0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

JP - could you clarify/explain. I always thought that you could not have absolute accuracy of any of the HUP variables. For a start it would screw up the inequality If you are never going to get that to work out - it might imply an infinite variation in momentum, but that is not really acceptable.

Please can someone help me to get my head around the concept of momentum space?Simplest possible language, please. []

One other simple fact is that if ever a particle with mass had totally zero momentum and was stationary it would not be possible to tell where it was and in fact it is equally probable that it is anywhere in the entire universe.

So if you want to explain it simple describing what a momentum space is for a wave (function) then you better start with how we defined that a wave could be seen as having a momentum.

Quote from: SSOne other simple fact is that if ever a particle with mass had totally zero momentum and was stationary it would not be possible to tell where it was and in fact it is equally probable that it is anywhere in the entire universe. Why is this? Intuitively it would seem that a stationary particle should be the easiest to locate.

I said elsewhere that fundamental physicists should learn more chemistry in the hope that they would understand better how quantum symmetries really break. I think all physicists studying quantum theory should learn the basics of communications and information theory including the concept of time-bandwidth product because this shows clearly the relationship between particles (information bits) and waves (amplitudes and phases) and shows that the uncertainty principle is simply a statement of this fundamental information relationship and not something that someone plucked out if the air to explain experimental errors.

Quote from: Bill S on 20/12/2011 22:53:25Quote from: SSOne other simple fact is that if ever a particle with mass had totally zero momentum and was stationary it would not be possible to tell where it was and in fact it is equally probable that it is anywhere in the entire universe. Why is this? Intuitively it would seem that a stationary particle should be the easiest to locate.But QM is not intuitive - a particle with a momentum defined absolutely will either be anywhere in the universe or fill the the universe. I think that rules out absolute precision - but JP (who does know a lot more than me) says that there are circumstances in which can be zero and I am still trying to understand them (or at least argue with them)

Maybe Pete? You need to explain that one in more detail for me to get how you mean, but ...sorry, you cannot view external links. To see them, please REGISTER or LOGIN. Also you have light defined as having a momentum?

There are some guys here that just luve math and maybe, a math section would be cool?

Back to the original topic, I have something that might help (or confuse) you, Bill. /snipped

"physics can be described as studying how quantities evolve with time, in particular, we are interested in studying those quantities whose measurements can be arrived at by "freezing" time at a particular moment.

Back to the original topic, I have something that might help (or confuse) you, Bill.

Quote from: JPBack to the original topic, I have something that might help (or confuse) you, Bill.I'm doing my best to make it help, but I'm easy to confuse.

[Source of the last image: ...sorry, you cannot view external links. To see them, please REGISTER or LOGIN]

Quote from: Bill S on 29/12/2011 18:31:42Quote from: JPBack to the original topic, I have something that might help (or confuse) you, Bill.I'm doing my best to make it help, but I'm easy to confuse. I always find a glass of nice single malt helps with that.