Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Physicists seek to put one thing in two places
World Science ^ | 25 Sept 2006

Posted on 09/26/2006 4:23:06 AM PDT by snarks_when_bored

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-58 next last
Let the puns begin...
1 posted on 09/26/2006 4:23:09 AM PDT by snarks_when_bored
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: RadioAstronomer; longshadow; grey_whiskers; PatrickHenry; headsonpikes; Iris7; Junior; ...

Let the puns begin...


2 posted on 09/26/2006 4:23:45 AM PDT by snarks_when_bored
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: snarks_when_bored

Trying hard to understand the explanation of how looking at something can actually nudge it. Where do the electrons come from when we look at something? Yes, I know I am a moron. Very interesting post.


3 posted on 09/26/2006 4:33:00 AM PDT by Wage Slave (Good fences make good neighbors. -- Robert Frost)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: snarks_when_bored

"Physi­cists say they have made an ob­ject move just by watch­ing it."



Physicists have a habit of describing what they have discovered in ways that interest the public, but are not really accurate--at least not accurate if you would ask the average guy.

If you've got a particle, you can't just "watch it." It's too small. You use a probe to see if it's there. Or you might shine a light on it, if it's big enough. You use high tech equipment to measure its charge, and that will give away its position.

Of course, when you do any of those things, the particle is nudged a little bit. When you touch it with a probe, shine light on it, or test its charge, it moves.

It would be more accurate to say that they are making it move by "touching it," but then that would not be such a big headline.


4 posted on 09/26/2006 4:39:06 AM PDT by Brilliant
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Wage Slave

It's not the looking at something that moves it. See my earlier post. What moves it is that you can't see it unless you bounce something off it, like light or electrons, or something else. Your eye detects the light that comes from the object, but first the light has got to reflect off the object.


5 posted on 09/26/2006 4:42:14 AM PDT by Brilliant
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Wage Slave
Trying hard to understand the explanation of how looking at something can actually nudge it.

Wink wink, nudge nudge.

6 posted on 09/26/2006 4:43:03 AM PDT by SlowBoat407 (I've had it with these &%#@* jihadis on these &%#@* planes!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Wage Slave
Trying hard to understand the explanation of how looking at something can actually nudge it.

Sometimes I can look at a woman and actually move her 10 feet or more... away from me.

7 posted on 09/26/2006 4:43:47 AM PDT by SlowBoat407 (I've had it with these &%#@* jihadis on these &%#@* planes!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Wage Slave
Trying hard to understand the explanation of how looking at something can actually nudge it. Where do the electrons come from when we look at something?

Electrons interact with other electrons via the electromagnetic interaction, which is mediated by photons. If no photons are exchanged, no interaction take place (ignoring virtual photons and tunneling subtleties). So, essentially, if no photons are exchanged, nothing is seen, and if photons are exchanged, a disturbance in the motion of the seen (and the seer) takes place.

8 posted on 09/26/2006 4:44:16 AM PDT by snarks_when_bored
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: snarks_when_bored

9 posted on 09/26/2006 4:46:12 AM PDT by Loyalist (Social justice isn't; social studies aren't; social work doesn't.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Brilliant

Okie dokie. Got it. Thanks!


10 posted on 09/26/2006 4:46:53 AM PDT by Wage Slave (Good fences make good neighbors. -- Robert Frost)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: SlowBoat407

LOL!


11 posted on 09/26/2006 4:47:21 AM PDT by Wage Slave (Good fences make good neighbors. -- Robert Frost)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: SlowBoat407

I have the same mystical power over men.


12 posted on 09/26/2006 4:49:24 AM PDT by Wage Slave (Good fences make good neighbors. -- Robert Frost)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: snarks_when_bored

looking for love in both the wrong places


13 posted on 09/26/2006 4:50:06 AM PDT by HiTech RedNeck
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Wage Slave

What time did you want me over again? : )


14 posted on 09/26/2006 4:51:25 AM PDT by Hand em their arse
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: snarks_when_bored

Physi­cists say they have made an ob­ject move just by watch­ing it.

I can do that after several bourbons. I can even put the same object in 2 or 3 places at the same time. Nothing new here.


15 posted on 09/26/2006 4:52:57 AM PDT by saganite (Billions and billions and billions-------and that's just the NASA budget!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: snarks_when_bored

hmmmmm.....are you an auto mechanic?? ;)


16 posted on 09/26/2006 4:53:32 AM PDT by Wage Slave (Good fences make good neighbors. -- Robert Frost)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Hand em their arse

Can you cook?


17 posted on 09/26/2006 4:55:18 AM PDT by Wage Slave (Good fences make good neighbors. -- Robert Frost)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: snarks_when_bored
Bill CLinton seems to have done that all the time. He also could see all three sides of a two-sided issue. I think we should give him a Nobel Prize for Physics and let him mount it in the museum down in Hope, Ark.
18 posted on 09/26/2006 4:57:12 AM PDT by .cnI redruM (Robert Heinlein's 5 grades of coffee: Java, Cafe, Jamocha, Joe, Carbon Remover)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Wage Slave
hmmmmm.....are you an auto mechanic?? ;)

No, a voyeur. (laugh)

19 posted on 09/26/2006 4:57:15 AM PDT by snarks_when_bored
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: snarks_when_bored

works even without photons or any particle exchanged with a detector.

If you obeserve interference of a single photon with itself on a double slit it is strange enough - because it seems to contradict the fact that it is only ONE photon. But even more strange - if you detect which slit it DID NOT take - interference will brake down.

Either you know, where a particle is a distinct time OR you know what impulse it has (speed, mass and direction) that's a LAW not a desricption of the unfitness of scientist or technicians to measure more precise.

Seeing the interference defines wich impulse the photon had so you can't have that AND know where it was at a certain time - even if you have found that out by looking where it NOT has been leaving it only one possibility.

A more abstract explanation might be given by string theory.


20 posted on 09/26/2006 5:00:33 AM PDT by Rummenigge (there's people willing to blow out the light because it casts a shadow)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-58 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson