The Naked Scientists
  • Login
  • Register
  • Podcasts
      • The Naked Scientists
      • eLife
      • Naked Genetics
      • Naked Astronomy
      • In short
      • Naked Neuroscience
      • Ask! The Naked Scientists
      • Question of the Week
      • Archive
      • Video
      • SUBSCRIBE to our Podcasts
  • Articles
      • Science News
      • Features
      • Interviews
      • Answers to Science Questions
  • Get Naked
      • Donate
      • Do an Experiment
      • Science Forum
      • Ask a Question
  • About
      • Meet the team
      • Our Sponsors
      • Site Map
      • Contact us

User menu

  • Login
  • Register
  • Home
  • Help
  • Search
  • Tags
  • Member Map
  • Recent Topics
  • Login
  • Register
  1. Naked Science Forum
  2. Profile of qpan
  3. Show Posts
  4. Thanked Posts
  • Profile Info
    • Summary
    • Show Stats
    • Show Posts
      • Messages
      • Topics
      • Attachments
      • Thanked Posts
      • Posts Thanked By User
    • Show User Topics
      • User Created
      • User Participated In

Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

  • Messages
  • Topics
  • Attachments
  • Thanked Posts
  • Posts Thanked By User

Messages - qpan

Pages: [1]
1
General Science / Re: Are we on course for a Nobel Prize For Guessing?
« on: 19/02/2004 00:13:22 »
Well, i don't know...
Some things are quite reasonable in quantum mechanics (although a lot of it is incomprehensible). For example, the indeterminancy of the true position and velocity of any particle. Whenever you measure something, you affect its position and/or speed by a completely miniscule amount. For example, when measuring the temperature of a hot cup of tea, some of the tea's heat must be transferred to the thermometer in order for you to record its temperature, thereby decreasing the tea's temperature and giving you a measurement just under the tea's actual temperature when you measured it. For macroscopic entities (things on our scale), this is not much of a problem as this does not cause much error at all. However, when you have a particle and want to measure, lets say its position, you have to bounce some small particles or waves off of it and record how long it takes to bounce back. However, due to the particle's small mass, just by measuring it you would have changed its course and it will now be moving at an unknown speed at an unknown position (you can, at any given time, either know its velocity or position exactly, but not both).
Science may seem incomprehensible at times, but things certainly are not just guessed (although sometimes luck has something to do with it- e.g penicillin). You just need to learn the background knowledge and build up your understanding step by step, thats all, and all will become clear(er).


"I have great faith in fools; self-confidence my friends call it."
-Edgar Allan Poe
The following users thanked this post: Zer0

Pages: [1]
  • SMF 2.0.15 | SMF © 2017, Simple Machines
    Privacy Policy
    SMFAds for Free Forums
  • Naked Science Forum ©

Page created in 0.051 seconds with 22 queries.

  • Podcasts
  • Articles
  • Get Naked
  • About
  • Contact us
  • Advertise
  • Privacy Policy
  • Subscribe to newsletter
  • We love feedback

Follow us

cambridge_logo_footer.png

©The Naked Scientists® 2000–2017 | The Naked Scientists® and Naked Science® are registered trademarks created by Dr Chris Smith. Information presented on this website is the opinion of the individual contributors and does not reflect the general views of the administrators, editors, moderators, sponsors, Cambridge University or the public at large.