Tom Roberts wrote:
Schoenfeld wrote:
We fill a box with a radioactive material which randomly emits
radiation. The box has a shutter, which is opened and immediately
thereafter shut by a clock at a precise time, thereby allowing some
radiation to escape. So the time is already known with precision. We
still want to measure the conjugate variable energy precisely. We
measure the energy by weighing the box before and after. The
equivalence between mass and energy from special relativity will allow
us to
determine precisely how much energy was left in the box.

The experiment allows us to determine the exact energy of the box at
the exact time, violating quantum uncertainty with extreme prejudice.

No, it does not -- you simply did not apply it to the situation you
described, and essentially assumed it away. Specifically, focus on
weighing the box: doing so will take a finite time duration (which you
forgot to mention), and it is that duration that applies, not any
shutter opening. Each of your two weighings will have an associated
uncertainty, which you forgot to mention, and _that_ is the effect of
the uncertainty principle.

Wrong.

This is supposed to be quantum mechanics, and you cannot assume that the
energy contained in the box is fixed -- it will radiate, and there is a
non-zero probability for its contents to escape. In addition, your scale
will have internal fluctuations (e.g. its spring will not have a
precisely constant tension, there is noise in its readout, etc.). You'll
find that at the level of the uncertainty principle all of these are
important (even though in everyday life they are utterly negligible). So
the weight will fluctuate during the time you are weighing it, as
expected from the uncertainty principle.

Wrong.

1. You are applying the uncertainty principle to this thought
experiment *a priori*, which is insufficient to show that it cannot
violate HUP.

2. The simple error here is that when the light leaves the box, the box
moves on the scale and this acceleration causes the box to deviate from
the observers stationary-frame which introduces uncertainty into the
time variable. In fact, if you do the calculations the measurement
dispersions end up in concise agreement with Heisenberg's relation.

3. What I posted was Einsteins rebuttal of HUP to Neils Bohr, word for
word. Pretty stupid isn't it? I'm glad you agree.



Tom Roberts

Schoenfeld:

3. What I posted was Einsteins rebuttal of HUP to Neils Bohr, word for
word. Pretty stupid isn't it? I'm glad you agree.

That's funny. You didn't give credit to einstein for writing it.
Didn't you just accuse uncleal of plagiarism in another thread?
You need professional help before you end up as a one of the comical
anecdotes in a humor article about the world's dumbest criminals.
Eventually your inferiority complex will lead you to do more than
merely plagiarize and libel people.

Bilge wrote:
Schoenfeld:

3. What I posted was Einsteins rebuttal of HUP to Neils Bohr, word for
word. Pretty stupid isn't it? I'm glad you agree.

That's funny. You didn't give credit to einstein for writing it.

Yes I did, I just did it several hours after the fact. Stupid David
Semon gurgler from the fountain of knowledge, does the crackpottery of
the content of that post suddenly change now that you know it came from
Einstein, stupid David Semon spitter of that knowledge?

Didn't you just accuse uncleal of plagiarism in another thread?
You need professional help before you end up as a one of the comical
anecdotes in a humor article about the world's dumbest criminals.

Eventually your inferiority complex

but my mom says i'm cool

will lead you to do more than
merely plagiarize and libel people.

No, I don't libel or plagiarize. I simply retaliate exponentially.
*You* are get what you give * 10.

Schoenfeld:


Bilge wrote:
Schoenfeld:

3. What I posted was Einsteins rebuttal of HUP to Neils Bohr, word for
word. Pretty stupid isn't it? I'm glad you agree.

That's funny. You didn't give credit to einstein for writing it.

Yes I did, I just did it several hours after the fact. Stupid David
Semon gurgler from the fountain of knowledge, does the crackpottery of
the content of that post suddenly change now that you know it came from
Einstein, stupid David Semon spitter of that knowledge?

Huh? It's still plagiarism regardless of what you did after the fact
and none of that has bearing on the fact that you're a crackpot. You can
interpret that however you like.

Didn't you just accuse uncleal of plagiarism in another thread?
You need professional help before you end up as a one of the comical
anecdotes in a humor article about the world's dumbest criminals.

