Bago Posted December 5, 2006 Share Posted December 5, 2006 I could quite as easily counter that with the observation that my answer is in plain English, and that yours isn't. How much more plain can you get than "You can only give or take energy to or from a system in given amounts, rather than any old amount"? I despair... By plain English, I think the OP meant something along this kind of line. http://www.plainenglish.co.uk/index.htm Judging from your words, what do you mean by 'system' ? Is it mechanical ? IT ? What is it ? What do you mean by 'given amount' ? How big is this amount ? What other 'old amount' ? I think you fail to see that even though you may understand certain concepts yourself. Is it not that easy to convey the same understanding to another person. Despair all you like, but that's the way it is. Otherwise, many will understand quantum physics, quarks, string theories and all the rest of it ! I know a few posters here are from a scientific background anyway, and I can understand how much they understand something by what they write. What I find funny in all of this is whether anyone actually reads what others have written. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TeaFan Posted December 5, 2006 Author Share Posted December 5, 2006 Blimey! Sincere thanks to everyone who posted. Unfortunately I seem to have started an argument among scientists, and no-one wants that! Particular thanks to Pingpang and Phan - and Bago for trying to do it in plain English:) I am probably wrong here, but it seems to relate quite strongly to Bertrand Russell's stuff about there being no objective reality, because we all perceive "reality" (stuff) from a slightly different perspective, and therefore nothing actually exists in anything other than a relative form. Which would seem to be the case if protons can either go backwards and forwards in time and space, or if their location can't be pinned down. Or can the location of a proton be pinned down? I didn't really get clear on that bit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nightrider Posted December 5, 2006 Share Posted December 5, 2006 Blimey! Sincere thanks to everyone who posted. Unfortunately I seem to have started an argument among scientists, and no-one wants that! Particular thanks to Pingpang and Phan - and Bago for trying to do it in plain English:) I am probably wrong here, but it seems to relate quite strongly to Bertrand Russell's stuff about there being no objective reality, because we all perceive "reality" (stuff) from a slightly different perspective, and therefore nothing actually exists in anything other than a relative form. Which would seem to be the case if protons can either go backwards and forwards in time and space, or if their location can't be pinned down. Or can the location of a proton be pinned down? I didn't really get clear on that bit. It can be pinned down, but then you cant know how fast it is moving. This is the famous Heisenberg uncertainty principle: The more precisely you measure the location of a proton (in this case) the less precisely you (or the larger the uncertainty) measure of the momentum of the proton. So basically you can know exactly where it is or what its momentum (this is the mass of the proton multiplied by the velocity, so you could think of it giving you information on the velocity) is but you *cannot* know both quantities simultaneously. wikipedia is reasonably good at physics information: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heisenberg_uncertainty_principle if you want more details. Also an author called Paul Davies as written many "popular science" books on quantum mechanics for non experts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pingpang Posted December 5, 2006 Share Posted December 5, 2006 Oh Gawd, this seems to be the thread of pedanticism. lol yup that's the thing about complicated theories that involve exacting research precision of description is required, otherwise things just degenerate into a blurred mess, and no understanding of the subject is cultivated Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crayfish Posted December 5, 2006 Share Posted December 5, 2006 I have to say, every 'scientific' post of bago's I've ever read has actually made me wince slightly, despite me often knowing next to nothing about the subject (as in this case) - often because they simply don't seem to follow any logical order and don't seem to contain any proviso for 'this was something I did 20 years ago at a considerably lower level than would be required for me to understand one tenth of it, and I wasn't really listening then'. Not meaning to be overly harsh, but I'm not a great fan of misinformation being spread as if it were a statement of truth, and it doesn't matter how plain your english is if your facts are wrong. Not to mention that it's very hard to understand a smattering of half remembered, unrelated and poorly understood snippets of information anyway. Not as though all that many people are necessarily going to learn about quantum mechanics from the posts of sheffield forum (although I'm sure a couple of posters could more than easily teach the subject by the looks of it), but... I'm pedantic. There you have it. As mentioned, with science it's usually a case of pedantic or wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted December 5, 2006 Share Posted December 5, 2006 Bago - I can't tell if you really do understand much of quantum physics, or if you've just got a vague grasp wavering between basic concepts and just being plain wrong in certain areas. Either way, if I can't tell (and I do have at least a basic understanding of quantum physics already) then I doubt your laymans explanations came across clearly to anyone with less knowledge than me. Just for the record You can view an atom by strong microscopes. This was the bit of grammar I objected to. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cloudybay Posted December 5, 2006 Share Posted December 5, 2006 Bago - I can't tell if you really do understand much of quantum physics, or if you've just got a vague grasp wavering between basic concepts and just being plain wrong in certain areas. Either way, if I can't tell (and I do have at least a basic understanding of quantum physics already) then I doubt your laymans explanations came across clearly to anyone with less knowledge than me. So, you haven't got a clue either? Not to worry. Wot is it ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pingpang Posted December 5, 2006 Share Posted December 5, 2006 The problem is, that either your understanding, or your communication of the concepts are very much confused. I believe my definition is very easy for the layperson to understand. Moreover, it answers the question directly. no offence bago, but i totally agree with defstef on this defstef nails it down on QM however, you just seem to be confused about the subject Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pingpang Posted December 5, 2006 Share Posted December 5, 2006 I have to say, every 'scientific' post of bago's I've ever read has actually made me wince slightly, despite me often knowing next to nothing about the subject (as in this case) - often because they simply don't seem to follow any logical order and don't seem to contain any proviso for 'this was something I did 20 years ago at a considerably lower level than would be required for me to understand one tenth of it, and I wasn't really listening then'. Not meaning to be overly harsh, but I'm not a great fan of misinformation being spread as if it were a statement of truth, and it doesn't matter how plain your english is if your facts are wrong. Not to mention that it's very hard to understand a smattering of half remembered, unrelated and poorly understood snippets of information anyway. Not as though all that many people are necessarily going to learn about quantum mechanics from the posts of sheffield forum (although I'm sure a couple of posters could more than easily teach the subject by the looks of it), but... I'm pedantic. There you have it. As mentioned, with science it's usually a case of pedantic or wrong. (in ali g styleeee) AYEEE! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bago Posted December 5, 2006 Share Posted December 5, 2006 Bago - I can't tell if you really do understand much of quantum physics, or if you've just got a vague grasp wavering between basic concepts and just being plain wrong in certain areas. Either way, if I can't tell (and I do have at least a basic understanding of quantum physics already) then I doubt your laymans explanations came across clearly to anyone with less knowledge than me. Just for the record This was the bit of grammar I objected to. Ok, if you know what it is about, then try and explain it without any terms, words, or definitions from science. Just plain simple words from everyday English. Imagine you are explaining the concept to a person with absolutely no knowledge of science. Go. Shoo. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.