Is there a physicist in the house?

From: Geoffrey Thomas <>
Date: Fri Oct 31 16:46:22 2003

To get the real meaning you have to consider subatomic particles, in order
to know where something is or how fast it is going you have to interact with
it -
e.g. shine a light on it ,or if it is charged pass it through an
electromagnetic field perhaps. By doing so you give the "thing" a small
amount of energy which may alter it's speed or position.
So you have the situation - was it where we see it now before we shone the
light on it ?
Try measuring something without adding to, or taking away some of , it's
energy - very difficult.
Want to make some real money and a Nobel prize ?
-Sort that lot out.


----- Original Message -----
From: "Roger Merchberger" <>
To: "General Discussion: On-Topic and Off-Topic Posts"
Sent: Friday, October 31, 2003 6:40 AM
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
> 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
> 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
> ;-)
> Just my 0.000000000002 (wishing physics were required teaching in
> Roger "Merch" Merchberger
Received on Fri Oct 31 2003 - 16:46:22 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0 : Fri Oct 10 2014 - 23:36:24 BST