A challenge to the smart ones.

[Forward Union]

Quite simply I need your help. Unfortunately im not brilliant at articulating what I mean...

I remember hearing somewhere that, If, say, I was to throw a ball up in the air, there's a certain probability that it will land back in my hand, and a fair few chances it wont. It might, land on the floor, a table, stick to the roof, get caught in a tree. The bit im interested in is the idea that it could just disappear, or relocate to another part of the universe. In the same way that if im crossing the road, iI expect to get to the other side, but I might end up in the middle of space for a few seconds, and reappear on the other side of the road.

I just need the equation for this theory. That anything can happen to an object when improbability is applied.

Hope you guys can help, thanks in advance.

[RebelOutcast]

It's more to do with quantum particles than objects on the macroscopic level, and it's actually called "uncertainty theory" or "uncertainty principle", It's a fairly large part of quantum mechanics, it basically states that:


In the Quantum Mechanical world, the idea that we can locate objects exactly breaks down. Let me state this idea more precisely. Suppose a particle has momemtum p and position x. In a Quantum Mechanical world, I would not be able to measure p and x precisely. There would be an uncertainty associated with each measurement that I could never get rid of, even in a perfect experiment!!! The size of the uncertainties are not independent; they are related as

dp x dx > h / (2 x pi) = Planck's constant / (2 x pi)

The preceding is a statement of the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle. A consequence of the Uncertainty Principle is that if an object's position x is defined precisely then the momentum of the object will be only weakly constrained, and vice versa. One cannot simultaneously find both the position and momentum of an object to arbitrary accuracy.

I don't think it can be applied on a real life object though.

Sources:
http://zebu.uoregon.edu/~imamura/208/jan27/hup.html
http://www.aip.org/history/heisenberg/p01.htm

[Forward Union]

Wait I think this is it:
http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/Un...yPrinciple.html (http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/UncertaintyPrinciple.html)

[encephalon]

yeah, it only applies to subatomic particles, and part of the reason is that there's no differentiation between the wave and the particle; that is, the particle may manifest at a point on the wave but then dissapear to reappear a few wavelengths later.

You seem to also be mixing it with a relatively newly discovered phenomena in which a particle seems to be able to exist at two locations at once no matter how much of a distance is between particle A and particle B, and they may jump back and forth in space as such. Still, this applies to quantum levels and on a more integrated level--such as macroscopic physics--we seem to be stuck in the space-time continuum whether we like it or not.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

So you're talking about the quantum leap?

[encephalon]

So you're talking about the quantum leap?

hah. I hope that wasn't a sitcom reference. But yes, I guess you could call it a quantum leap..?? Not sure if that's the scientifically accepted term, however.

[jambajuice]

Originally posted by Additives [email protected] 21 2005, 06:59 PM
Quite simply I need your help. Unfortunately im not brilliant at articulating what I mean...

I remember hearing somewhere that, If, say, I was to throw a ball up in the air, there's a certain probability that it will land back in my hand, and a fair few chances it wont. It might, land on the floor, a table, stick to the roof, get caught in a tree. The bit im interested in is the idea that it could just disappear, or relocate to another part of the universe. In the same way that if im crossing the road, iI expect to get to the other side, but I might end up in the middle of space for a few seconds, and reappear on the other side of the road.

I just need the equation for this theory. That anything can happen to an object when improbability is applied.

Hope you guys can help, thanks in advance.
It's not an equation. It is a model. Kip Thorn of Cal Tech built a mathemetical model for such a possibility in the early 1990s.

You take material that is as dense as a neutron star, form it into a cylinder 1 mile in diameter and as long as the earth. Then spin it at almost the speed of light. Then just at the surface of the cylinder 'funny' movie things happen like in Quantum Leap.

One problem. The probability of it happening is 0. The math allows 'funny movie things' to happen, but it never will. You will never get a cylinder 1 mile in diameter and as long as the earth made of neutron star material.