Eventually your inferiority complex

but my mom says i'm cool

Then why don't you tell her all of the bull**** you post here?
You'll have someone tell you that you're cool and you won't be
littering usenet with your idiotic posts. It's a win-win situation
for everyone but your mom.

will lead you to do more than
merely plagiarize and libel people.

No, I don't libel or plagiarize.

You are also pathologically dishonest. Obviously, you do plagiarize
as this very thread demonstrates. While the failure to attribute
quoted text might not be such a big deal in many cases, you've gone
out of your way to not only accuse others of plagiarism, but you
offer no proof that your accusation has any merit. You're worse than
the typical televangelist who has at least enough common sense not
step in his own crap.

I simply retaliate exponentially.
*You* are get what you give * 10.

In otherwords, you find it more productive to be an asshole and
abuse anyone who points out that you're posting a lot of bull****,
than to actually go learn something and avoid the problem altogether.
What a surprise. Seek psychological help.

"Schoenfeld" wrote in message
oups.com...


Tom Roberts wrote:
Schoenfeld wrote:
We fill a box with a radioactive material which randomly emits
radiation. The box has a shutter, which is opened and immediately
thereafter shut by a clock at a precise time, thereby allowing some
radiation to escape. So the time is already known with precision. We
still want to measure the conjugate variable energy precisely. We
measure the energy by weighing the box before and after. The
equivalence between mass and energy from special relativity will allow
us to
determine precisely how much energy was left in the box.

The experiment allows us to determine the exact energy of the box at
the exact time, violating quantum uncertainty with extreme prejudice.

No, it does not -- you simply did not apply it to the situation you
described, and essentially assumed it away. Specifically, focus on
weighing the box: doing so will take a finite time duration (which you
forgot to mention), and it is that duration that applies, not any
shutter opening. Each of your two weighings will have an associated
uncertainty, which you forgot to mention, and _that_ is the effect of
the uncertainty principle.

Wrong.

No. How can it be wrong ? Schoenfeld dikiberately ommited
mention of the weight sampling time.

This is supposed to be quantum mechanics, and you cannot assume that the
energy contained in the box is fixed -- it will radiate, and there is a
non-zero probability for its contents to escape. In addition, your scale
will have internal fluctuations (e.g. its spring will not have a
precisely constant tension, there is noise in its readout, etc.). You'll
find that at the level of the uncertainty principle all of these are
important (even though in everyday life they are utterly negligible). So
the weight will fluctuate during the time you are weighing it, as
expected from the uncertainty principle.

Wrong.

Illiterate mono-syllable responce to a paragraph of sound
physics.

1. You are applying the uncertainty principle to this thought
experiment *a priori*, which is insufficient to show that it cannot
violate HUP.

Schoenfeld's "thought experiment" is a priori. Lacking
contrary empirical evidence, It must be consistent with
HUP. The correctness of HUP isn't in doubt. Rather,
the completeness of QM is under fire.

Schoenfeld has made incorrect inferences from HUP.
Total energy is always observed to be conserved. The
Hamiltonian and it's associated Eigen value gaurentees
it. HUP applies to the uncertainty in the partition of
energy WRT time.

2. The simple error here is that when the light leaves the box, the box
moves on the scale and this acceleration causes the box to deviate from
the observers stationary-frame which introduces uncertainty into the
time variable. In fact, if you do the calculations the measurement
dispersions end up in concise agreement with Heisenberg's relation.

Erroeous parrot. Old Man doubts that Schoenfeld is capable
of performing or even of understanding the calculation. There
is no physical cause for HUP. It's intrinsic to QM.

3. What I posted was Einsteins rebuttal of HUP to Neils Bohr,
word for word.

Doubt it. Schoenfeld is an erroneous parrot. Clear and
concise, Einstein was never evasive. Trick questions weren't
his style.

Pretty stupid isn't it? I'm glad you agree.

Schoenfeld is stupid. Bohr and Einstein were brilliant.
Einstein argued that QM was incomplete, but not that
HUP was empirically falsified.

[Old Man]

Tom Roberts

"Schoenfeld" wrote in message
oups.com...


