Physics question...

[JMLanders]

they were thinking about this problem in 1947, thus guy wrote a paper on it

http://prola.aps.org/abstract/PR/v71/i1/p38_1[/QUOTE]

I was just about to download if for my sony ebook for my summer holiday reading. But $25??? They're having a laugh

 

[LastMagicBean]

So ..........

That means..(in effect) that because of the molecular/fibre structure of paper,
and the associated movement..............

I can no longer refer to the ream of paper on my desk as STATIONARY.....

 

[lifesagasman]

So ..........

That means..(in effect) that because of the molecular/fibre structure of paper,
and the associated movement..............

I can no longer refer to the ream of paper on my desk as STATIONARY.....

No but you could refer to it as stationery

 

[LastMagicBean]

No but you could refer to it as stationery

That was sort of........ the joke .....

 

[JMLanders]

slow down!

 

[lifesagasman]

I was almost intrigued by this bloody stupid question, so i got a ruler and a grandfather clock and measured the time of the ball stationary as one blink of an eye.
Disprove that if you can...

 

[JMLanders]

Well, during the blink of an eye, the eyelid changes direction and therefore has to remain stationary. Could you clarify how long this epoch was?

 

[lifesagasman]

No. I did the measuring and challenged you (collectively) to disprove the results.
Stop being lazy.

 

[JMLanders]

Anyway, I don't want to hear about you clocking your grandfather's ball with your eye. Not even for a fraction of a second, no siree

 

[Lincsbodger]

No. I did the measuring and challenged you (collectively) to disprove the results.
Stop being lazy.

well you cant perceive an event shorter than about 100 milliseconds, so your measuring system is inadequate to capture the event, its like trying to make a movie of a horse galloping by taking photos in rapid succession with a single still camera......

 

[lifesagasman]

my ruler was made in China and the clock is certified to be accurate to +/- 1 terrapin. So there.

 

[Lincsbodger]

my ruler was made in China and the clock is certified to be accurate to +/- 1 terrapin. So there.

Actually, to be grammatically pedantic, your ruler (Queen Elizabeth II) was made in the UK, but your rule may be chinese

 

[lifesagasman]

QE2 could have been conceived anywhere, and my 'rule' is not a living object, therefore does not enjoy a nationality.

 

[PrenticeBoyofDerry]

my ruler was made in China and the clock is certified to be accurate to +/- 1 terrapin. So there.

do they calibrate grandfather clocks by the number of turtles?

 

[Space cat]

Anyway, the formula referred to relates to the energy changes (as it's based on the relationship between kinetic and potential energy), which is surely part of quantum physics

If you really want to analyse the problem at a quantum level, this is the easiest way to look at it because the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle can be rewritten in terms of energy and time:

(delta E) x (delta t) greater than or equal to (h bar)

The snag of course is that it contains a logical flaw. Just because we can't measure the ball's energy without a time uncertainty (or its position without affecting its momentum), it doesn't follow that precise values do not exist.

Quantum mechanics has proved its worth as a theory - and so we use it - but it's not perfect. And remember, experiments can only ever disprove theories. My suspicion is that it's an imperfect theory of what's really going on. The problem is that Heisenberg prevents us delving in any deeper; just as relativity prevents us from seeing the centre of a black hole.