[Delirium]

I belive as it was stated that this only applies to matter that follows the rules of quantum physics. Things that we are capable of seeing follow the rules of newtonian physics.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

Originally posted by [email protected] 23 2005, 09:48 AM

So you're talking about the quantum leap?

hah. I hope that wasn't a sitcom reference. But yes, I guess you could call it a quantum leap..?? Not sure if that's the scientifically accepted term, however.
Of course it is.

Plank showed that electromagnetic radiation could only be radiated in quanta.

Building on that Bohr suggested that the electrons in the atom could only radiate whole quanta of light, and nothing smaller, so they couldn't spiral inward. They could only jump from one orbit to the next; exactly one quantum of energy closer to the nucleus.

That's where the term comes from.

[encephalon]

Of course it is.

Plank showed that electromagnetic radiation could only be radiated in quanta.

Building on that Bohr suggested that the electrons in the atom could only radiate whole quanta of light, and nothing smaller, so they couldn't spiral inward. They could only jump from one orbit to the next; exactly one quantum of energy closer to the nucleus.

That's where the term comes from.


It wasn't in reference to jumping orbits, however. It's in reference to leaping through space without actually going through space, and existing in two places at once without regard to the distance in-between the two manifestations (or, alternatively, simply disappearing in one place and ending up in the other). In any case, it's never been shown to apply on the macroscopic level.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

Well it's basically the same thing.

As John Gribbon put it, "This is the quantum leap. It is as if the Earth disappeared from its own orbit and instantly appeared in the orbit of Venus, without having crossed the space in between."

But you're right, as Rebel Outcast pointd out, it's never been shown to apply at any level other the quantum.

But if that's not what Ad. Free was talking about then what?

[ComradeRed]

Let me be crystal clear on this: the uncertainty principle is bull shit!

I'm that average joe with a mail order degree in physics and pretends to know what he's talking about, I've really done all of that math.

The problem is quite simple. Suppose the uncertainty principle were valid. We know space and time aren't continuous, so let us choose with certainty the position of the particle over time. We can always check our watch, in local time (but it can be formulated to proper time), and we observe the positions of the particle over time.

Now when I say "we can formulate our watch to proper time" what I mean is that we know by observation the mass of the particle. Thus we can calculate out the grav field of the particle, and how its local time is calobrated. We can thus synchronize time with the Lorentz factor.

If we continue to observe and record the positions, we can determine velocity and thus break the uncertainty principle. Let us end this dogma.

Further, the idea of probabilistic positioning is philistinism. If we had alpha particles in a box with shutters which open and close every such and such a time interval, it is just as likely to have all the alpha particles remain in the box as it is for them to exist the box. This is unrealistic, in reality they would all leave the box quickly.

Bohr's rebuttle is moot, it doesn't answer the criticism.

The myth of "quantum leaping" is due to several factors, the mass and quantum potential of the particle. Mass, accordint to relativity, is a form of potential energy; and the quantum potential is the potential energy for a pilot wave. The potential energy is used to move the particle, which can "disappear" as its quantum potential "runs out".

Very much how if a spring is wound and let go, the potential energy is "lost" (i.e. transferred into kinetic energy). Likewise the quantum potential is "lost" (transformed into a wave). The mass then is "lost" (transferred into quantum potential).

Of course this seems absurd at first sight, particles would disintegrate into a state of nothingness. Of course, this quantum potential has to go somewhere! This is then "accumulated" by the other local particles (in a Minkowski diagrammatic causal fashion) and reused.

For science, check out the Bohm interpretation. For bad philosophy combined with terrible math, go with the Copenhagen ("Uncertain") interpretation.

[Vallegrande]

This is great. I'm studying chemistry, and this is what I'm trying to wrap my brain around. So much to know about orbitals, electron charges, etc. I cant remember them all and I got a final comin' up :blink: . Hearing you all argue about this only confirms my own confusion on the subject.

[vladimirm]

RIght what level of education are you doing? its important not ot get confused with what is actually going on, and what the examiner wants to hear