359 reputation
419
bio website ericmenze.com
location Minneapolis, MN
age 29
visits member for 2 years, 6 months
seen Oct 20 at 12:20

I'm a Computer (Web) Programmer/Analyst based in Anchorage, AK and Minneapolis, MN. I use (among other things) ASP.NET, C# and SQL Server.

I build things. Bicycles, computers, websites, guitars, cars, motorcycles, sound sytems... lots of things.


Dec
19
comment Would it be possible to have an electron-less solid?
Is Metallic Hydrogen the only degenerate matter we've created, or is there anything else? en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metallic_hydrogen
Dec
19
comment Would it be possible to have an electron-less solid?
So then, to finish the question off - would there ever be a temperature at which they would turn into a liquid or solid? Or conversely could they get all the way down to near absolute zero, and never be tempted (or be possible) to change their phase?
Dec
18
comment Would it be possible to have an electron-less solid?
Wow, point taken on the tennis ball sized matter calculation. Do we not have electric/magnetic fields that could hold together, say, a few hydrogen nuclei and repel any electrons from joining with them as they cooled? Or would any magnetic field be able to be that powerful / work in that manner?
Dec
18
comment Would it be possible to have an electron-less solid?
Hmm, a neutron star would be similar, but I was wondering if this was attainable on our planet or in our laboratories, which can't make quantum-degenerate matter as of yet (that I'm aware of). It's a good start though, thanks!
Dec
18
asked Would it be possible to have an electron-less solid?
Dec
14
revised A thought experiment with Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle
Added 'Edit' Section at the end, and corrected 'zero uncertainty'
Dec
14
comment A thought experiment with Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle
Then what does it mean to 'determine momentum' in QM? What is $\sigma_m$ in $\sigma_m \sigma_x = {ħ \over 2}$? How does one 'know' an operator? I don't understand what knowing an operator would look like - so to relate it to this metaphor, what would the computer hooked to The Box display for the (values? vectors?) of $\sigma_m$?
Dec
14
comment A thought experiment with Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle
@RedGrittyBrick that derivation operates on the assumption that particles not only can be represented as waveforms SOMETIMES, but rather they are completely represented by the wavefunction, at all times, places and conditions. What if a wavefunction did not represent the particles inside The Box? HUP would not then be an inherent property.
Dec
14
comment A thought experiment with Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle
@LubošMotl I ask the considerations of a consistent, HUP-less world in search of an argument by contradiction that is more fundamental that must be the case - like "Then gravity doesn't exist, so the HUP MUST be true". You have said that all modern physics would be invalidated, could you add an answer where you clearly define what 'modern physics' includes and does not, and summarize what would have to be jettisoned and why (gravity? big bang cosmology?)? I'm still unconvinced that HUP==QM, and that QM can't be refined in a way that HUP is not ALWAYS true (not necessarily always false).
Dec
14
comment A thought experiment with Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle
@RedGrittyBrick are you saying that HUP and QM are synonymous? What do you mean by 'basic result'? One way to look at this would be "What would need to be true if the universe was really classical", but that's only provided the rejection of HUP invalidates all of QM, which if it is true I'd like to know why. (Why can't QM be refined such that HUP isn't universal under all conditions, times and places?)
Dec
14
comment A thought experiment with Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle
... nor am I denying HUP, or claiming to experimentally be able to disprove it. I'm just 'accepting with a high level of certainty', and then asking about the other possibility. Accepting it to a high level of certainty is MUCH different than accepting it as TRUE in all cases, everywhere, at all times. So what if it's not? Why isn't it even worth considering?
Dec
14
comment A thought experiment with Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle
... what it implied given that the HUP holds, yes. It may not under all conditions, everywhere, at all times, and clearly not in the thought experiment I provided. Further, QED isn't 'based on' HUP, HUP comes from part of QED. It seems a reasonable question to ask why one could not just 'refine' QED such that the HUP is gone sometimes under certain conditions (sort of what relativity did to Newtonian motion, not discarded it). You're not fully considering it, then acting as if you are. I didn't ask 'What if P and not P'.
Dec
14
comment Could the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle turn out to be false?
I'm still awaiting the extraordinary evidence for the extraordinary claim.
Dec
14
comment A thought experiment with Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle
At no point does one determine that 1,000 is the requisite number of places to look, and decide that is enough and the search is over. It seems to me that unwillingness to CONSIDER THE POSSIBILITY that the 1,001st place does NOT hold lacks scientific integrity.
Dec
14
comment A thought experiment with Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle
We haven't investigated everywhere, all times, or all conditions - indeed a scarce quantity of each. That's why it seems like an assumption from my perspective, especially with the 'unknowable' assertion it contains.
Dec
14
comment A thought experiment with Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle
At the center of this, I'm challenging the nearly universal assumption of the validity of HUP, everywhere, under all circumstances, at all times and conditions. I had hoped that asking this in the form of a Proof by Contradiction, that somehow by accepting the invalidity of HUP there is something more contradictory that MUST be accepted (other than HUP itself).
Dec
14
comment A thought experiment with Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle
This is more pointed and specific question to help illuminate implications of such a scenario. At the core they've got the same concept in mind, but a different approach. To clarify then - IF The Box existed, all modern physics is out the window? ALL of it? What's modern mean? Electricity, gravity, transistors, magnetism, string theory, big bang cosmology? What specifically would have to go, besides just QED? Why does all QED have to go?
Dec
14
comment A thought experiment with Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle
I have only made one assumption: the existence of a box within which HUP is violated. YOU have assumed HUP/QED, so you are then finding a contradiction. I have not, nor am I maintaining that QED holds - indeed I asked what it would mean for QED - would it be refined, or discarded?
Dec
14
comment A thought experiment with Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle
Where did energy get brought into the mix? Why does it require energy or probing to 'be knowledgable' of a numerical value? Perhaps the box is so sensitive to bouncing that the momentum inside of it can be determined by reading the information from the bounces, not throwing energy at the particles.
Dec
14
comment A thought experiment with Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle
I suppose what I meant rather than 'with infinite precision' was really 'precise enought that in combination with the size of the box, $\sigma_x \sigma_p < \frac{ħ}{2}$, in clear violation of HUP. In other words - precise enough that HUP is no longer true.