Is there a physicist in the house?

From: Gooijen H <GOOI_at_oce.nl>
Date: Fri Oct 31 07:13:47 2003

Well, from what I understood from quantum physics, it is *not*
possible to know location and speed (spin) at the *same* time.
Also when you measure the <thing> (particle) you *influence*
its behaviour.
Note that I never had any quantum physics course, but this is
what I seem to remember from watching the Discovery Channel.

Paramount has a technician on their pay role for technical
correctness in the StarTrek series. So, when they use the
transporter to change matter in energy and then, at an other
location, materialise the object/person from energy they have
to solve the problem of the "uncertainty principle" formulated
by the German (von?) Heisenberg. To make the transporter in a
technical way plausible they added the "Heisenberg compensation
coils" to solve the above described problem.
Now, *how* those Heisenberg compensation coils operate, that's
a complete different story ...

  have a nice weekend all,
- Henk.


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Roger Merchberger [mailto:zmerch_at_30below.com]
> Sent: vrijdag 31 oktober 2003 7:41
> To: General Discussion: On-Topic and Off-Topic Posts
> Subject: Re: Is there a physicist in the house?
>
>
> At 22:36 10/30/2003 -0600, you wrote:
>
> >Heisenberg says we can't know the speed of <thing> and it's
> location at
> >the same time.
>
> IANAP (;-) but I would think that for this to be true, it
> would have to be
> an infinitely short period of time...
>
>
> >What if I concentrate on location while timing <thing>
> >
> >ie <thing> is at "5" and 1 second later it's at "35" is it
> not going "30"
> >per second?
> >and while it was going 30 per second didn't I see it at 5 and 35?
>
> 1) Not enough information to form an hypothesis... Is <thing>
> going in a
> straight line or circle? (I was actually thinking chain
> printers when I
> read this...
> ;-)
>
> 2) your statement of '30 per second' *assumes* it's at a
> constant speed...
> what if it's not? It could have started at '20 per second'
> and ended at '50
> per second'...
>
> 3) When you said "see it at 5 and 35" if you meant to append
> "At The Same
> Time" then it would have to be at two places at once... which
> is a totally
> different problem... ;-)
>
> 4) This might actually help: Once you saw it at 35, and using
> the time it
> took to calculate that it was going "30 per hour," it's not
> technically at
> 35 anymore, so 1) isn't at that location and/or 2) could have
> changed speed
> by that time... so the next time you 'saw' it at a new
> location (let's say
> 35.5) it has either changed speed or location...
>
> >(note to a real physicist this question is probably meaningless...)
>
> Note: I'm just a stupid geek... so these answers are probably
> meaningless...
> ;-)
>
> Just my 0.000000000002 (wishing physics were required
> teaching in school...),
>
> Roger "Merch" Merchberger
Received on Fri Oct 31 2003 - 07:13:47 GMT