One Thing Is Certain: Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle Is Not Dead
Experimenters violate Heisenberg's original version of the famous maxim, but confirm a newer, clearer formulation
One Thing Is Certain: Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle Is Not Dead: Scientific American
Experimenters violate Heisenberg's original version of the famous maxim, but confirm a newer, clearer formulation
One Thing Is Certain: Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle Is Not Dead: Scientific American
the speed of light is a constant
If this is not the case, imagine the turmoil.
Let's look at Heisenburg's uncertainty principle:
If Heisenburg's uncertainty principle "falls apart", then everything we know or understand about solid state physics, quantum mechanics, and for that matter classical mechanics is just a happy coincidence. I don't think so.
Rather, I suspect that there is some sort of lower level communication or duplicity that occurs and these unknown and unobservable interactions or behaviours may provide an explanation to what appears to be a boundless speed of light. Else we all must be susceptible to mass delusions, or maybe LSD flashbacks 🙂.
If this is not the case, imagine the turmoil.
Let's look at Heisenburg's uncertainty principle:
△x *△p≳ℎ
What this says is that we cannot know the momentum of a particle and the location of the same particle simultaneously. But if we cannot limit the momentum of the particle (based on using the speed of light as the limit, and assuming there is a mass equivalent for what is essentially a massless particle, again based on the speed of light), then Heisenburg's uncertainty principle falls apart. Essentially for a given momentum, we cannot know a location. I haven't seen any of these claims yet.If Heisenburg's uncertainty principle "falls apart", then everything we know or understand about solid state physics, quantum mechanics, and for that matter classical mechanics is just a happy coincidence. I don't think so.
Rather, I suspect that there is some sort of lower level communication or duplicity that occurs and these unknown and unobservable interactions or behaviours may provide an explanation to what appears to be a boundless speed of light. Else we all must be susceptible to mass delusions, or maybe LSD flashbacks 🙂.
Having the speed of light as a speed limit does not limit momentum - see Wikipedia. If we know momentum exactly, then we don't know position. Normal modern physics, demonstrated in experiments. I'm not sure what exactly you are saying.Nanook said:
Note that Heisenberg originally derived his principle using non-relativistic quantum mechanics (as that was all he had) where there is no speed limit.
It is some Greek in the middle, but at top and bottom is Russian.
Now, one more picture, Russian at bottom reads, "Doctors' Strike" 😀
Attachments
I wonder how exactly ‘constant’ is being defined?
The way I see it, it could mean that light travels at a constant (steady) speed, or it could mean that the speed of light with its possible variations is taken as a ‘constant’ for the sake of performing calculations, if its the latter then the speed of light is inherently constant
The way I see it, it could mean that light travels at a constant (steady) speed, or it could mean that the speed of light with its possible variations is taken as a ‘constant’ for the sake of performing calculations, if its the latter then the speed of light is inherently constant
So last month. The original measurement was in error due to a bad fiber connection on the clock. I guess it takes the BBC several weeks.
What was news today is an experiment doing communication by neutrinos through 240K of solid rock. In theory, you could communicate directly through the earth. Solid, from our perspective, as to a neutrino, pretty much open space.
Gee, would it prove (or disprove) that you can go faster than the speed of light if I give out the Powerball numbers for the next drawing?
7, 17, 23, 38, 49 & 18!
7, 17, 23, 38, 49 & 18!
The capture crossection of the neutrino would yield virtually no SNR. You would probably be lucky to equal some of the ULF submarine comms.
You misunderstand. This is a different experiment by a different group, and they have just announced their first timing results. They were not originally interested in timing, but have now added the required data from CERN to their analysis. So up to date.tvrgeek said:
If v > c in the Lorentz transformations you get a square root of a negative number (imaginary number). If superluminal velocities are possible, then maybe the Lorentz transformations don't apply. If time went backwards wouldn't length and mass be negative, too?
Would we notice if all mass and length suddenly became negative?
The gravitational field formulae would still hold: having M1 and M2 negative would mean their product would still be positive, so we'd still be attached to the Earth.
If length became negative... Well, just measure from the other end. 😉
Chris
- Status
- Not open for further replies.