time-energy uncertainty

[RichD]

I was doing some reading on the time-energy uncertainty principle,
which seems more obscure
than posiition-momentum. The books refer
almost entirely to the electron orbital energy levels
in the atom. That is, the emitted wavelength
dispersion, as the electron drops to a lower
energy, is inversely related to the time emitted,
in a probabilistic manner; the narrower the
spectrum, the wider (more unpredictable) the
time dispersion

But does the formula hold for every energy measurement? For example,
circuit voltage -
as on a capacitor - is a measure of energy.
Does this uncertainty principle apply there?
Does it place a limit on our time (frequency)
resolution in every circumstance?

It's not clear to me what it means, in these
classical situations.

--
Rich

 

[Androcles]

"RichD" <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:993ce67c-5f44-488c-8491-dc5b0aca9f2f@b33g2000yqc.googlegroups.com...

I was doing some reading on the time-energy uncertainty principle,
which seems more obscure
than posiition-momentum. The books refer
almost entirely to the electron orbital energy levels
in the atom. That is, the emitted wavelength
dispersion, as the electron drops to a lower
energy, is inversely related to the time emitted,
in a probabilistic manner; the narrower the
spectrum, the wider (more unpredictable) the
time dispersion

But does the formula hold for every energy measurement? For example,
circuit voltage -
as on a capacitor - is a measure of energy.
Does this uncertainty principle apply there?

If you measure the voltage across the capacitor your voltmeter
will draw a small current and change the voltage. This change
will depend on the time you maintain the voltmeter connection
and the capacity of the capacitor.

Does it place a limit on our time (frequency)
resolution in every circumstance?

Yes. Suppose the voltmeter has a range switch and
draws between 0.1 microamps to 1 microamp for
a reading of 0-1 microvolts (0.000001V) or
0-100 kV (100,000 V).
The resistor used is switched from zero to 1000 gigaohm,
changing the resolution.

It's not clear to me what it means, in these
classical situations.

For any measurement made the act of measuring affects the

outcome. The resolution isn't crucial for macroscopic
measurements, but becomes increasingly important the
smaller the measurement.
If you use an electron microscope on something as large as
a biological cell then you have sufficient resolution to make
biological observations and reach biological conclusions,
but the same electron microscope cannot be used to look
at a molecule without bombarding the molecule with electrons
and changing what you wanted to see. Heisenberg quantified
that.

 

[Sue...]

On Mar 30, 11:40 pm, RichD <r_delaney2...@yahoo.com> wrote:

I was doing some reading on the time-energy uncertainty principle,
which seems more obscure
than posiition-momentum.  The books refer
almost entirely to the electron orbital energy levels
in the atom.  That is, the emitted wavelength
dispersion, as the electron drops to a lower
energy, is inversely related to the time emitted,
in a probabilistic manner; the narrower the
spectrum, the wider (more unpredictable) the
time dispersion

But does the formula hold for every energy measurement?  For example,
circuit voltage -
as on a capacitor - is a measure of energy.
Does this uncertainty principle apply there?
Does it place a limit on our time (frequency)
resolution in every circumstance?

It's not clear to me what it means, in these
classical situations.

If there is a particle accelerator out in your gaarden
shed you probably won't enjoy the machine to the fullest unless
you learn when and how to apply the principle.

<< As Lev Landau once joked "To violate the time-energy
uncertainty relation all I have to do is measure the
energy very precisely and then look at my watch!" >>
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncertainty_principle#Energy-time_uncertainty_principle

It might be a good specification to ask about if your
jeweller wants to sell you a quantum clock.

http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0105049

Sue...

--
Rich

 

[Uncle Al]

RichD wrote:

I was doing some reading on the time-energy uncertainty principle,
which seems more obscure
than posiition-momentum.

Time is t.
Energy is h(nu). Frequency, nu, is 1/t.

/_\T/_\f = 1

Is that so difficult?