Tom Roberts wrote:
Schoenfeld wrote:
We fill a box with a radioactive material which randomly emits
radiation. The box has a shutter, which is opened and immediately
thereafter shut by a clock at a precise time, thereby allowing some
radiation to escape. So the time is already known with precision. We
still want to measure the conjugate variable energy precisely. We
measure the energy by weighing the box before and after. The
equivalence between mass and energy from special relativity will allow
us to
determine precisely how much energy was left in the box.

The experiment allows us to determine the exact energy of the box at
the exact time, violating quantum uncertainty with extreme prejudice.

No, it does not -- you simply did not apply it to the situation you
described, and essentially assumed it away. Specifically, focus on
weighing the box: doing so will take a finite time duration (which you
forgot to mention), and it is that duration that applies, not any
shutter opening. Each of your two weighings will have an associated
uncertainty, which you forgot to mention, and _that_ is the effect of
the uncertainty principle.

Wrong.

No. How can it be wrong ? Schoenfeld dikiberately ommited
mention of the weight sampling time.

This is supposed to be quantum mechanics, and you cannot assume that the
energy contained in the box is fixed -- it will radiate, and there is a
non-zero probability for its contents to escape. In addition, your scale
will have internal fluctuations (e.g. its spring will not have a
precisely constant tension, there is noise in its readout, etc.). You'll
find that at the level of the uncertainty principle all of these are
important (even though in everyday life they are utterly negligible). So
the weight will fluctuate during the time you are weighing it, as
expected from the uncertainty principle.

Wrong.

Illiterate mono-syllable responce to a paragraph of sound
physics.

1. You are applying the uncertainty principle to this thought
experiment *a priori*, which is insufficient to show that it cannot
violate HUP.

Schoenfeld's "thought experiment" is a priori. Lacking
contrary empirical evidence, It must be consistent with
HUP. The correctness of HUP isn't in doubt. Rather,
the completeness of QM is under fire.

Schoenfeld has made incorrect inferences from HUP.
Total energy is always observed to be conserved. The
Hamiltonian and it's associated Eigen value gaurentees
it. HUP applies to the uncertainty in the partition of
energy WRT time.

2. The simple error here is that when the light leaves the box, the box
moves on the scale and this acceleration causes the box to deviate from
the observers stationary-frame which introduces uncertainty into the
time variable. In fact, if you do the calculations the measurement
dispersions end up in concise agreement with Heisenberg's relation.

Erroeous parrot. Old Man doubts that Schoenfeld is capable
of performing or even of understanding the calculation. There
is no physical cause for HUP. It's intrinsic to QM.

3. What I posted was Einsteins rebuttal of HUP to Neils Bohr,
word for word.

Doubt it. Schoenfeld is an erroneous parrot. Clear and
concise, Einstein was never evasive. Trick questions weren't
his style.

Pretty stupid isn't it? I'm glad you agree.

Schoenfeld is stupid. Bohr and Einstein were brilliant.
Einstein argued that QM was incomplete, but not that
HUP was empirically falsified.

[Old Man]

Tom Roberts

Old Man wrote:
"Schoenfeld" wrote in message
oups.com...


Tom Roberts wrote:
Schoenfeld wrote:
We fill a box with a radioactive material which randomly emits
radiation. The box has a shutter, which is opened and immediately
thereafter shut by a clock at a precise time, thereby allowing some
radiation to escape. So the time is already known with precision. We
still want to measure the conjugate variable energy precisely. We
measure the energy by weighing the box before and after. The
equivalence between mass and energy from special relativity will allow
us to
determine precisely how much energy was left in the box.

The experiment allows us to determine the exact energy of the box at
the exact time, violating quantum uncertainty with extreme prejudice.

No, it does not -- you simply did not apply it to the situation you
described, and essentially assumed it away. Specifically, focus on
weighing the box: doing so will take a finite time duration (which you
forgot to mention), and it is that duration that applies, not any
shutter opening. Each of your two weighings will have an associated
uncertainty, which you forgot to mention, and _that_ is the effect of
the uncertainty principle.

Wrong.

No. How can it be wrong ? Schoenfeld dikiberately ommited
mention of the weight sampling time.

No I didn't.

