Things CANNOT Be In Two Places At Once
I just read Ex-Con's comment and I can't get into the thread to correct him.
He's obviously repeating something he has read. This happens a lot when journalists interpret the laws of physics. They aren't physicists so they are not always able to accurately analogise the reality of the information they are getting. In fact, it isn't just journalists' fault, either. A lot of physicists themselves can't give accurate analogies because their understanding is purely mathematical (i.e. numbers), whereas analogies and/or explanations require words.
The misunderstanding above is common and certainly relates to quantum (i.e. particle) physics. It probably relates to one of these two topics:-
A) Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle. In this case, certain pairs of variables cannot be known simultaneously (which is crazy just by itself). For example, if you know the speed of a particle precisely, you are forbidden from knowing its trajectory. Hence, you cannot identify where the particle is and you cannot say for certain whether it is here, or if it is there.
B) The particle/wave duality. In this case, photons are able to travel both as a combined wave and as a series of individual particles. Hence, when a wave form is established, it ceases to have any meaning to still be talking in terms of particles. Therefore, it is nonsensical to claim the existence of waves means particles can be in two places at once.
He'll no doubt be in here to argue, of course. But he'll be wrong, the same as usual.
Lugenpresse
Side Score: 2
|
 |
But Mein Quark
Side Score: 3
|
|
|
|
|
2
points
|
1
point
Someone should tell two Nobel prize winners about your “findings” maybe you could lay claim to the Nobel prize instead. Drs. S. Haroche and D. Wineland won the Nobel Prize in Physics. They proved the correctness of the bizarre properties of quantum mechanics, i.e. that electrons can be two places at the same time. Side: But Mein Quark
|
