Hi,
I've got a discussion topic:

Could you, or could you not fight a speeding ticket with the Heisenbeg
uncertainty priciple?

Things to think about:
Does the fact that the officer must take two readings make the statistical
probably far too low that there was an error?
Does the manufacturer of the radar gun have the radar set to take hundreds
of readings per second/then average them? Again therefore making the
probability of an error two low to worry about?
In very laypersons terms Heisenberg says you can't know both the velocity
and the position at the same time...but would the velocity be sufficient for
you to get the ticket?

etc.

Any thoughts would be appreciated, scientific or otherwise.

Paul

"Paul Wright" wrote in message
.. .
Hi,
I've got a discussion topic:

Could you, or could you not fight a speeding ticket with the Heisenbeg
uncertainty priciple?

Things to think about:
Does the fact that the officer must take two readings make the statistical
probably far too low that there was an error?
Does the manufacturer of the radar gun have the radar set to take hundreds
of readings per second/then average them? Again therefore making the
probability of an error two low to worry about?
In very laypersons terms Heisenberg says you can't know both the velocity
and the position at the same time...but would the velocity be sufficient
for
you to get the ticket?

etc.

Any thoughts would be appreciated, scientific or otherwise.

Paul




Yes... Pay your ticket... that from the stuff written
between your lines tells me your guilty.....

"Paul Wright" wrote in message
.. .
| Hi,
| I've got a discussion topic:
|
| Could you, or could you not fight a speeding ticket with the Heisenbeg
| uncertainty priciple?
|
| Things to think about:
| Does the fact that the officer must take two readings make the statistical
| probably far too low that there was an error?
| Does the manufacturer of the radar gun have the radar set to take hundreds
| of readings per second/then average them? Again therefore making the
| probability of an error two low to worry about?
| In very laypersons terms Heisenberg says you can't know both the velocity
| and the position at the same time...but would the velocity be sufficient
for
| you to get the ticket?

Heck, you can take traffic school on the internet now in some states. ;-)

FrediFizzx

On Mon, 1 Dec 2003 22:41:33 -0500, "Paul Wright"
wrote:

Could you, or could you not fight a speeding ticket with the Heisenbeg
uncertainty priciple?

Any thoughts would be appreciated, scientific or otherwise.

Ask the cop whether he follows sci.math or sci.physics. If the
former, explain the Weierstrasse Function
http://www.shu.edu/html/teaching/mat.../fp_weier.html
The Weierstrasse Function is continuous but not differentiable at any
point. There are less sophisticated functions with the same property.

Also:
Newsgroups: rec.puzzles
Subject: Explain wheel motion
Message-ID:

On Mon, 23 Sep 2002 12:31:13 GMT, (john
bailey) wrote:

Friends of ours have a son who was stopped for speeding. The officer
said he was going over 90. He says going much over 60 in the large
wheeled open (jeep style) SUV would be uncomfortable and he was going
55.

My immediate thought was tha with large exposed wheels, the doppler
radar probably picked up parts of the wheel that WERE going more than
90 miles an hour while the car was going 55.

Thanks for the informative responses. Based on the responses, an
argument based on cycloidal motion of the wheels should concentrate on
the spokes, not the tire surface. Further, it would be worthwhile
establishing whether the officer had used radar (doppler) or laser
(ranging) detection and what the instrument's capability for adjusting
for speed measurement at angles other than head on or directly away
from the unit. The relative motion explaination of cycloidal motion
seems to be best. Get the subject to understand that points on a
rotating wheel have various speeds which add or subtract increments
from the overall speed. Then make the case that the part of a wheel
in rolling contact with the road must be at rest, but along with the
rest of the wheel all parts are moving at various speeds relative to
the vehicle. A poster or other visual might help.
John Bailey
http://home.rochester.rr.com/jbxroads/mailto.html

adam12 wrote:

Einstein got a ticket for going through a red light.
His defense was that he perceived the light was green.
The judge charged him with speeding instead.

I likely story, but a good joke.

Bob Kolker

Paul Wright wrote:

Hi,
I've got a discussion topic:

Could you, or could you not fight a speeding ticket with the Heisenbeg
uncertainty priciple?

Things to think about:
Does the fact that the officer must take two readings make the statistical
probably far too low that there was an error?
Does the manufacturer of the radar gun have the radar set to take hundreds
of readings per second/then average them? Again therefore making the
probability of an error two low to worry about?
In very laypersons terms Heisenberg says you can't know both the velocity
and the position at the same time...but would the velocity be sufficient for
you to get the ticket?

Einstein got a ticket for going through a red light.
His defense was that he perceived the light was green.
The judge charged him with speeding instead.

Hi all,

Thanks for the posts, keep them coming if there are more.
Just for the record, I didn't actually get caught for speeding, but the idea
came to me and I couldn't solve it myself, so I thought I'd post it!

PAul








"Paul Wright" wrote in message
.. .
Hi,
I've got a discussion topic:

Could you, or could you not fight a speeding ticket with the Heisenbeg
uncertainty priciple?

Things to think about:
Does the fact that the officer must take two readings make the statistical
probably far too low that there was an error?
Does the manufacturer of the radar gun have the radar set to take hundreds
of readings per second/then average them? Again therefore making the
probability of an error two low to worry about?
In very laypersons terms Heisenberg says you can't know both the velocity
and the position at the same time...but would the velocity be sufficient
for
you to get the ticket?

etc.

Any thoughts would be appreciated, scientific or otherwise.

Paul

In article ,
Paul Wright wrote:
Hi,
I've got a discussion topic:

Could you, or could you not fight a speeding ticket with the Heisenbeg
uncertainty priciple?

Things to think about:
Does the fact that the officer must take two readings make the statistical
probably far too low that there was an error?
Does the manufacturer of the radar gun have the radar set to take hundreds
of readings per second/then average them? Again therefore making the
probability of an error two low to worry about?
In very laypersons terms Heisenberg says you can't know both the velocity
and the position at the same time...but would the velocity be sufficient for
you to get the ticket?

etc.

Any thoughts would be appreciated, scientific or otherwise.

Paul

delta x * delta p = hbar/2, with hbar=(6.626e-34 J-s)/(2*pi). At 3000 kg,
if the uncertainty in your position were the width of an atom, then the
uncertainty in your velocity would be 1.8e-28 m/s. If you were going ten
miles per hour over the speed limit, 1.8e-28 m/s one way or the other
won't help. But maybe the judge doesn't know physics.
--
"A nice adaptation of conditions will make almost any hypothesis agree
with the phenomena. This will please the imagination but does not advance
our knowledge." -- J. Black, 1803.

Paul Wright wrote:

Hi,
I've got a discussion topic:

Could you, or could you not fight a speeding ticket with the Heisenbeg
uncertainty priciple?

[snip]

No.

--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
"Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?" The Net!

Hi all,
Thanks for the posts, it was pretty cool to see some of the responses,
especially Greg Hansens' post!
Thanks again

PAul





"Paul Wright" wrote in message
.. .
Hi,
I've got a discussion topic:

Could you, or could you not fight a speeding ticket with the Heisenbeg
uncertainty priciple?

Things to think about:
Does the fact that the officer must take two readings make the statistical
probably far too low that there was an error?
Does the manufacturer of the radar gun have the radar set to take hundreds
of readings per second/then average them? Again therefore making the
probability of an error two low to worry about?
In very laypersons terms Heisenberg says you can't know both the velocity
and the position at the same time...but would the velocity be sufficient
for
you to get the ticket?

etc.

Any thoughts would be appreciated, scientific or otherwise.

Paul