This is supposed to be quantum mechanics, and you cannot assume that the
energy contained in the box is fixed -- it will radiate, and there is a
non-zero probability for its contents to escape. In addition, your scale
will have internal fluctuations (e.g. its spring will not have a
precisely constant tension, there is noise in its readout, etc.). You'll
find that at the level of the uncertainty principle all of these are
important (even though in everyday life they are utterly negligible). So
the weight will fluctuate during the time you are weighing it, as
expected from the uncertainty principle.

Wrong.

Illiterate mono-syllable responce to a paragraph of sound
physics.

Actually silly Old Man, had you improved reading comprehension you
would've noticed more than that word for my response.

1. You are applying the uncertainty principle to this thought
experiment *a priori*, which is insufficient to show that it cannot
violate HUP.

Schoenfeld's "thought experiment" is a priori. Lacking
contrary empirical evidence, It must be consistent with
HUP. The correctness of HUP isn't in doubt. Rather,
the completeness of QM is under fire.

Schoenfeld has made incorrect inferences from HUP.

Is that why you can't show such an inference?

Total energy is always observed to be conserved.

Irrelevant to this thread (but thanks for the tip).

The
Hamiltonian and it's associated Eigen value gaurentees
it.

Irrelevant to this thread (but thanks for the tip).

HUP applies to the uncertainty in the partition of
energy WRT time.

I don't know what that means. How do you partition energy?


2. The simple error here is that when the light leaves the box, the box
moves on the scale and this acceleration causes the box to deviate from
the observers stationary-frame which introduces uncertainty into the
time variable. In fact, if you do the calculations the measurement
dispersions end up in concise agreement with Heisenberg's relation.

Erroeous parrot. Old Man doubts that Schoenfeld is capable
of performing or even of understanding the calculation.

If you apologize for your baseless and unwarranted insults, I will
consider tutoring you and consider providing you those calculations
(whether using gravitational or inertial mass, you choose).

There
is no physical cause for HUP. It's intrinsic to QM.

Did I say that the inverse proportionality of uncertainty between
conjugate variables' is somehow causually related? Why are you bringing
this up? Everything you have said thus far is either completely
unrelated or corrections for mistakes I did not make. Is this how you
normally post on usenet or is this a special occasion?

3. What I posted was Einsteins rebuttal of HUP to Neils Bohr,
word for word.

Doubt it. Schoenfeld is an erroneous parrot. Clear and
concise, Einstein was never evasive. Trick questions weren't
his style.

Pretty stupid isn't it? I'm glad you agree.

Schoenfeld is stupid. Bohr and Einstein were brilliant.

Perhaps, but that was Einsteins argument whether you like it or not.

Einstein argued that QM was incomplete, but not that
HUP was empirically falsified.

Wrong. In that argument, Einstein tried to devise a theoretical way to
measure the energy and time of a system more accurately than allowed by
HUP. This was his goal, plain and simple.

Einstein in all his genius did not realize that this is like trying to
measure the frequency spectrum of a wave at a precise point in time -
conceptual nonsense.

[Old Man]

Tom Roberts

"Schoenfeld" wrote in message
oups.com...
Old Man wrote:
"Schoenfeld" wrote in message
oups.com...

.... HUP applies to the uncertainty in the partition of
energy WRT time.

I don't know what that means. How do you partition energy?

Between potential and kinetic energy. Between components of
kinetic energy. Between radiated energy, and that of the emitter.
Total energy is conserved. Simple math, elegant physics:

E = E1 + E2

delta_E = 0

delta_E1 * delta_t1 = hbar / 2

delta_E1 = - delta_E2

.... Einstein argued that QM was incomplete, but not that
HUP was empirically falsified.

Wrong. In that argument, Einstein tried to devise a theoretical way to
measure the energy and time of a system more accurately than allowed by
HUP. This was his goal, plain and simple ....

Cockeyed. EPR is clear and concise. No more than undergraduate
QM is required. Either Schoenfeld has never read EPR, or he's stupid,
or he's blinded by prejudice. Probably all three.

[Old Man]

[Old Man]

Tom Roberts

Old Man wrote:
"Schoenfeld" wrote in message
oups.com...
Old Man wrote:
"Schoenfeld" wrote in message
oups.com...

