energy is not conserved within the two particles.

Because you interfered with the electron a point B,you don't know it's speed and momentum.

Point B will be at different places each time,each electron will travel away from point A in a different direction,because it was interfered with at point A. You cannot predict where point B will be.You can only say where point B is after the event. If you know point A and you know point B,and you know how much time it took to travel between A and B,you know it's position and velocity,but you don't because you interfered with it at point B.

The electron does not behave like a single point like object,it behaves like a wave function,therefore each electron will behave differently when detected at point A,point B will be different each time.

I tend to visualize a field of virtual particles that can oscillate between being a swarm of virtual particles where the energy is spread out,to being a real point like particle where all the energy is concentrated,the field of virtual particles collapsing to a single point like particle.

I suppose that you could say that for a fleeting moment in time the Large Hadron Collider at CERN,does what you are asking.

If you have an electron that was going to travel from an emitter at point( x,y,z=0) to a point on a detector at point (x=10,y=0,z=0). Measuring it's position at point A, you find it's position to be(x=3,y=0,z=0),however you have interfered with it's momentum. when you measure it,s position at point B,you find it's position to be(x=7,y=2,z=1),however once again you have interfered with it's momentum. you cannot predict at which point it will arrive at the detector(x=10,y=?,z=?),or if it misses the detector then (x=?,y=?,z=?).

Nobody knows!

In the case of a picket fence the posts are spaced longitudinally in the same direction as the fence,each post being a sequential step from one to the next. Light oscillates at 90 degrees to the direction of travel,and using the fence post analogy all the posts would arrive at the same time,not sequentially.

Different elements require different levels of energy to make or break a bond.

I don't see anywhere in the article that it say's Mars was closer to the sun,it only makes a hypothetical point of what Mars would be like if it were closer to the sun.

When the solar system first formed Mars would have had a higher internal heat,a molten planet,over time it has cooled down to its present temperature,at some point during this period of cooling it would have been at the right temperature to have a surface crust and liquid water on it's surface,the liquid water coming from meteor/asteroid collisions.

If I look at a swarm of(e.g. bees) from a large enough distance,it would look like a single object,occupying a single point in space and time. However zooming in closer,my point like object would start to occupy many points in space and time.what I see is determined by how close I can look.

From far enough away,an object of any shape will look and behave as a point-like object. And visa versa the closer you get to a point-like object the less it will behave like a point like-object and the more it will behave like an object with structure.

You can't lose the energy,it can only become more rarefied and therefore less chance of finding a photon at any given point.

You would move along an excitable medium.

The information that the the photon provides experiences no passage of time. A photon that takes 8 mins to travel from the sun to our eyes can only provide information about the point in space and time from which it originated,and anything that effects it on the way.