Posted on 07/31/2011 7:28:30 AM PDT by decimon
_ _ _ _.
Idiot authors like this make already difficult subjects virtually impossible to understand.
Not so hard to expose, but devilishly hard for people to recognize it in themselves.
Not entirely sure but I’ll guess it somehow relates to this...
“The EPR paradox (or Einstein–Podolsky–Rosen paradox) is a topic in quantum physics and the philosophy of science concerning the measurement and description of microscopic systems (such as individual photons, electrons or atoms) by the methods of quantum physics. It refers to the dichotomy that either the measurement of a physical quantity in one system must affect the measurement of a physical quantity in another, spatially separate, system or the description of reality given by a wave function must be incomplete.
This challenge to the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum physics (that only the position or momentum of a particle, but not both, can be known with certainty) originated from the consequences of a thought experiment authored in 1935 by Einstein, Podolsky and Rosen. The paper they authored indicated what seemed to be a flaw in the interpretation. The experiment involved two systems that initially interact with each other and are then separated. Then the position or momentum of one of the systems is measured, and due to the known relationship between the (measured) value of the first particle and the value of the second particle, the observer is aware of that value in the second particle. A measurement of the other value is then made on the second particle, and, once again, due to the relationship between the two particles, that value is then known in the first particle. This outcome seems to violate the uncertainty principle, as both the position and momentum of a single particle would be known with certainty.[1]
Einstein struggled to the end of his life for a theory that could better comply with causality, protesting against the view that there exists no objective physical reality other than that which is revealed through measurement interpreted in terms of quantum mechanical formalism. However, since Einstein’s death, experiments analogous to that of the EPR paradox have been carried out, starting in 1976 by French scientists at the Saclay Nuclear Research Centre. These experiments appear to show that the local realism theory is false.[2]”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EPR_paradox
Obviously you've haven't even read half the article, but are able to discuss parts of the entire article knowledgeably.
"In quantum mechanics, the Heisenberg uncertainty principle states precise inequalities that constrain certain pairs of physical properties, such as measuring the present position while determining future momentum; both cannot be simultaneously done to arbitrarily high precision. That is, the more precisely one property is measured, the less precisely the other can be controlled or determined. One may, at least, be able to identify the average momentum and position of particles using weak measurements. Furthermore, it is possible to imagine a hypothetical apparatus that measures the history of a particular particle's successive positions and momentums while also measuring times and energies to arbitrary accuracies.[citation needed]
Published by Werner Heisenberg in 1927, the principle implies that it is impossible to simultaneously both measure the present position while "determining" the future momentum of an electron or any other particle with an arbitrary degree of accuracy and certainty. This is not a statement about researchers' ability to measure one quantity while determining the other quantity. Rather, it is a statement about the laws of physics. That is, a system cannot be defined to simultaneously measure one value while determining the future value of these pairs of quantities. The principle states that a minimum exists for the product of the uncertainties in these properties that is equal to or greater than one half of ħ, the reduced Planck constant (ħ = h/2π)."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heisenberg%27s_uncertainty_principle
should have been never see and greet one another
going after another cup of coffee ...lol
“The original EPR [Einstein–Podolsky–Rosen] paradox challenges the prediction of quantum mechanics that it is impossible to know both the position and the momentum of a quantum particle. This can be extended to other pairs of physical properties.
[edit] EPR paper
The original paper describes what happens to “two systems I and II, which we permit to interact ...”, and, after some time, “we suppose that there is no longer any interaction between the two parts.” In the words of Kumar (2009), it has “Two particles, A and B, [which] interact briefly and then move off in opposite directions.”[6] According to Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle, it is impossible to measure both the momentum and the position of particle B, say, exactly. However, it is possible to measure the exact position of particle A and the exact momentum of particle B. By calculation, therefore, with the exact position of particle A known, the exact position of particle B can be known. Also, with the exact momentum of particle B known, the exact momentum of particle A can be worked out. “EPR argued that they had proved that ... particle B can have simultaneously exact values of position and momentum.”
This is a paradox in Quantum Mechanics: The theory predicts that both values cannot be known for a particle, and yet the EPR experiment shows that they can. “Therefore, the quantum mechanical description of physical reality, EPR conclude, is incomplete.”[7] The paper says: “We are thus forced to conclude that the quantum-mechanical description of physical reality given by wave functions is not complete.”
The EPR paper ends with:
While we have thus shown that the wave function does not provide a complete description of the physical reality, we left open the question of whether or not such a description exists. We believe, however, that such a theory is possible.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EPR_paradox
Having read quite a lot about quantum physics, I would tell you that this is pretty much par for the course. It’s exceptionally abstract, and the guys who study it and write about it don’t really understand it themselves. Yet they write these articles making grandiose claims. A lot of it is to drum up public support for their research, no doubt.
In this case, the researchers show, there is no-way to pinpoint what information we Freepers are missing. Challenge us Freepers, and we can guess either part of your sentence almost perfectly.
No need to 'splain yerself...
"par for the course" meaning, they don't really understand the subject themselves so they write in incomprehensible language and manner to cover the fact?
Ya’ll heard the saying: If you can’t dazzle them with your brilliance, baffle them with your bullsh**.
Lol! That makes more sense than anything else I read here!
Following classical principles that require us to figure out cause and effect, a jury determines that there isn't enough information to prove "beyond a reasonable doubt" that Casee was responsible for Caylee's disappearance (and death).
This finding in quantum physics demonstrates that those who instantly deduced that Caylee was missing (and dead) because Casee killed her appear to have arrived at the only correct answer irrespective of "beyond a reasonable doubt".
Is this a failing of our judicial system or our rules of evidence? Or, did quantum physics just now throw us another process to account for?
Well said. I have taught this subject, and IMHO this article is a form of educational malpractice.
You surmise much from scant evidence. This is, after all, but a press release.
Just about any subject can be made at least somewhat understandable to the layperson.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.