Timeline for Does the Heisenberg uncertainty principle only allow location OR momentum to exist?
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
21 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Nov 3 at 23:28 | answer | added | alanf | timeline score: 2 | |
| Nov 3 at 21:41 | history | edited | Mauricio | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
edited title
|
| Nov 3 at 21:28 | answer | added | Simon Crase | timeline score: 0 | |
| Nov 3 at 16:33 | comment | added | PM 2Ring | @march Sure, clarification is important. But it's better to do that in the form of a leading question rather than in the form of an answer. Eg, "Do you understand XYZ?". | |
| Nov 3 at 15:55 | comment | added | march | @PM2Ring I didn't consider my comment a complete answer, and I usually like to engage the OP first before answering to make sure I understand what they're actually asking, asking them for clarification. That's especially important for questions like this. I guess I forgot to ask the OP if they could clarify what their question was actually about though. :) | |
| Nov 3 at 15:07 | answer | added | Kadir Okkesim | timeline score: -1 | |
| Nov 3 at 12:42 | comment | added | PM 2Ring | @march Please do not write answers in comments. | |
| Nov 3 at 12:30 | history | became hot network question | |||
| Nov 3 at 12:29 | answer | added | JEB | timeline score: 5 | |
| Nov 3 at 8:47 | comment | added | Tobias Fünke | For a throughout and advanced discussion of the HUP see this. | |
| Nov 3 at 8:31 | comment | added | Ryder Rude | @Allure i think you are making an interpretation dependent comment. hidden variable theories are an interpretation. your comment can be misleading | |
| Nov 3 at 7:48 | answer | added | Valter Moretti | timeline score: 9 | |
| Nov 3 at 7:23 | answer | added | Professor Sushing | timeline score: 21 | |
| Nov 3 at 6:24 | history | edited | John Rennie | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
Typo
|
| Nov 3 at 5:50 | answer | added | Aayush Sanchit | timeline score: -2 | |
| Nov 3 at 4:50 | answer | added | niels nielsen | timeline score: 11 | |
| Nov 3 at 4:48 | comment | added | march | What we know is the results of measurements. To the extent that a position eigenstate makes sense (e.g., as an approximation of a highly-localized state), then we can make the following prediction. If we prepare the particle in this state and measure the momentum, and do this many many times, then we will get a distribution of measurement outcomes that is "infinitely" spread out, flat across all possible momenta. I.e., we are equally likely to get any value of momentum as the result of the measurement. All the rest (e.g., "momentum...exists" or "does not have momentum") are red herrings. | |
| Nov 3 at 4:48 | comment | added | Allure | There's always a momentum, we just don't know what it is. | |
| Nov 3 at 4:44 | history | edited | Qmechanic♦ |
edited tags
|
|
| S Nov 3 at 4:16 | review | First questions | |||
| Nov 3 at 5:30 | |||||
| S Nov 3 at 4:16 | history | asked | Reg | CC BY-SA 4.0 |