If Heisenberg's uncertainty principal is real, then we can't

Fuck off with this maymayyyyyy

>>8523474
No it does not. The uncertainty principle applies to any properties of waveforms, you need to consider a wider window of it to learn more precise information, there's a limit to the simultaneous precision of the information and precision of the window you're measuring.

It has nothing to do with axiomatic completeness.

>>8523474
Heisenberg's bullshit principle is bullshit.

We know exactly the speed of light and we know where light is.

When you have a lightbulb and locate a light particle you also know its speed, C.

>>8523474
>Heisenberg's uncertainty principal
Who was that?

>>8523474
>momentum and position of an object
fixed it for you

>>8525501
But then we have an uncertainty in the momentum. momentum in photons is governed by the frequency(energy) and speed which a constant. the uncertainty ultimately is the uncertainty in the energy. also isnt it something that the photon can exist everywhere in space between the emission and detection so we dont know its position

>>8525501
Wtf I never actually thought about that! Can someone explain this to me, I'm afraid to ask that to my professor she may think I'm dumb.

>>8525559
When I look at a lightbulb I know there are photons coming right out of it. I also know their speed.

I know position and momentum so your principle just got btfo

>>8525590
You don't know exactly where the photons are coming out, you're just fucking delusional.

>>8525590
No you don't know the momentum, you may know the speed, however I don't have a full answer to this due to my ignorance. All I know is that you're wrong for reasons discussed above, bye.

>>8525590
noooooooope
you see a bright light being detected in a certain position in your eye. you have no idea where the photons went to get to that position in your eye. You dont know the exact energy of the photons to get momentum.
momentum =! speed
Heisenberg uncertainty doesn't tell you much but it cant violated without breaking physics

>>8525601
>>8525596
>>8525595

t. republicans

>>8525559
Nice. Thanks.

>>8525645
HE IS WRONG.

Look, momentum = mass * velocity

You know that mass = 0 and velocity = c for photons so their momentum is always 0

Now just locate a photon, like look at a lightbulb and you KNOW its momentum is 0. This is HS physics

>>8525667
A mentally challenged 8yo kid wouldn't fall for this bait

>>8525667
no momentum for massless particles =E/c. this comes from special relativity not high school physics

>>8525741
Nice pop relativity, vsauce.

File: 1480999299313.jpg (65KB, 400x533px) Image search: [Google]

65KB, 400x533px

>>8525501
i'll bite

first of all, as others have pointed out, speed is not momentum

second of all, the uncertainty principle does not have to do with any "fuzziness" of the measurement; the "uncertainty" refers to the variance of successive measurements of the same quantity

More technically, the uncertainty principle applies to the variances of the position and momentum measurements of a state psi, given by

[math] <\psi\mid \hat{p}^2\mid \psi>-<\psi\mid \hat{p}\mid\psi>^2[/math]

and similarly for the position operator

If we try to compute the wavefunction of a photon, de Broglie's principle implies that the momentum must be h/c (h is really h-bar), which means the wavefunction must be an eigenvector of the momentum operator [math] \hat{p}=-id/dx[/math] with eigenvalue h/c. Thus the only possible choice is

[math] \psi(x)=e^{i(h/c)x} [/math]

but this is not a square-integrable function, which means it does not lie in the Hilbert space of admissible states. Therefore, the uncertainty principle (and indeed, the formalism of quantum mechanics) does not apply.

More conceptually, quantum mechanics as commonly understood applies only to non-relativistic particles (basically because it requires fixing an absolute time scale). if you want to include photons in a satisfactory way, you have to move to quantum field theory, and QED in particular.

http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/34947/does-the-uncertainty-principle-apply-to-photons

File: jRwVK0O.jpg (160KB, 1024x1024px) Image search: [Google]

160KB, 1024x1024px

>>8526326
>weighted dips

>>8527216
>>8526326
it's been a long time since I last saw these menems
I should lift again

File: 2.71828182845904523536028747135266249775724709369995.jpg (446KB, 1600x806px) Image search: [Google]

446KB, 1600x806px

Heisenberg is somewhere in this photo. I don't know where he his but I do know that he's standing still.

File: 82.jpg (23KB, 171x207px) Image search: [Google]

23KB, 171x207px

>>8525501
>these are the people posting on /sci/
Back to physics forums with me

>>8527280
behind bill Murray

>>8527216
w... what's wrong with weighted dips?

File: 1481161629826.gif (45KB, 499x499px) Image search: [Google]

45KB, 499x499px

>>8527280

>>8527280
Schrodiner is two above Einstein, with the red tie

I think

>>8527420
Added weight causes more stress on the joints and leads to injury.

>>8528089
ok? is it particularly bad for dips as opposed to pull ups or push ups or something?

>>8527280
Can you upload pic without the text?

File: Sasha Grey.jpg (291KB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

291KB, 1920x1080px

>>8528100

>>8528117
Thanks

>>8526326
does the impossibility of having 0 energy give rise to the uncertainty principle, or does the uncertainty principle prevent 0 energy?

eg if energy is zero, the particle is at rest, so we know both its momentum and position.

>>8527280
We can defo add more to this pic I feel

>>8525535
You're god damn right

>>8525590

But do you know the Lord?

>>8528089
So you should use rubber bands to hold up all of your body weight so that you dont stress your joints at all, right?

>>8525501
>>8523474

The HUP is better understood as us not having the ability to achieve the right precision.

We have a ruler with divisions that are too large.