Timeline for What would be likely to completely stop a subatomic particle assuming it was possible?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
15 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Aug 17, 2012 at 21:54 | comment | added | Shaktyai | Simply stated: keep it simple unless you have something simpler to propose that better matchs the experiments. I have no argument whatsoever about the validity of QM in the Andromeda galaxy, but it is simpler for my mind to think it is. | |
| Aug 17, 2012 at 21:43 | comment | added | Ehryk | I don't. One of the claims I don't make is that it is impossible that my grandfather was not a sperm in a lab tube. The claim of the uncertainty principle is that it is true with absolute certainty, everywhere, at all times and under all conditions; even ones we haven't observed (like a particle at absolute zero). It would be wise to doubt anyone that claims certainty about the birth of their grand grand fathers. Why is it not wise to doubt the uncertainty principle's claims to perfect adherence, everywhere at all times? | |
| Aug 17, 2012 at 21:31 | comment | added | Shaktyai | How do you know your great grand father was not a sperm cell in a lab tube ? We use our intelligence to explore the world and discriminate between the possible and the improbable. One of the main criterium for a theory to be beautiful is simplicity. | |
| Aug 17, 2012 at 20:01 | comment | added | Ehryk | Then how do we know, beyond a doubt, that particles must adhere to the wavefunction that we say it has to, under all conditions everywhere, even when we have never seen a particle at absolute zero, nor observed matter inside a black hole, or lots of places in the universe? Where's the support for this claim? Why is it that we're comfortable saying things like 'spacetime breaks down inside a black hole' and not comfortable saying 'the uncertainty principle breaks down at absolute zero'? | |
| Aug 17, 2012 at 11:20 | comment | added | Shaktyai | The uncertainty principles is not QM tied. It is a relation between a function and its Fourier transform. If you want to get rid of it, you need to get rid of p being the fourier transform of x. I agree with you we can imagine anything we like, but don't ask for clues based on what we currently know to shoulder your dreams. | |
| Aug 17, 2012 at 10:16 | comment | added | Ehryk | And what is it that makes you so certain that this is not the world we live in in certain regions and certain conditions? What if QM is correct for non-absolute zero particles only? Is that so hard to imagine in our current universe? For that matter, what if the uncertainty principle were false, but everything else about QM still worked. Would it not be QM anymore? QM can't even exist without the HUP? | |
| Aug 17, 2012 at 7:26 | comment | added | Shaktyai | Your question is equivalent to say: What if I use a magic stick and freeze everything. My answer: you are then in a magical world where QM has no place. I have no idea what are the physics laws in this world. | |
| Aug 17, 2012 at 6:57 | comment | added | Ehryk | Why couldn't the position be measured? I get the momentum is now known (0), as so the particle can now be anywhere in the universe? WHAT IF we stopped it, and then (somehow) measured the position. The uncertainty principle would no longer hold for absolute zero, right? | |
| Aug 17, 2012 at 6:09 | comment | added | Shaktyai | delta(x) is indeed the uncertainty in position and momentum. You can not claim they are both known since one of them goes to infinity. | |
| Aug 16, 2012 at 22:09 | comment | added | Ehryk | What are delta(x) and delta(p)? Does this mean the position and momentum can both be known, in direct conflict with the uncertainty principle? | |
| Aug 16, 2012 at 21:34 | comment | added | Shaktyai | The lower the temperature the more delocalized the particle is, so at T=0 K the electron and proton both occupy the whole space... delta(x) goes to infinity and delta (p) to zero. | |
| Aug 16, 2012 at 18:35 | comment | added | Ehryk | So if there was an atom of Hydrogen that was AT absolute zero, exactly, the electron would STOP rotating, and be pulled into the nucleus? And it's position and momentum could both be known at the same time? | |
| Aug 16, 2012 at 14:09 | comment | added | Shaktyai | yes. 3/2*k*T=E. If T goes to zero, so it is for the energy E. | |
| Aug 16, 2012 at 7:38 | comment | added | Ehryk | Is absolute zero equivalent to motionless particles/electrons? | |
| Aug 16, 2012 at 6:49 | history | answered | Shaktyai | CC BY-SA 3.0 |