Jump to content

ElasticCollision

Senior Members
  • Content Count

    62
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

-1 Poor

About ElasticCollision

  • Rank
    Meson

Profile Information

  • Location
    UK
  • Interests
    Politics
    Physics
    Biology
  • College Major/Degree
    Studying BA(hons) Politics & Social Policy
  • Favorite Area of Science
    Quantum physics
  • Biography
    H. Sapien
  1. Crikey, so for asking a question and pointing out how very unhelpful someone is being in answering it, I get negative reputation. Doubt I'll be using this site much more now, awful.
  2. -Not answering my question. -Asking questions without a question mark. -Asking questions before answering mine. -Not explaining what "it" is. -Referring back to something which hadn't solved anything anyway. -Causing the entire conversation to go in circles. Good day to you Sir.
  3. Firstly you're looking at it the wrong way. You don't need to convince me, you need to try and educate me. I'm not saying I don't believe the Heisenberg principle, I'm saying that I don't understand how the idea I have put forward wouldn't work. I get that detecting an electron changes it's path. But if you manage to eventually detect one that goes through point A and then point B, despite it's change in path, you will have still found it's exact position for that incredibly brief period of time and you could use the time taken for it to move from point A to point B to infer it's speed.
  4. If the size of an electron is unknown, then it seems my original question could have been cleared up extremely quickly.
  5. How can you be uncertain? if you are measuring an area that is only the size of an electron, then if the electron is anywhere other than in the path of the detector, it will not be detected.
  6. Right, I wasn't directly thinking of them as such, it was just an analogy. And I don't see what is uncertain: If you have detected an electron within the maximum space an electron can fill, at two points, then how have you not detected both it's position and momentum with certainty?
  7. But I don't understand how you get a different "number" each time. Whatever that number even represents still hasn't been explained to me. If electrons were the size of footballs and you had a device measuring an area the size of a football in two points, whether it moved through point A and point B in a straight line or in a wave motion, wouldn't you still get a precise reading of it's position and momentum/speed/velocity?
  8. I need a better answer to my original question before I can start thinking about this.
  9. Seems I'm getting a bit out of my depth, but as I'm fascinated I can't help but ask: What number do you get? what does it represent? and why doesn't it reflect the reality?
  10. I see. But in theory, could you not fire hundreds of electrons from a set point A to a set point B, and wait for one which happens to pass through A and B (given that A and B are both measuring an area the size of only one electron), allowing you to know that one particular electron's position and speed with certainty.
  11. I'm still not sure I completely understand. It will be different at point B from point A in what way?
  12. I'm not sure I understand. If the same electrons were detected at both point A and point B, their position and speed will have been defined with certainty, wouldn't they?
  13. After Obama won it, I think it lost a lot of credibility. Now it has just become meaningless in my mind. The EU have done nothing to create peace in Europe. Just look at the situation in Greece, Spain, Germany, Italy, etc.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.