.... HUP applies to the uncertainty in the partition of
energy WRT time.

I don't know what that means. How do you partition energy?

Between potential and kinetic energy. Between components of
kinetic energy. Between radiated energy, and that of the emitter.
Total energy is conserved. Simple math, elegant physics:

E = E1 + E2

delta_E = 0

delta_E1 * delta_t1 = hbar / 2

delta_E1 = - delta_E2

Hey pops, http://mathworld.wolfram.com/Partition.html. Please don't use
words you don't understand in contexts they do not belong.

.... Einstein argued that QM was incomplete, but not that
HUP was empirically falsified.

Wrong. In that argument, Einstein tried to devise a theoretical way to
measure the energy and time of a system more accurately than allowed by
HUP. This was his goal, plain and simple ....

Cockeyed. EPR is clear and concise. No more than undergraduate
QM is required. Either Schoenfeld has never read EPR, or he's stupid,
or he's blinded by prejudice. Probably all three.

Do you normally selectively quote and write pointless responses or is
your senility getting the better of you? Time for a pill refill pops.

[Old Man]

[Old Man]

Tom Roberts

Old Man says...

Schoenfeld is stupid. Bohr and Einstein were brilliant.
Einstein argued that QM was incomplete, but not that
HUP was empirically falsified.

Actually, Einstein *did* start out arguing that the uncertainty
principle was wrong, but Bohr gave a convincing rebuttal to all
his thought experiments attempting to show this. Einstein later
retreated to the more modest position that QM was incomplete.
To quote from this paper
http://homepages.paradise.net.nz/roc...-Einstein.html

The debate between Bohr and Einstein over the interpretation
of quantum theory began in 1927 at the fifth Solvay Conference
of physicists and ended at Einstein’s death in 1955. The most
active phase of the debate ran from 1927 to 1936 when Bohr
replied to the EPR paper written by Einstein and two colleagues.
The debate took the form of various thought experiments invented
by Einstein in which it would be theoretically possible to measure
complementary properties such as the position and momentum of a
particle or its energy at a certain point in time. If these
measurements were possible it would show that Bohr’s idea of
complementarity and Heisenburg’s uncertainty principle were wrong
and that the quantum theory proposed by Bohr, called the
Copenhagen Interpretation, was wrong.

Later

Einstein also attempted to disprove quantum theory at the
sixth Solvay Conference in 1930 with the “Clock in the
Box Experiment”. This involved a box with a hole in one
wall covered by a shutter which could be opened and closed
by a clock mechanism inside the box. The box also contained
radiation which would add to the weight of the box. The box
would be weighed and then at a given moment the clock would
open the shutter allowing a single photon of radiation to
escape. The box could then be re-weighed, the difference
between the two weights telling us the amount of energy
that escaped using the formula e=mc2. Under the uncertainty
principle it is not possible to obtain an exact measurement
of the energy of the released photon and the time at which
it was released. Einstein’s experiment was designed to show
such exact measurements were possible, the clock measuring
the time of release of the energy and the weighing of the
box disclosing the amount of energy involved.

Bohr’s reply involved looking at the practicalities involved
in making the required measurements. The box had to be weighed
so it had to be suspended by a spring in a gravitational field.
To weigh the box it is necessary to compare a pointer attached
to the box against a scale. After the photon had left the box
weights can be added to the box to restore the pointer to the
same position against the scale as it had been before the
photon escaped. The weight added to the box gives the weight
of the escaped photon. However this involves a measurement of
the box to ensure the pointer is back at its original position.
This measurement is subject to the uncertainty principle
concerning the position and momentum of the box which brings
uncertainty into the measurement of the weight of the box.
If there is uncertainty in the weight of the box, then there
will be an uncertainty in the energy of the released photon.
There will also be uncertainty in the time of the released
energy as the speed of time depends upon the position of a
clock in a gravitational field. This position is uncertain
then the time of the release of the photon will also be
uncertain. This means both the time and the amount of energy
released will be uncertain so Einstein’s thought experiment
did not contradict the uncertainty principle.

--
Daryl McCullough
Ithaca, NY