294 reputation
218
bio website ericmenze.com
location Minneapolis, MN
age 29
visits member for 1 year, 11 months
seen 5 hours ago

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.


Sep
10
comment Could the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle turn out to be false?
So until proven false, the HUP is true?
Sep
9
comment Could the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle turn out to be false?
In practice, I get this. I'm not claiming that we can make such a machine now, or soon. But the HUP seems to say such a machine cannot exist, now or ever, with more advanced races or technologies or anything. Are you saying an electron cannot be arrested completely - anywhere, ever, inside a black hole, at absolute zero - under no conditions ever?
Sep
9
comment Could we make a trebuchet that could launch objects to a stable orbit?
Thank you for that; I suspected #1. For #2, assuming that the object carried enough fuel to fix it's orbit: what would the trebuchet look like? How long of an arm / how much weight would be needed to get 100kg to 17k MPH? Is there a formula for the trebuchet design variables? It's poorly asked, I admit, but I want to know about the theoretical trebuchet more than the real world consequences.
Sep
9
revised Could we make a trebuchet that could launch objects to a stable orbit?
Clarified that I meant into orbit, not escape velocity.
Sep
9
comment Could we make a trebuchet that could launch objects to a stable orbit?
I rephrased question three, and clarified that I meant 'into an orbital velocity' from Earth's surface.
Sep
9
revised Could we make a trebuchet that could launch objects to a stable orbit?
Changed question to trebuchet
Sep
8
asked Could we make a trebuchet that could launch objects to a stable orbit?
Sep
7
comment Could the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle turn out to be false?
Why wouldn't it just invalidate it under certain conditions? For example: by some means, we completely arrest an electron. Position = center of device, momentum = 0. Both known simultaneously. Couldn't we just say QM is 'not a valid model for arrested particles but works for moving ones' without invalidating most of current physics?
Sep
6
comment Could the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle turn out to be false?
Momentum = mass * velocity. We know the mass of electrons. We could get the velocity by tracking it's position. The 'Observer Effect' en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Observer_effect_(physics) takes into discusses destroying the system by measurement, but the HUP says nothing of the sort. The HUP is not about the observer, but says if a particle has a position, it DOES NOT HAVE A DEFINED MOMENTUM, and vice versa, regardless of my hypothetical measurement machine.
Sep
6
comment Could the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle turn out to be false?
Sounds like a faith position to me. 'Accepting it as the most likely model of the limited amount of reality that we can observe' would be the more scientific approach rather than 'accept it as true, anything that contradicts it is de facto false.' The difference would be that in the former case, it's still up for discussion, the latter it isn't (which is what I observe to be the case).
Sep
6
comment Could the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle turn out to be false?
I wouldn't need to measure spin, just position and momentum. Further, 'forcing' position AND momentum does fall under the HUP. The change in gravitational field is not necessarily an interaction with the particle - it's changing the gravitational field by some small amount as it rotates, and is influenced by the gravity of everything around it - none of this is considered 'interacting.' A machine that detects this minute change could conceivably exist sometime, but the HUP says it cannot exist.
Sep
6
comment Could the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle turn out to be false?
I think you're making claims about the nature consciousness now that are unverified. Why can't I just observe you creating him, and he wakes up and starts observing me? Who cares? I don't even see how this relates to the HUP.
Sep
6
comment Could the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle turn out to be false?
What happened to particle-wave duality? Is QM discarding the particle-side of this, and electrons are only waves now? How does a wave have mass?
Sep
6
comment Could the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle turn out to be false?
Theoretical does NOT mean 'cannot be reached', just that it hasn't to our observation yet. The heliocentric model was theoretical until it was shown to be accurate. And no, you do not need colder matter to cool matter, you just need to cause energy to escape the matter to be cooled and concentrate somewhere else. You would just need the last bit of energy to escape the electron, so the electron stops rotating the nucleus.
Sep
6
comment Could the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle turn out to be false?
Huh? I have no quarrel with randomness. And why wouldn't there be a 4th possible observation: you made a copy of me, that thought he was me, and we both coexisted? Why would one have to die or be teleported?
Sep
6
comment Could the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle turn out to be false?
If the wave formulation is the right description, the claim is that if position is known absolutely, momentum is UNKNOWABLE and if momentum is known absolutely, position is UNKNOWABLE. I have no issue with randomness.
Sep
6
comment Could the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle turn out to be false?
Do you have evidence or citations that nothing can be absolute zero? Or are you just asserting it? Note that saying 'we can't get to absolute zero' is different than 'no particle anywhere, at any time, can be at absolute zero.'
Sep
6
comment Could the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle turn out to be false?
But the existence of one time dimension doesn't cause all sorts of paradoxes, or tell us we cannot measure things, or necessitate that we abandon classical mechanics in all circumstances. You seem to be comparing my question with just asking random what ifs, but I just want to challenge the implicit certitude that the HUP/wavefunction model asserts unknowability across all particles, everywhere, at all times under all conditions, regardless of technology advances - with the only justification so far of "well, it works for the limited amount of things we tried" - insufficient for the claim.
Sep
6
comment Could the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle turn out to be false?
But then why can't we just say 'HUP is only for particles not at absolute zero'? It seems like violating it is 'not an option', even as above - so an electron falls into the nucleus. It has a measurable position and momentum. Why does HUP have to hold so strongly that we instead are comfortable with 'that particle must always have energy'?
Sep
6
comment Could the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle turn out to be false?
(I'm not trying to prove it wrong, or stating that it is, I'm asking if it can be false and if so, why it's not treated as such)