The books refer
almost entirely to the electron orbital energy levels
in the atom. That is, the emitted wavelength
dispersion, as the electron drops to a lower
energy, is inversely related to the time emitted,
in a probabilistic manner; the narrower the
spectrum, the wider (more unpredictable) the
time dispersion

Look up the accuracy of the 21 cm hyperfine hydrogen transition line
and its half-life, triplet to singlet hydrogen atom.

But does the formula hold for every energy measurement? For example,
circuit voltage -
as on a capacitor - is a measure of energy.
Does this uncertainty principle apply there?
Does it place a limit on our time (frequency)
resolution in every circumstance?

Given classical vacuum, you would know its energy content exactly -
zero. Heisenberg uncertainty populates every allowed elecetromagnetic
mode with a half-photon of uncertainty. This is directly measurable
as the Casimir effect in an etalon excluding wavelength windows. It
also fuels the Lamb shift, the electron anomalous g-factor, Rabi
vacuum oscillation, etc.

It's not clear to me what it means, in these
classical situations.

Corresponence Principle for classical situations.

--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz4.htm

 

[Igor]

On Mar 31, 1:01 am, "Sue..." <suzysewns...@yahoo.com.au> wrote:

As Lev Landau once joked "To violate the time-energy
uncertainty relation all I have to do is measure the
energy very precisely and then look at my watch!" >>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncertainty_principle#Energy-time_uncert...

You can do the same with position and momentum, if you do the
measurements out of context. I think that's what he was referring
to. So the joke is on you.

 

[George Herold]

On Mar 30, 11:40 pm, RichD <r_delaney2...@yahoo.com> wrote:

I was doing some reading on the time-energy uncertainty principle,
which seems more obscure
than posiition-momentum.  The books refer
almost entirely to the electron orbital energy levels
in the atom.  That is, the emitted wavelength
dispersion, as the electron drops to a lower
energy, is inversely related to the time emitted,
in a probabilistic manner; the narrower the
spectrum, the wider (more unpredictable) the
time dispersion

But does the formula hold for every energy measurement?  For example,
circuit voltage -
as on a capacitor - is a measure of energy.
Does this uncertainty principle apply there?
Does it place a limit on our time (frequency)
resolution in every circumstance?

It's not clear to me what it means, in these
classical situations.

--
Rich

Hi Rich, I find the energy - time uncertainty relation perhaps
easier. After all energy is proportional to the frequency. And if I
have a longer time to count the frequency of something I can 'know' it
with a smaller uncertainty.

My favorite energy uncertainy in electronics example is the quantum
contact. Imagine a contact between to metals where the volume of the
contact is so small that only one elctron can fit in it at a time.
(I'm ignoring the electron spin). Now if I apply a voltage (V) across
the contact I can get electrons to move from one side to the other
with a current (I). What is the resistance? (V/I) Well the enegy
uncertainty is eV, and the time uncertainty is e/I (I = charge/time)

Putting this together with the Heisenbreg relation gives.
eV*e/I = h or with R=V/I= h/e^2 which is the quantum unit of
resistance. Pretty cool if you ask me!

George H.

 

[Benj]

On Mar 30, 10:40 pm, RichD <r_delaney2...@yahoo.com> wrote:

But does the formula hold for every energy measurement?  For example,
circuit voltage -
as on a capacitor - is a measure of energy.
Does this uncertainty principle apply there?
Does it place a limit on our time (frequency)
resolution in every circumstance?

It's not clear to me what it means, in these
classical situations.

Of course it holds in classical cases. That is because the
"uncertainty principle" arises out the nature of mathematics. The fact
that these mathematical laws ALSO seem to apply to reality in certain
cases is the interesting thing.

In classical cases one can see the "uncertainty principle" come right
of various transforms; the Fourier transform in particular. Take a
pulse of some type. Then calculate the frequency spectrum of that
pulse. And lo as the pulse is made narrower the frequency spectrum
becomes wider and vice versa! Hence there is an "uncertainty
principle" between "time" the pulse width and "energy" the spectrum of
frequencies due to that pulse. And moreover the same ideas apply
where ever the mathematics is found. For example one can also find an
"uncertainty principle" between the width of an aperture antenna and
the angular distribution of energy. The interesting thing about
Quantum uncertainty is that when one reduces the scale of dimensions
to a certain size, the mathematics starts to crop up everywhere
limiting the values that can be assumed by various parameters. At
larger scales the principle is there but values are not limited.
Quantizing values (like say the voltages allowed on a capacitor) is
not quite the same thing as the uncertainty principle which in that
case would have to do with how LONG a time one would have to measure
the voltage to be assured of a certain accuracy.

