Since we are enjoying this pinball effect of bouncing our replies from pillar to post, (, and I am enjoying it immensely) my understanding of Heisenberg is that, due to limitations in physics (and in technology), the more we learn about a quantum behaviour, the less we can know about its dimensionality, and vice versa. In other words, if I want to know as precisely as I can about where it is going, I lose more of the information about what it actually "looks like", in a manner of speaking. The more I want to know about what it looks like, the less information that process will yield about its moment, or speed and direction, or force.
Does this hold any credence? Someone who actually knows?
Dave,
OT: I've worked out a mathematical equation regarding weather prediction I'd like to run past you.
If you take a snow forecast you divide the lower number of the accumulation by two and you have a 50% chance of getting that much snow.
For instance if the green-screener says to expect 4-8" of snow, you have a 50% chance of getting 2".
PS--I can't think of a more difficult set of numbers to crunch than what you do. Talk about an intellectual pursuit.
Chip
Building the Rock Ridge Railroad with the slowest construction crew west of the Pecos.
SpaceMouse wrote: Dave Vollmer wrote: Ahhh!!! Too many armchair physicists!!! The Heisenberg uncertainty principle is way too often misused and misinterpreted.From a quantum sense, it says simply that the act of measuring or observing something changes that thing, so that we can never be sure of what its true nature (independent of our observation) is. It's meant to apply to things like electron orbits or photons, not people, trains, or Spacemouse.As an armchair psuedo-physicist (I can't claim even a remote assosciation) I would point out that you described "the observer effect." The Heisenberg Principle basically says when dealing with a pair of sub-atomic particles, the more accurately you measure one of them, the less accurately you measure the other. Please excuse my simplification here. However, I think that just anyone would agree that applying the uncertainty principle to Amtrak is completely justified.
Dave Vollmer wrote: Ahhh!!! Too many armchair physicists!!! The Heisenberg uncertainty principle is way too often misused and misinterpreted.From a quantum sense, it says simply that the act of measuring or observing something changes that thing, so that we can never be sure of what its true nature (independent of our observation) is. It's meant to apply to things like electron orbits or photons, not people, trains, or Spacemouse.
Ahhh!!! Too many armchair physicists!!! The Heisenberg uncertainty principle is way too often misused and misinterpreted.
From a quantum sense, it says simply that the act of measuring or observing something changes that thing, so that we can never be sure of what its true nature (independent of our observation) is. It's meant to apply to things like electron orbits or photons, not people, trains, or Spacemouse.
As an armchair psuedo-physicist (I can't claim even a remote assosciation) I would point out that you described "the observer effect." The Heisenberg Principle basically says when dealing with a pair of sub-atomic particles, the more accurately you measure one of them, the less accurately you measure the other. Please excuse my simplification here.
However, I think that just anyone would agree that applying the uncertainty principle to Amtrak is completely justified.
You're right about Amtrak!
As an applied fluid dynamicist (i.e., meteorologist -- not to be confused with "weather man!!!"), I don't generally deal with scales below the order of meters (except in the surface layer of the planetary boundary layer).
Modeling the Rio Grande Southern First District circa 1938-1946 in HOn3.
SpaceMouse wrote: IRONROOSTER wrote: tstage wrote: SpaceMouse wrote: Dave Vollmer wrote: Physics is pretty much a set of rules by which we all live. We may not know all the rules, but the rules still apply to us regardless.Physic are pretty much a set of rules we live by.Just a small correction in semantics. I think it would be more accurate to say that physics is a set of rules we are governed by. To say we "live by" them is to imply that we have a choice in the matter or can change them. Okay, back to the regularly schedule program...TomHey wait a minute! The Heisenberg uncertainty principle says I don't know, you don't know. So I can do what I want, so long as I don't tell you. So I am not going to tell you that I have levitation-around layout. IrreverentlyPaul Man, that would sure save a lot of derailments!
