Date: 30/12/2015 19:15:20
From: CrazyNeutrino
ID: 822078
Subject: New quantum record as ball of atoms ends up in two spots at once
New quantum record as ball of atoms ends up in two spots at once
Try to imagine a tiny ball sitting on one fingertip yet also on your shoulder at the same instant. Are you struggling? Most of us can’t conceive of an object being in two places at once – yet physicists have just demonstrated the effect over a distance of half a metre, smashing previous records.
more..
Date: 30/12/2015 21:30:56
From: mollwollfumble
ID: 822289
Subject: re: New quantum record as ball of atoms ends up in two spots at once
CrazyNeutrino said:
New quantum record as ball of atoms ends up in two spots at once
Try to imagine a tiny ball sitting on one fingertip yet also on your shoulder at the same instant. Are you struggling? Most of us can’t conceive of an object being in two places at once – yet physicists have just demonstrated the effect over a distance of half a metre, smashing previous records.
more..
I wish wish wish people would stop saying this. According to special relativity (and by extension GR) there is no such thing as absolute time, so the phrase “at the same instant” over non-zero distance is not only meaningless but false.
Date: 31/12/2015 00:55:16
From: macx
ID: 822525
Subject: re: New quantum record as ball of atoms ends up in two spots at once
>>…. so the phrase “at the same instant” over non-zero distance is not only meaningless but false.
????
macx
Date: 31/12/2015 10:03:23
From: mollwollfumble
ID: 822616
Subject: re: New quantum record as ball of atoms ends up in two spots at once
macx said:
>>…. so the phrase “at the same instant” over non-zero distance is not only meaningless but false.
????
macx
Exactly. Given any two events at two different locations in special relativity, one can never say that they occur at the same time because if they appear to occur at the same time for one inertial observer they will not occur the same time for a second inertial observer. Time is relative, not absolute. QM includes special relativity, so the practitioners of QM ought to know better than to talk about occuring “at the same instant”.
Date: 31/12/2015 12:02:42
From: Cymek
ID: 822675
Subject: re: New quantum record as ball of atoms ends up in two spots at once
mollwollfumble said:
macx said:
>>…. so the phrase “at the same instant” over non-zero distance is not only meaningless but false.
????
macx
Exactly. Given any two events at two different locations in special relativity, one can never say that they occur at the same time because if they appear to occur at the same time for one inertial observer they will not occur the same time for a second inertial observer. Time is relative, not absolute. QM includes special relativity, so the practitioners of QM ought to know better than to talk about occuring “at the same instant”.
How accurate is “at the same instant” I wonder, is it down to the same second or the same planck time
Date: 31/12/2015 12:10:14
From: bob(from black rock)
ID: 822681
Subject: re: New quantum record as ball of atoms ends up in two spots at once
Cymek said:
mollwollfumble said:
macx said:
>>…. so the phrase “at the same instant” over non-zero distance is not only meaningless but false.
????
macx
Exactly. Given any two events at two different locations in special relativity, one can never say that they occur at the same time because if they appear to occur at the same time for one inertial observer they will not occur the same time for a second inertial observer. Time is relative, not absolute. QM includes special relativity, so the practitioners of QM ought to know better than to talk about occuring “at the same instant”.
How accurate is “at the same instant” I wonder, is it down to the same second or the same planck time
Anaiceifik.
Date: 31/12/2015 12:10:48
From: JudgeMental
ID: 822683
Subject: re: New quantum record as ball of atoms ends up in two spots at once
mollwollfumble said:
macx said:
>>…. so the phrase “at the same instant” over non-zero distance is not only meaningless but false.
????
macx
Exactly. Given any two events at two different locations in special relativity, one can never say that they occur at the same time because if they appear to occur at the same time for one inertial observer they will not occur the same time for a second inertial observer. Time is relative, not absolute. QM includes special relativity, so the practitioners of QM ought to know better than to talk about occuring “at the same instant”.
i can understand macx confusion. non-zero distance = same place. surely? soooo ….
Date: 31/12/2015 12:11:48
From: JudgeMental
ID: 822685
Subject: re: New quantum record as ball of atoms ends up in two spots at once
same instant means exactly what is says. at the same time.
Date: 31/12/2015 12:12:47
From: JudgeMental
ID: 822687
Subject: re: New quantum record as ball of atoms ends up in two spots at once
whoops misread that one referring to macx. ignore. or not.
:-)
Date: 31/12/2015 14:03:01
From: mollwollfumble
ID: 822761
Subject: re: New quantum record as ball of atoms ends up in two spots at once
Cymek said:
mollwollfumble said:
macx said:
>>…. so the phrase “at the same instant” over non-zero distance is not only meaningless but false.
????
macx
Exactly. Given any two events at two different locations in special relativity, one can never say that they occur at the same time because if they appear to occur at the same time for one inertial observer they will not occur the same time for a second inertial observer. Time is relative, not absolute. QM includes special relativity, so the practitioners of QM ought to know better than to talk about occuring “at the same instant”.
How accurate is “at the same instant” I wonder, is it down to the same second or the same planck time
They probably mean faster than light could travel between the two points.