 

[BURT]

On Mar 31, 2:58 pm, Benj <bjac...@iwaynet.net> wrote:

On Mar 30, 10:40 pm, RichD <r_delaney2...@yahoo.com> wrote:

But does the formula hold for every energy measurement?  For example,
circuit voltage -
as on a capacitor - is a measure of energy.
Does this uncertainty principle apply there?
Does it place a limit on our time (frequency)
resolution in every circumstance?

It's not clear to me what it means, in these
classical situations.

Of course it holds in classical cases. That is because the
"uncertainty principle" arises out the nature of mathematics. The fact
that these mathematical laws ALSO seem to apply to reality in certain
cases is the interesting thing.

In classical cases one can see the "uncertainty principle" come right
of various transforms; the Fourier transform in particular. Take a
pulse of some type. Then calculate the frequency spectrum of that
pulse. And lo as the pulse is made narrower the frequency spectrum
becomes wider and vice versa!  Hence there is an "uncertainty
principle" between "time" the pulse width and "energy" the spectrum of
frequencies due to that pulse.  And moreover the same ideas apply
where ever the mathematics is found. For example one can also find an
"uncertainty principle" between the width of an aperture antenna and
the angular distribution of energy. The interesting thing about
Quantum uncertainty is that when one reduces the scale of dimensions
to a certain size, the mathematics starts to crop up everywhere
limiting the values that can be assumed by various parameters. At
larger scales the principle is there but values are not limited.
Quantizing values (like say the voltages allowed on a capacitor) is
not quite the same thing as the uncertainty principle which in that
case would have to do with how LONG a time one would have to measure
the voltage to be assured of a certain accuracy.

Mass is an infinitely dense C squared point of energy.

Mitch Raemsch

 

[RichD]

On Mar 31, Uncle Al <Uncle...@hate.spam.net> wrote:

I was doing some reading on the time-energy uncertainty principle,
which seems more obscure than posiition-momentum.

 The books refer almost entirely to the electron orbital
energy levels in the atom.  That is, the emitted wavelength
dispersion, as the electron drops to a lower
energy, is inversely related to the time emitted,
in a probabilistic manner; the narrower the
spectrum, the wider (more unpredictable) the
time dispersion

Look up the accuracy of the 21 cm hyperfine hydrogen transition line
and its half-life, triplet to singlet hydrogen atom.

But does the formula hold for every energy measurement?  
For example, circuit voltage - as on a capacitor - is a measure
of energy. Does this uncertainty principle apply there?
Does it place a limit on our time (frequency)
resolution in every circumstance?

Given classical vacuum, you would know its energy content
exactly - zero.  Heisenberg uncertainty populates every allowed
elecetromagnetic mode with a  half-photon of uncertainty.  
This is directly measurable as the Casimir effect in an etalon
excluding wavelength windows.

blah blah
You're rambling, old man.

Vacuum fluctuations etc. are not questioned, those
are the textbook 'quantum' phenomena.

I'm interested in observing the voltage across a cap.
How does time-energy uncertainty apply there? Let's
say we digitize it - is there then some 'resolution vs.
sample rate' uncertainty formula, which follows from
the former?

 > It's not clear to me what it means, in these
classical situations.

Corresponence Principle for classical situations.

fuzzy answer = no information

--
Rich

 

[Salmon Egg]

In article
<b3aa978a-d696-40d7-9389-d79c9e90f571@j21g2000yqh.googlegroups.com>,
RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> wrote:

I'm interested in observing the voltage across a cap.
How does time-energy uncertainty apply there? Let's
say we digitize it - is there then some 'resolution vs.
sample rate' uncertainty formula, which follows from
the former?

