|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Sat May 27, 2006 6:49 am
i will try and find an apropriat url for all the infomation
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat May 27, 2006 4:01 pm
Dave the lost 2. Heisenberg was german, but I don't know of any germans challenging uncertainty, link/source? Well, there's at least one famous German who wasn't too happy with uncertainty. "I can't believe that God plays dice." - Einstein
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat May 27, 2006 6:44 pm
Cynthia_Rosenweiss Dave the lost 2. Heisenberg was german, but I don't know of any germans challenging uncertainty, link/source? Well, there's at least one famous German who wasn't too happy with uncertainty. "I can't believe that God plays dice." - Einstein It was said "He" in his famous quote but I can't remember the German exactly. Anyway, evidence suggests Einstein was wrong to doubt QM.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat May 27, 2006 10:17 pm
[ Message temporarily off-line ]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon May 29, 2006 1:49 pm
My grammar in that last post was terrible. <_<
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue May 30, 2006 10:02 am
Dave the lost But why does that happen? wink The uncertainty principle, of course. Knowing something about the first limits what you know about the second and what the second could be (since it was limited already). What ends up happening is that the second will switch states at the same moment as the first (in the junctions at least).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue May 30, 2006 8:48 pm
Beyond_Oblivion Dave the lost But why does that happen? wink The uncertainty principle, of course. Knowing something about the first limits what you know about the second and what the second could be (since it was limited already). What ends up happening is that the second will switch states at the same moment as the first (in the junctions at least). aha! I shall have to chew on that. you weren't referring to atom B, just atoms A and C right?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed May 31, 2006 3:21 am
[ Message temporarily off-line ]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed May 31, 2006 8:08 am
poweroutage aha! I shall have to chew on that. you weren't referring to atom B, just atoms A and C right? Ermm...actually, I was reffering to Josephson junctions and not atoms sweatdrop Although, Josephson junctions are often reffered to as macroscopic atoms.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed May 31, 2006 8:17 am
[ Message temporarily off-line ]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed May 31, 2006 8:19 am
Beyond_Oblivion poweroutage aha! I shall have to chew on that. you weren't referring to atom B, just atoms A and C right? Ermm...actually, I was reffering to Josephson junctions and not atoms sweatdrop Although, Josephson junctions are often reffered to as macroscopic atoms. oh... stressed alright.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Jul 28, 2006 5:28 pm
Cynthia_Rosenweiss poweroutage Beyond_Oblivion There is also the teleportation of states between coupled Josephson junctions which has the possibility of being used to instantaneously transmit information over any distance. so why does C inherit the qualities of A? just by interference? just like that? why? Now that's the best question of all! But even if we knew the answer, I doubt we'll be able to transport macroscopic objects like people. So no Star Trek for us, unfortunately. ::going from a documentary watched years ago:: This might be wrong but.. I vaugley remeber something about that if you generate 2 particle ans send them to opposite side of the universe and spun the electons clockwise on one, the other would have to spin counterclockwise Im guessing it has something to do with balance. If not that, there is an undetectable forse that has yet to be discovered? I must go do some reserch now :3
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Jul 28, 2006 5:31 pm
QuinnBW Cynthia_Rosenweiss poweroutage Beyond_Oblivion There is also the teleportation of states between coupled Josephson junctions which has the possibility of being used to instantaneously transmit information over any distance. so why does C inherit the qualities of A? just by interference? just like that? why? Now that's the best question of all! But even if we knew the answer, I doubt we'll be able to transport macroscopic objects like people. So no Star Trek for us, unfortunately. ARE YOU SERIOUS?! THAT IS WONDERFUL NEWS! I HATE THE UNCERTAINTY PRINNCIPAL Its the only thing I agree with Einstein on willingly. mad
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Jul 28, 2006 6:01 pm
poweroutage oh sweet! I found it!! This is exactly the one I read, and it's "Discover" not "Discovery" Magazine. here it is: http://www.discover.com/issues/oct-04/rd/one-step-closer-to-teleportation/ From what I can tell, they are in fact talking about entanglement, which can't be used to send classical information as Dave the Lost mentioned. The electron spins, which were the "information" in the Discover article, while able to transmit "faster than light" (actually, the best model has signals propogating backwards to the event of entanglement then forward along the other trajectory), can't be set by an outside source without destroying the entanglement. The term "quantum information" is rather misleading, as it implies transferrable information on a quantum level, which it is not. Electron spins, photon polarities and the like can't be used to encode classical information.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Aug 12, 2006 1:18 am
There's also the quantum level teleportation where one subatomic particle can be in one place and then at random, be in another anywhere in the universe instantaneously. (Actually, I might've read it was simultaneuos as well. O.o) I don't think we'll be manipulating quantum physics anytime soon though.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reply
