Timeline for Why doesn't velocity enter into Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
14 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Nov 1, 2017 at 4:10 | comment | added | Rodrigo de Azevedo | You will be closer to being convinced after you learn some Fourier analysis. | |
| Nov 1, 2017 at 3:53 | history | tweeted | twitter.com/StackChemistry/status/925571427260133376 | ||
| Oct 28, 2017 at 14:19 | vote | accept | TheLostGuardian0 | ||
| Oct 28, 2017 at 0:33 | history | edited | pentavalentcarbon | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 5 characters in body; edited tags; edited title
|
| Oct 27, 2017 at 21:35 | comment | added | Mithoron | Possible duplicate of chemistry.stackexchange.com/questions/14848/… | |
| Oct 27, 2017 at 21:13 | comment | added | Zhe | No worries. Hopefully, some of the comments and answers have helped you accept more readily that this is a fundamental property of matter. | |
| Oct 27, 2017 at 19:02 | comment | added | TheLostGuardian0 | My bad, I wasn't convinced as I thought from experience that probably 2 years from now in college they'll tell me that it was something dumbed down so that we could understand, like dual nature for example. | |
| Oct 27, 2017 at 18:58 | comment | added | Zhe | I was just responding to your phrasing. It seems very arrogant to say that you're "not convinced" of 100 years of physics built by arguably some of the smartest humans who have ever walked the earth and survived every single attempt to prove it wrong. | |
| Oct 27, 2017 at 17:39 | comment | added | Ivan Neretin | Colleagues, please refrain from close-voting and downvoting. Neither of us was born with the full knowledge of the subject. The question is completely legitimate and shows some genuine (if mistaken) work of the mind; if this is not welcome here, then I don't know what is. | |
| Oct 27, 2017 at 17:38 | answer | added | a-cyclohexane-molecule | timeline score: 6 | |
| Oct 27, 2017 at 17:13 | review | Close votes | |||
| Oct 27, 2017 at 18:43 | |||||
| Oct 27, 2017 at 16:34 | comment | added | Zhe | You don't need to be convinced. Nature works this way regardless of whether you're convinced or not. | |
| Oct 27, 2017 at 16:34 | comment | added | Zhe | You're trying to apply your macroscopic intuition to a microscopic event. In your proposal, why do you think you know the path between two measurements? In fact, you have no idea what the momentum at each of those points is at all. And more importantly, you cannot determine position with 100% accuracy. That's the point. | |
| Oct 27, 2017 at 16:16 | history | asked | TheLostGuardian0 | CC BY-SA 3.0 |