Ordinarily, the noise on a capacitor will be thermal noise.
That is easily calculated.

if you are at absolute zero, then their quantum nature takes over.
Connect an inductor across the capacitor. You now have a quantum
oscillator. Compared to typical quantum oscillators, such as atoms or
molecules, the energy hf is going to be very low and require extremely
low temperatures in order not to get thermally excited.

If you manage to achieve all these conditions, you can then be in a
position to measure the energy of the oscillator by measuring its
frequency. This assumes you have a clue as to which excited state the
oscillator is. The frequency spread of such a measurement is limited by
how long you observe. Turning on your measuring equipment introduces
sidebands that increases frequency, and consequent energy error. This
spread is inherent in the Fourier process in which you get an inverse
relationship between the spread of a time signal and the frequency
spread of the transformed signal.

Bill

--
An old man would be better off never having been born.

 

[PD]

On Mar 30, 10:40 pm, RichD <r_delaney2...@yahoo.com> wrote:

I was doing some reading on the time-energy uncertainty principle,
which seems more obscure
than posiition-momentum.  The books refer
almost entirely to the electron orbital energy levels
in the atom.  That is, the emitted wavelength
dispersion, as the electron drops to a lower
energy, is inversely related to the time emitted,
in a probabilistic manner; the narrower the
spectrum, the wider (more unpredictable) the
time dispersion

But does the formula hold for every energy measurement?  For example,
circuit voltage -
as on a capacitor - is a measure of energy.
Does this uncertainty principle apply there?
Does it place a limit on our time (frequency)
resolution in every circumstance?

It's not clear to me what it means, in these
classical situations.

--
Rich

It applies everywhere.
An interesting application is this:

You can reconstruct a decaying particle's (such as a W boson or a
neutron) rest mass by measuring the momenta and identification of all
the daughter particles, and then combining them in the usual fashion:
m^2 = (sum:E)^2 - (sum)^2.
What you will find, even in a detector with exquisite momentum
resolution, that the reconstructed mass distribution has a natural
width. That natural width turns out to be related to the half-life of
the decaying particle, in exactly the way you'd expect from the
uncertainty principle.

For more plebian examples, a transmission signal chopped to a finite
length sample will have a frequency (e.g. energy) spectrum whose
minimum width is determined by the uncertainty principle.

PD

 

[Y.Porat]

On Apr 5, 10:43 pm, PD <thedraperfam...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Mar 30, 10:40 pm, RichD <r_delaney2...@yahoo.com> wrote:



I was doing some reading on the time-energy uncertainty principle,
which seems more obscure
than posiition-momentum.  The books refer
almost entirely to the electron orbital energy levels
in the atom.  That is, the emitted wavelength
dispersion, as the electron drops to a lower
energy, is inversely related to the time emitted,
in a probabilistic manner; the narrower the
spectrum, the wider (more unpredictable) the
time dispersion

But does the formula hold for every energy measurement?  For example,
circuit voltage -
as on a capacitor - is a measure of energy.
Does this uncertainty principle apply there?
Does it place a limit on our time (frequency)
resolution in every circumstance?

It's not clear to me what it means, in these
classical situations.

--
Rich

It applies everywhere.
An interesting application is this:

You can reconstruct a decaying particle's (such as a W boson or a
neutron) rest mass by measuring the momenta and identification of all
the daughter particles, and then combining them in the usual fashion:
m^2 = (sum:E)^2 - (sum)^2.
What you will find, even in a detector with exquisite momentum
resolution, that the reconstructed mass distribution has a natural
width. That natural width turns out to be related to the half-life of
the decaying particle, in exactly the way you'd expect from the
uncertainty principle.
-----------------------------

For more plebian examples,
----------------------------------------

common PD with your plebaian pompous
patronizing talking
you are not more than the [plebeian )!!

because Rich
was right with his remark:
quote :

Does it place a limit on our time (frequency)

resolution in every circumstance?

end of quote

of course it is places an
LIMIT A --- BOTTOM LIMIT!!
to the energy amount thAt we can detect or measure RELIABLY !!!!
THAT IS EXACTLY THE ESSENCE OF
dt dE ~h !!!
if dt becomes close to zero
THE UNCERTAINTY OF E
BECOMES INFINIT !!!

