@Alan. So when do you test your hallucinations ? On Wednesday, 21 May 2025 at 14:32:10 UTC+3 Alan Grayson wrote:
> On Wednesday, May 21, 2025 at 1:04:35 AM UTC-6 Cosmin Visan wrote: > > So easy, you just measure, you just observe, bla-bla. Go do the > measurements yourselves! See how easy they are! =)))))))))))))))))))))) > > > You keep demonstrating *schmuck-consciousness* and apparently have zero > consciousness of what you're doing. Moreover, in your quest for juvenile > attention, you don't even know the content of the questions. So, in > conclusion, you're a juvenile fool who should STFU. AG > > > On Wednesday, 21 May 2025 at 03:37:31 UTC+3 Brent Meeker wrote: > > > > On 5/20/2025 4:35 PM, Alan Grayson wrote: > > > > On Tuesday, May 20, 2025 at 11:54:39 AM UTC-6 Brent Meeker wrote: > > > > On 5/20/2025 4:16 AM, Alan Grayson wrote: > > *Your attachment shows how to establish the HUP, not why there is a spread > in momentum. Classically, energy and momentum are related by a simple > formula. So if one wants to prepare a system in some specific momentum, one > needs to control the energy of the particle. Presumably, this can never be > done precisely; hence we get the spread. Is this not a sufficient > explanation for the spread? AG* > > > *As far as the HUP is concerned the cause of spread in momentum is that > the spread in conjugate position must be finite, and vice versa. * > > > *Are all the momenta in the spread, eigenvalues of the momentum operato*r*? > AG* > > > > *Yes. But they have different probabilities of being found when measured. > Brent* > > > > *But if one always gets a spread, how can any particular momentum in the > spread be measured? AG * > > > > *You can't choose which value you get measuring a random variable. You > just measure momentum and you get a certain value. Then you repeat the > experiment and you get a different value. You repeat this a thousand times > and you can plot the distribution function of momenta and measure the > spread. Brent* > > > > *Presumably, if it's momentum that's being measured, and one always > measures eigenvalues, why is the spread larger on "imprecise" measuring > devices, as opposed to undefined "ideal" measurements? And what is an ideal > measurement? AG * > > > > > *An ideal measurement is one that leaves the system in the eigenstate > corresponding to the measured eigenvalue. It's effectively a preparation. > So it excludes destructive measurement, like hitting photographic film. I > was assuming ideal measurements. Of course in real measurements the > instrument noise may be bigger than the interval between eignvalues and so > introduces additional spread. Brent* > > > *But regardless of the increased spread, won't the noise still result in > eigenvalues of the momentum operator? AG* > > In general when noise is small it can be treated as additive so when you > measure you get some eigenvalue+noise, not the true value. Of course if > the system is in a single definite eigenstate, not a superposition of many > eigenstates, you can repeat the measurement many times and the noise term > will average to zero. > > Brent > > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/ace216a9-6fca-48d5-b543-c02136a3b192n%40googlegroups.com.
