Thank you, Russ. One further question about your statement below:
Since water is very slightly compressible - and that compression, in a natural deep water environment, would come from the weight of the water - would I expect somewhat less water resistance in a lower gravity environment?
I hope this is the best sub-forum for this question:
How direct is the relationship between water pressure and the weight of the water, as determined by the local gravity where the water is?
In other words - let's say we have a submersible with a crush depth of 1000 feet on Earth. If we...
Thanks again, Zapper. I must admit I'm very dependent on the "words", since my math knowledge doesn't extend beyond everyday algebra and Euclidean geometry. I'm always conscious when I read about physics that I am reading a "translation" from math to English, and that was my motivation for...
Thanks, Zapper.
How do you feel about Pagel's statement? Do you feel it's an exaggeration to talk about "electrons springing into existence" when some observation on them is made?
Zapper, the way I have understood things up to now is that with a quantum particle, when I look at non-commuting observables, I can choose one of the observables and measure it with arbitrary precision, at the expense of decreasing accuracy of measurements of the other non-commuting observable...
So sorry - I don't know what a bucky ball is and assumed it was something macroscopic.
Nevertheless - if I fire macroscopic particles like bullets at a slit, I will get a Bell curve distribution behind the slit. It's still a distribution - it still describes the probability of finding a...
Point taken. I'd just say that if we're haggling over something moot because I've interpreted it wrong - that's part of what I aim to find out.
Your overall point, if I understand it, is that even classical, macroscopic objects can be described with probabilities - that uncertainties exist...
jtbell said:
"And we all know how accurate descriptions for laymen usually are..."
That's exactly why I am here, sir. :smile:
Zapper - when I post questions here, I phrase things in my own words for a very good reason - if I can't summarize what I read in my own words, I don't...
Hello, folks -
The descriptions I read for laymen say that once a particle is measured or observed, it's wave function collapses and it becomes a well defined, deterministic object. Then if that same particle remains unobserved after the intitial measurement, the wave function re-emerges...
selfadjoint, marcus - you are right, I guess I did latch onto that one statement by DaveC. Thank you for explaining that background dependence in QM is very different than saying QM is dependent on a quantized space.
arivero - I observed empirically that you were able to shift effortlessly...
arivera, here's a link to the first quote.
http://everything2.com/index.pl?node_id=523054&lastnode_id=0
I found it in a google search - it appears to be a forum. The saleint point is that it's a modern discussion, so the person in question seems to be be rephrasing an old debate in terms...
RE angels on pinheads, several quotes that some may find enlightening, or at least amusing - then I will drop this isue, I promise.
Does that sound at all reminiscent of our discussion here of a Theory of Everything?
And:
Substitute "electrons" for "angels" above and you have...
I didn't doubt that you were serious. "Angels on pins" was my admittedly sarcastic way of saying that I do not share your faith that pure mathematics is more real than reality.
I will have to take your word for that, I'm afraid.
My fascination lies in a hope that we will find hidden...