IOW
THERE IS A BOTTOM LIMIT OF
THE ENERGY AMOUNT THAT WE CAN
AT ALL HANDLE !!

and that is an old mistake of PD
(is spite of his lofty talking about deep understanding pose of the H
U P
against the 'Plebeian' understandings
to claim that

'there is no smallest photon energy !!!
2
his mistake not to recognize that
energy emission is
TIME DEPENDENT !!!

ATB
Y.Porat
--------------------------




a transmission signal chopped to a finite

length sample will have a frequency (e.g. energy) spectrum whose
minimum width is determined by the uncertainty principle.

PD

 

[RichD]

On Mar 31, George Herold <ggher...@gmail.com> wrote:

the time-energy uncertainty principle,
which seems more obscure
than posiition-momentum.  The books refer
almost entirely to the electron orbital energy
levels in the atom.  That is, the emitted wavelength
dispersion, as the electron drops to a lower
energy, is inversely related to the time emitted,
in a probabilistic manner; the narrower the
spectrum, the wider the time dispersion

But does the formula hold for every energy
measurement?  For example, circuit voltage -
as on a capacitor - is a measure of energy.
Does this uncertainty principle apply there?
Does it place a limit on our time (frequency)
resolution in every circumstance?

I find the energy - time uncertainty relation
perhaps easier.  After all energy is proportional
to the frequency.

Only for a photon.

 And if I have a longer time to count the frequency
of something I can 'know' it
with a smaller uncertainty.

My favorite energy uncertainy in electronics
example is the quantum contact.  Imagine a contact
between to metals where the volume of the
contact is so small that only one elctron can fit in
it at a time.
Now if I apply a voltage (V) across the contact I
can get electrons to move from one side to the
other with a current (I).  What is the resistance? (V/I)  
Well the enegy uncertainty is eV, and the time
uncertainty is e/I (I = charge/time)

I don't follow this, can you elaborate?

According to QM, energy is an operator, which
generates a random variable. Its standard
deviation is the uncertainty. I don't see how
you get eV.

Time is not an operator, 'time uncertainty' is
not defined as a standard deviation. It derives
from an esoteric formula, which I will not
reproduce. Please define your notion of this quantity.

Putting this together with the Heisenbreg
relation gives eV*e/I = h
or with R=V/I= h/e^2
which is the quantum unit of
resistance.  Pretty cool if you ask me!

That is pretty cool, if true. I didn't know there's
such a thing as ' quantum unit of resistance'.


--
Rich

 

[RichD]

On Apr 5, 1:43 pm, PD <thedraperfam...@gmail.com> wrote:

the time-energy uncertainty principle,
which seems more obscure
than posiition-momentum.  The books refer
almost entirely to the electron orbital energy
levels in the atom.  That is, the emitted wavelength
dispersion, as the electron drops to a lower
energy, is inversely related to the time emitted,
in a probabilistic manner; the narrower the
spectrum, the wider (more unpredictable) the
time dispersion

But does the formula hold for every energy
measurement?  For example, circuit voltage -
as on a capacitor - is a measure of energy.
Does this uncertainty principle apply there?
Does it place a limit on our time (frequency)
resolution in every circumstance?

It's not clear to me what it means, in these
classical situations.

It applies everywhere.
An interesting application is this:

You can reconstruct a decaying particle's rest
mass by measuring the momenta and identification
of all the daughter particles, and then combining
them in the usual fashion:
m^2 = (sum:E)^2 - (sum)^2.
What you will find, even in a detector with
exquisite momentum resolution, that the
reconstructed mass distribution has a natural
width. That natural width turns out to be related
to the half-life of the decaying particle, in exactly
the way you'd expect from the uncertainty principle.

