ElasticCollision

Crikey, so for asking a question and pointing out how very unhelpful someone is being in answering it, I get negative reputation. Doubt I'll be using this site much more now, awful.

-Not answering my question. -Asking questions without a question mark. -Asking questions before answering mine. -Not explaining what "it" is. -Referring back to something which hadn't solved anything anyway. -Causing the entire conversation to go in circles. Good day to you Sir.

Firstly you're looking at it the wrong way. You don't need to convince me, you need to try and educate me. I'm not saying I don't believe the Heisenberg principle, I'm saying that I don't understand how the idea I have put forward wouldn't work. I get that detecting an electron changes it's path. But if you manage to eventually detect one that goes through point A and then point B, despite it's change in path, you will have still found it's exact position for that incredibly brief period of time and you could use the time taken for it to move from point A to point B to infer it's speed.

In any case, you've gone way off subject.

You're confusing electrons with photons.

If the size of an electron is unknown, then it seems my original question could have been cleared up extremely quickly.

How can you be uncertain? if you are measuring an area that is only the size of an electron, then if the electron is anywhere other than in the path of the detector, it will not be detected.

Right, I wasn't directly thinking of them as such, it was just an analogy. And I don't see what is uncertain: If you have detected an electron within the maximum space an electron can fill, at two points, then how have you not detected both it's position and momentum with certainty?

But I don't understand how you get a different "number" each time. Whatever that number even represents still hasn't been explained to me. If electrons were the size of footballs and you had a device measuring an area the size of a football in two points, whether it moved through point A and point B in a straight line or in a wave motion, wouldn't you still get a precise reading of it's position and momentum/speed/velocity?

I need a better answer to my original question before I can start thinking about this.

Seems I'm getting a bit out of my depth, but as I'm fascinated I can't help but ask: What number do you get? what does it represent? and why doesn't it reflect the reality?

I see. But in theory, could you not fire hundreds of electrons from a set point A to a set point B, and wait for one which happens to pass through A and B (given that A and B are both measuring an area the size of only one electron), allowing you to know that one particular electron's position and speed with certainty.

I'm still not sure I completely understand. It will be different at point B from point A in what way?

I'm not sure I understand. If the same electrons were detected at both point A and point B, their position and speed will have been defined with certainty, wouldn't they?

After Obama won it, I think it lost a lot of credibility. Now it has just become meaningless in my mind. The EU have done nothing to create peace in Europe. Just look at the situation in Greece, Spain, Germany, Italy, etc.

But then, if it does, doesn't that disproved Heisenberg's principle, because it proves that you can know both it's speed and location precisely at the same time, as long as the device you are measuring with is accurate enough?

I see. Would it not be possible to simply use a detector which only measures a space that is the size of one electron though? Surely that would allow it's position to be known with accuracy, as well as it's speed?

If you are able to measure the time taken for an electron to move from point A to point B in order to find it's speed, surely you also know it's location at both point A and point B, as these points are where you are measuring the electron passing through.

Is there some sort of theory as to how the strings get these different vibrational harmonics though? I thought the Higgs boson was massless. My understanding of it was that quarks and Higgs boson are both massless, and their combination "creates" mass.

I recently read about the fate of the Sun, and therefore the Earth, in 5billion years and began to wonder if humanity would survive. Of course in the meantime there are other things which could spell our extinction, such as the Moon leaving the influence of Earth's gravity, the Milky Way/Andromeda collision and much sooner; global warming. However, I imagined what exactly humans could do to survive the Sun's red giant phase, imagining we had survived these other problems. I was surprised and fascinated to come across a paper that actually looks into ideas about this very thing. I was mostly surprised because I wouldn't have expected science to begin thinking about such a far off problem. The paper: http://arxiv.org/pdf/0811.4052.pdf As a short summary of the paper, for those who don't wish to read it all: There are two plans, 1) "we propose to construct some kind of parasol to shadow Earth" however this will only shield the Earth for an extra 5billion years. 2) In order to survive further than 5billion years: "shift Earth into the Kuiper Belt (50 AU) by means of the swing-by technique whereby the overwhelming part of the gravitational energy needed will be transferred from the orbit of Jupiter and Saturn." I just wanted to know what people's thoughts on these plans are. Of course the swing-by technique holds many problems and dangers, but with better technology, could this be plausible? And has anyone else got their own theories for things that could be done to survive the red giant phase?

TROLL IN THE DUNGEON!

I saw this myself very recently. This should thankfully aid human health exponentially, as ethics groups who stopped stem cells in their tracks due to their source being fetuses can no longer make such claims.

I think I understand, but not entirely. I can't see an answer to my question in that. I'm not entirely sure whether EM is a point or a line source (I think it is a point source, but I'm not 100%), but whichever it is, if it gets weaker through a vacuum, shouldn't that be evidence for some sort of aether that it is passing through and losing energy to? Or am I entirely wrong, and EM doesn't lose energy in a vacuum?

Why does the effect diminish? Wouldn't this be evidence that it is passing through a medium and losing energy? Or does this effect only take place within an atmosphere as the radiation is absorbed by, for example, air?

I see. This must have all kinds of implications regarding possible time travel.