Timeline for What would be likely to completely stop a subatomic particle assuming it was possible?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
9 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Apr 13, 2017 at 12:40 | history | edited | CommunityBot |
replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/
|
|
| Aug 16, 2012 at 5:37 | comment | added | Ehryk | Accuracy does not prove correctness. It could be accurate for the wrong reasons. Again, it keeps coming to this: if the uncertainty commutation is false, then all of QM and it's predictions must be scrapped, and I don't understand why. Think all of QM is true + you can stop a particle under certain conditions. Then what? I've never encountered anything that is so 'unquestionable' in science before. | |
| Aug 16, 2012 at 5:25 | comment | added | lurscher | @Ehryk, if it does not hold, we would have bigger problems to tackle first, starting from finding the right formulation of electrodynamics from scratch, that has at least the same 7 effective digits of experimental precision that the current one has | |
| Aug 16, 2012 at 5:23 | comment | added | lurscher | the ultimate answer is about resources; how much time do we allocate to research what? and for what we need educated guesses. When observations have hundreds or thousands of experiments backing them, people tend to invest exponentially less resources to try to debunk them. | |
| Aug 16, 2012 at 5:23 | comment | added | Ehryk | (in case I didn't state my question well enough, I did not provide my own answer. I want to know: what if the uncertainty commutation does not hold under certain conditions? Not: it holds, don't doubt it.) | |
| Aug 16, 2012 at 5:20 | comment | added | Ehryk | The part I'm missing is why uncertainty isn't questioned, or why there's never a "maybe the commutations don't always hold" discussion. Whenever something conflicts with it, the next statement is <therefore that something is wrong>, as though it's set in stone and its not worth questioning. How do you KNOW there aren't certain conditions (that perhaps we haven't the technology or ability to create) in which the uncertainty commutations do not hold? | |
| Aug 16, 2012 at 5:14 | comment | added | lurscher | sure, you can do such things, but then its not real physics anymore. it becomes a mathematical exercise. Now, ocasionally such mathematical exercises end up having great unexpected connections with real physics, as the case with twistor theory. But for each twistor theory there are thousands of dead ends | |
| Aug 16, 2012 at 5:13 | comment | added | Ehryk | I have doubts. What if the uncertainty commutation did not hold? Why can't it be given up, even for an alternate model that is not the reality we live in (like hyperbolic geometry, for example)? | |
| Aug 16, 2012 at 5:10 | history | answered | lurscher | CC BY-SA 3.0 |