Sure, but that's typical of all textbook discussions -
a matter of PREDICTION. We cannot predict the
duration of an event, except statistically. That's
time uncertainty.

I'm talking about measurement. The
common misunderstanding is "you can
measure the energy of an event, but you
can't know exactly when it happened!" Well,
why not? Why can't I observe the energy,
and look at my watch? None of the books address
this.

I'm thinking of electric circuit A/D conversion,
in particular. I want to arbitrarily crank up both
the # of bits (energy resolution), and the
sample rate (time resolution). Does QM set a
limit? I have not seen any such proof.

Another problem is the definition of time uncertainty. Usually it's
fuzzy, heuristic, dumbed down for the introductory level.

But strictly, it's defined in terms of the energy
operator's statistics. It is abstruse. The only
place I have seen a rigorous derivation is Albert
Messiah's book. You could stare at it all day, and
not suss it. Obviously it is crucial to this question.

For more plebian examples, a transmission signal
chopped to a finite length sample will have a
frequency (e.g. energy) spectrum whose
minimum width is determined by the uncertainty
principle.

But that's just a mathematical corollary
of time-frequency duality, not really physics.

Time-energy uncertainty depends on h /= 0,
in QM. Consider: if h = 0, we get classical
mechanics, with no such uncertainty formula,
yet the Fourier uncertainty would still hold.
So that is not the answer, though it probably
bears on the answer.

--
Rich

 

[spudnik]

uncertainty applies as well to human-scale events,
especially communication with other humans;
was Russell lying about his paradoxes, or
did he really go nuts when Godel published his theorem?

the closer you get to characteristic qunta, atoms e.g.,
the less you *can* know about any pair
of correlated qualities, because you're blowing on it
with your observational apparatus.

it'd be interesting to read a dyscussion of "the photon,
observation therof;" since it is not a particle,
how does one interpret the position/momentum pair,
viz the wave?

I'm talking about measurement.  The
common misunderstanding is "you can
measure the energy of an event, but you
can't know exactly when it happened!"  Well,
why not?  Why can't I observe the energy,
and look at my watch?  None of the books address
this.

But that's just a mathematical corollary
of time-frequency duality, not really physics.

Time-energy uncertainty depends on h /= 0,
in QM.  Consider: if h = 0, we get classical
mechanics, with no such uncertainty formula,
yet the Fourier uncertainty would still hold.
So that is not the answer, though it probably
bears on the answer.

--Light: A History!
http://wlym.com
http://21stcenturysciencetech.com
http://white-smoke.wetpaint.com

 

[BURT]

On Apr 7, 1:24 pm, spudnik <Space...@hotmail.com> wrote:

uncertainty applies as well to human-scale events,
especially communication with other humans;
was Russell lying about his paradoxes, or
did he really go nuts when Godel published his theorem?

the closer you get to characteristic qunta, atoms e.g.,
the less you *can* know about any pair
of correlated qualities, because you're blowing on it
with your observational apparatus.

it'd be interesting to read a dyscussion of "the photon,
observation therof;" since it is not a particle,
how does one interpret the position/momentum pair,
viz the wave?





I'm talking about measurement.  The
common misunderstanding is "you can
measure the energy of an event, but you
can't know exactly when it happened!"  Well,
why not?  Why can't I observe the energy,
and look at my watch?  None of the books address
this.
But that's just a mathematical corollary
of time-frequency duality, not really physics.

Time-energy uncertainty depends on h /= 0,
in QM.  Consider: if h = 0, we get classical
mechanics, with no such uncertainty formula,
yet the Fourier uncertainty would still hold.
So that is not the answer, though it probably
bears on the answer.

--Light: A History!http://wlym.comhttp://21stcenturysciencetech.comhttp://white-smoke.wetpaint.com- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Two clocks cannot see the other going slower. The train passing trhe
station if it sees the stations clock running slow when does it stop
going slow? The station's clock cannot be going slower all of the time
if in the end it ages more.

Mitch Raemsch

 

[Ostap S. B. M. Bender Jr.]

