HEISENBERG PRINCIPLE

I AM THINKING ITS TIME FOR AN UPDATE OF PART OF THIS PRINCIPLE. THAT BEING THAT ITS POSSIBLE AT A GIVEN MOMENT TO KNOW EITHER THE POSITION OR MOMENTUM OF A PARTICLE BUT NOT BOTH. MATHEMATICS YOU CAN PROVE THIS.IT IS NOW PROVEN THAT HEISENBERG'S FIRST VERSION COULD NOT BE RIGHT.PLEASE SOMEONE WITH A BETTER UNDERSTANDING OF QUANTUM PHYSISES HELP ME UNDERSTAND. YOU WILL NOTE I POSTED ON THE CAP BOARD NO NEED TO DAMAGE THE BRAINS OF THE LESSER ONES.

is there more? 😛

googled "dummies for quantum physics" 😛

lol @ damaging brains. i

THANK YOU CAPGRIL69. I WILL BE LEAVING FOR A TIME GOING BACK TO FLORIDA ITS SNOWING HERE I CAN GET THAT AT HOME.

SCORP
I NEVER SAID THAT. I SAID HE HEISNBERG USED SOME FUZZY MATH WHEN HE DID THE WORK ON HIS ORINGINAL THEORY. THE KEY IS IT MINIMZES IT DOES NOT DO AWAY WITH. DIG DEEPER.
HAS ANYONE EVER TOLD YOU , YOU LOOK A LOT LIKE ELLA.

I am unaware that his principle was being questioned by anyone with real understanding of this principle. As asked by others, point out where the debate can be found.

It also occurs to me that you may want a description of what this principle really is. I won't bore you with my interruption unless you ask for it.

Posted by james tate
THANK YOU CAPGRIL69. I WILL BE LEAVING FOR A TIME GOING BACK TO FLORIDA ITS SNOWING HERE I CAN GET THAT AT HOME.

SCORP
I NEVER SAID THAT. I SAID HE HEISNBERG USED SOME FUZZY MATH WHEN HE DID THE WORK ON HIS ORINGINAL THEORY. THE KEY IS IT MINIMZES IT DOES NOT DO AWAY WITH. DIG DEEPER.
HAS ANYONE EVER TOLD YOU , YOU LOOK A LOT LIKE ELLA.

I won't know where to dig unless you explain a little further what you mean by "fuzzy math". His work stands pretty solid, as far as I know.


Oh, and that's Ms. Billie Holiday.

SO SAD I GOT THE WRONG JAZZ SINGER BOTH GREAT.
CHECK OUT LEE ROZEMA HE IS A PHYSICIST AT THE UNIVERSITY OF TORONTO. HE SAYS THAT THIS ONE ASPECT NEEDS TO BE UPDATED. THE ARTICAL WAS IN SEPT 7 PHYSICAL REVIEW LETTERS. ALSO BACK IN 2003 A JAPANESE PHYSICIST MASANAO OZAWA SHOWED THAT MATHEMATICALLY THE FIRST VERSION COULD NOT BE RIGHT. BOTTOM LINE SHRINKING THE INACCURACY OF A PARTICAL MEASUREMENT (MAKING IT MORE PRECISE DOESN'T DISTURB THE PARTICLE QUITE AS MUCH AS SCIENTISTS HAD THOUGHT.IT IS POSSIBLE FOR BOTH THE INACCURACY AND THE DISTURBANCE TO BE SMALL ALTHOUGH NOT BOTH STRICTLY ZERO. THIS CAME FROM HOWARD WISEMAN GRIFFITH UNIVERSITY IN AUSTRALIA. HE MAY OF COME TO THIS CONCLUSION WHILE HUMPING T.O.C..

Cool, thanks for the names, tate! I'll surely look into it! Love reading up on new discoveries!

I have heard that "measurement" of a system like that of the "Uncertainity Principle" may not impact that system as much as once thought. I also think that this has been seen as a refinement of the original theory, rather than some wholesale revision or repudiation.

Merry xmas Tate, you can thank me later 😛

NOT NEW VERY OLD BEFORE MOST WRITEING BEFORE RECORDED HISTORY.
IT IS THE OLDEST OF THE OLD.
ITS IS THE WISDOM OF THE AGES.
IT IS IN ALL OF US.