Welcome to
Science a GoGo's
Discussion Forums
Please keep your postings on-topic or they will be moved to a galaxy far, far away.
Your use of this forum indicates your agreement to our terms of use.
So that we remain spam-free, please note that all posts by new users are moderated.


The Forums
General Science Talk        Not-Quite-Science        Climate Change Discussion        Physics Forum        Science Fiction

Who's Online Now
0 members (), 619 guests, and 1 robot.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Latest Posts
Top Posters(30 Days)
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
#47997 02/15/13 05:59 AM
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
O
Orac Offline OP
Megastar
OP Offline
Megastar
O
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
Tom Purdy and group of the University of Colorado have again extended the Quantum Domain to larger size now roughly 0.5mm

http://science.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/02...big-things?lite
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn23177-sandgrainsized-drum-extends-reach-of-quantum-theory.html


I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.
.
Joined: Dec 2010
Posts: 1,858
B
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
B
Joined: Dec 2010
Posts: 1,858
Interesting news. But my main response isn't about the size of the object demonstrating uncertainty. It is about the definition of uncertainty they use in the article. I seem to recall reading that the description of uncertainty they use is slightly misleading. They are using precise measurements disturbing the thing being measured description. Just recently I read somewhere that that may be true, but it isn't quite the way uncertainty works. It is not just a matter of having your measurement disturb the object, it is that the object just isn't measurable, or something of the sort. I can't remember what it said, and I can't remember where I read it. Any way what it said is that it isn't quite as simple as that explanation.

Bill Gill


C is not the speed of light in a vacuum.
C is the universal speed limit.
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
B
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
B
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
There are lots places (including P S books) where you could have read that, Bill.

On the Open University Science Foundation Course we were given the impression by at least one of the lecturers that uncertainty arose from the disturbance caused by measurement. That was in the early 1980s. It was wrong then, and it is still wrong now.

I suspect it is one of those “cop out” things. The thinking going something like: “most of there people are not going to become physicists, so a simple explanation will do. Those who are going further in physics will get a better explanation later”.

It’s not just in QM that this sort of thing happens. Some years ago, on a geology field trip to the Isle of Arran with the 6th Form (A level) geology students from the Harwich School, I pointed out to the tutor that an exposure he had been using for years to demonstrate a fining-up sequence to his students was in fact an ill defined fining-down sequence. His response was: “it’s good enough for this lot”.


There never was nothing.

Link Copied to Clipboard
Newest Members
debbieevans, bkhj, jackk, Johnmattison, RacerGT
865 Registered Users
Sponsor

Science a GoGo's Home Page | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Contact UsokĀž»­¾W
Features | News | Books | Physics | Space | Climate Change | Health | Technology | Natural World

Copyright © 1998 - 2016 Science a GoGo and its licensors. All rights reserved.

Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.5