On Apr 7, 3:56 pm, BURT <macromi...@yahoo.com> wrote:

On Apr 7, 1:24 pm, spudnik <Space...@hotmail.com> wrote:



uncertainty applies as well to human-scale events,
especially communication with other humans;
was Russell lying about his paradoxes, or
did he really go nuts when Godel published his theorem?

the closer you get to characteristic qunta, atoms e.g.,
the less you *can* know about any pair
of correlated qualities, because you're blowing on it
with your observational apparatus.

it'd be interesting to read a dyscussion of "the photon,
observation therof;" since it is not a particle,
how does one interpret the position/momentum pair,
viz the wave?

I'm talking about measurement.  The
common misunderstanding is "you can
measure the energy of an event, but you
can't know exactly when it happened!"  Well,
why not?  Why can't I observe the energy,
and look at my watch?  None of the books address
this.
But that's just a mathematical corollary
of time-frequency duality, not really physics.

Time-energy uncertainty depends on h /= 0,
in QM.  Consider: if h = 0, we get classical
mechanics, with no such uncertainty formula,
yet the Fourier uncertainty would still hold.
So that is not the answer, though it probably
bears on the answer.

--Light: A History!http://wlym.comhttp://21stcenturysciencetech.comhttp://white-smoke.we...Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Two clocks cannot see the other going slower.

True. My own clocks can't see at all.

The train passing trhe
station if it sees the stations clock running slow when does it stop
going slow?

When somebody explains to it that trains can't see.

The station's clock cannot be going slower all of the time
if in the end it ages more.

Clocks don't age. They become antiques.

 

[BURT]

On Apr 8, 2:09 am, "Ostap S. B. M. Bender Jr."
<ostap_bender_1...@hotmail.com> wrote:

On Apr 7, 3:56 pm, BURT <macromi...@yahoo.com> wrote:





On Apr 7, 1:24 pm, spudnik <Space...@hotmail.com> wrote:

uncertainty applies as well to human-scale events,
especially communication with other humans;
was Russell lying about his paradoxes, or
did he really go nuts when Godel published his theorem?

the closer you get to characteristic qunta, atoms e.g.,
the less you *can* know about any pair
of correlated qualities, because you're blowing on it
with your observational apparatus.

it'd be interesting to read a dyscussion of "the photon,
observation therof;" since it is not a particle,
how does one interpret the position/momentum pair,
viz the wave?

I'm talking about measurement.  The
common misunderstanding is "you can
measure the energy of an event, but you
can't know exactly when it happened!"  Well,
why not?  Why can't I observe the energy,
and look at my watch?  None of the books address
this.
But that's just a mathematical corollary
of time-frequency duality, not really physics.

Time-energy uncertainty depends on h /= 0,
in QM.  Consider: if h = 0, we get classical
mechanics, with no such uncertainty formula,
yet the Fourier uncertainty would still hold.
So that is not the answer, though it probably
bears on the answer.

--Light: A History!http://wlym.comhttp://21stcenturysciencetech.comhttp://white-smoke.we...quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Two clocks cannot see the other going slower.

True. My own clocks can't see at all.

The train passing trhe
station if it sees the stations clock running slow when does it stop
going slow?

When somebody explains to it that trains can't see.

The station's clock cannot be going slower all of the time
if in the end it ages more.

Clocks don't age. They become antiques.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Someone on the train watches the station's clock as it passes. What
does the station's clock do but run slow. But how can it be going
slower if it ages more?

Mitch Raemsch

 

[George Herold]

On Apr 7, 2:39 pm, RichD <r_delaney2...@yahoo.com> wrote:

On Mar 31, George Herold <ggher...@gmail.com> wrote:





the time-energy uncertainty principle,
which seems more obscure
than posiition-momentum.  The books refer
almost entirely to the electron orbital energy
levels in the atom.  That is, the emitted wavelength
dispersion, as the electron drops to a lower
energy, is inversely related to the time emitted,
in a probabilistic manner; the narrower the
spectrum, the wider the time dispersion

But does the formula hold for every energy
measurement?  For example, circuit voltage -
as on a capacitor - is a measure of energy.
Does this uncertainty principle apply there?
Does it place a limit on our time (frequency)
resolution in every circumstance?

I find the energy - time uncertainty relation
perhaps easier.  After all energy is proportional
to the frequency.

Only for a photon.

 And if I have a longer time to count the frequency
of something I can 'know' it
with a smaller uncertainty.
My favorite energy uncertainy in electronics
example is the quantum contact.  Imagine a contact
between to metals where the volume of the
contact is so small that only one elctron can fit in
it at a time.
Now if I apply a voltage (V) across the contact I
can get electrons to move from one side to the
other with a current (I).  What is the resistance? (V/I)  
Well the enegy uncertainty is eV, and the time
uncertainty is e/I (I = charge/time)

I don't follow this, can you elaborate?

According to QM, energy is an operator, which
generates a random variable.  Its standard
deviation is the uncertainty.  I don't see how
you get eV.

I'm assuming all the voltage drop is across the very small contact,
with no resistance in the metal that is next to the contact. Then the
uncertainty in the energy of the electron as it crosses the contact is
the voltage drop V time the charge e. Where V is the voltage drop
acorss the contact. It's not too hard to see this 'in real life' by
the way. Google quantum contacts and gold wire.

Time is not an operator, 'time uncertainty' is
not defined as a standard deviation.  It derives
from an esoteric formula, which I will not
reproduce.  Please define your notion of this quantity.

Well t is the time it takes to cross the contact. I'm assuming all
the resistance is in the quantum contact.

Putting this together with the Heisenbreg
relation gives eV*e/I = h
or with R=V/I= h/e^2
which is the quantum unit of
resistance.  Pretty cool if you ask me!

That is pretty cool, if true.  I didn't know there's
such a thing as ' quantum unit of resistance'.

--
Rich- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Oh yeah and if you get some thin gold wire and battery, make yourself
a voltage source and opamp current to voltage converter, and have a
digital scope then you can see it for yourself.

George H.

 

[Y.Porat]

On Apr 7, 9:04 pm, RichD <r_delaney2...@yahoo.com> wrote:

On Apr 5, 1:43 pm, PD <thedraperfam...@gmail.com> wrote:> >the time-energy uncertainty principle,
which seems more obscure
than posiition-momentum.  The books refer
almost entirely to the electron orbital energy

 >>levels in the atom.  That is, the emitted wavelength



dispersion, as the electron drops to a lower
energy, is inversely related to the time emitted,
-----------------------------

but PD claimed
all along
that photon energy emission
E=h f ----

'IS NOT TIME DEPENDENT !!

-) -)

------------------------------------------

in a probabilistic manner;''''''
end of quote

---
probabilistic or not probabilistic does not matter to our issue
the bottom line is that EXPERIMENTALLY :--

---energy emission IS TIME DEPENDENT !!
and so the formula
E=h f is time dependent !!!

but most people STILL do not understand even until now
HOW AND WHY !! IT STEMS OUT directly FROM THAT
E=hf formula !!!
WITH NO NEED TO ANY ADDITIONAL
ASSISTANCE !!
AND MOST PEOPLE DO NOT UNDERSTAND THAT
THIS FORMULA
IS A PROVE THAT THE PHOTON ENERGY
**HAS MASS*!!!
AND THAT MASS IS THE ONLY KIND OF MASS THAT EXISTS !!
(not relativistic )!!
and that insight is another copyright
insight of mine !! (Y.P)
2
there **is** a bottom limit to photon energy
that can be clalled scientifically relevant
that bottom limit for photon emission is
defined by the
plank time
(5.38 Exp -44 seconds )
less than that** is unmeasurable**
even according to
dt dE ~h !!! (H H P)
because if
dt is zero
dE becomes INFINITY !!!!
another prove that PD s pompous idiotic claim that
*there is no bottom limit to photon energy'''-
is refuted !!
but PD will never admit being wrong !!

(especially while his mistake is shown by
a' no one' called Y.Porat....)

ATB
Y.Porat
------------------