IRONROOSTER wrote: tstage wrote: SpaceMouse wrote: Dave Vollmer wrote: Physics is pretty much a set of rules by which we all live. We may not know all the rules, but the rules still apply to us regardless.Physic are pretty much a set of rules we live by.Just a small correction in semantics. I think it would be more accurate to say that physics is a set of rules we are governed by. To say we "live by" them is to imply that we have a choice in the matter or can change them. Okay, back to the regularly schedule program...TomHey wait a minute! The Heisenberg uncertainty principle says I don't know, you don't know. So I can do what I want, so long as I don't tell you. So I am not going to tell you that I have levitation-around layout. IrreverentlyPaul
tstage wrote: SpaceMouse wrote: Dave Vollmer wrote: Physics is pretty much a set of rules by which we all live. We may not know all the rules, but the rules still apply to us regardless.Physic are pretty much a set of rules we live by.Just a small correction in semantics. I think it would be more accurate to say that physics is a set of rules we are governed by. To say we "live by" them is to imply that we have a choice in the matter or can change them. Okay, back to the regularly schedule program...Tom
SpaceMouse wrote: Dave Vollmer wrote: Physics is pretty much a set of rules by which we all live. We may not know all the rules, but the rules still apply to us regardless.Physic are pretty much a set of rules we live by.
Dave Vollmer wrote: Physics is pretty much a set of rules by which we all live. We may not know all the rules, but the rules still apply to us regardless.
Physics is pretty much a set of rules by which we all live. We may not know all the rules, but the rules still apply to us regardless.
Physic are pretty much a set of rules we live by.
Just a small correction in semantics. I think it would be more accurate to say that physics is a set of rules we are governed by. To say we "live by" them is to imply that we have a choice in the matter or can change them.
Okay, back to the regularly schedule program...
Tom
Hey wait a minute! The Heisenberg uncertainty principle says I don't know, you don't know. So I can do what I want, so long as I don't tell you.
So I am not going to tell you that I have levitation-around layout.
Irreverently
Paul
Man, that would sure save a lot of derailments!
Yes, but the trick is getting the train to follow the path he wants it to. The tangents are no problem,it's the turnouts and curves that are gonna be the real trick
-Dan
Builder of Bowser steam! Railimages Site
BRAKIE wrote: SpaceMouse wrote: BRAKIE wrote: Sorry friends but,I have come to a conclusion.. You're going to go beat your dog? Man,Thats a mule..Beating a dead mule! LOL!I did that for a joke.
SpaceMouse wrote: BRAKIE wrote: Sorry friends but,I have come to a conclusion.. You're going to go beat your dog?
BRAKIE wrote: Sorry friends but,I have come to a conclusion..
Sorry friends but,I have come to a conclusion..
You're going to go beat your dog?
Man,Thats a mule..Beating a dead mule! LOL!
I did that for a joke.
Well, a mule is a cross between a horse and a donkey. So, I guess we're only kicking 1/2 a dead horse. Perhaps the other half is just fantasy...
https://tstage9.wixsite.com/nyc-modeling
Time...It marches on...without ever turning around to see if anyone is even keeping in step.
Larry
Conductor.
Summerset Ry.
"Stay Alert, Don't get hurt Safety First!"
It's meant to apply to things like electron orbits or photons, not people, trains, or Spacemouse.
Somebody's going to use that as a signature block, I know it.
http://mprailway.blogspot.com
"The first transition era - wood to steel!"
I was wondering what the "report abuse" button was for.
Check out the Deming Sub by clicking on the pics:
loathar wrote: To count rivets or not to count rivets...That is the question. (anybody got any asprin?)I'm going to go do some realistic scenery on my fantasy layout.
To count rivets or not to count rivets...That is the question. (anybody got any asprin?)
I'm going to go do some realistic scenery on my fantasy layout.
I think I'm going to shave off all all my rivets and start thinking "DR Seus" after this one!
Modeling B&O- Chessie Bob K. www.ssmrc.org
Midland Pacific wrote: I think the whole question of how and why you want to portray the world is a valid one, though it's just guaranteed to start a furball!
I think the whole question of how and why you want to portray the world is a valid one, though it's just guaranteed to start a furball!
True--see my reply to Dave above.
Every approach to modeling has its limitations, and the whole question of how you compress and capture reality if you aren't willing to model a fairly small area is still an interesting one. The South Park line's ascent of the western slope of the Continental Divide from Midway Tank to Alpine Tunnel Station scales out at over fourteen vertical feet in HO Scale - so something has to give, unless your wife is unusually tolerant. The artistry is in figuring out how to capture the aspects of that sort of sight that make it impressive to the viewer in a manageable space. Furlow always seemed to be good at that, and that's why I like a lot of his modeling.
True. However, I like so many others here I could not live with his layout. At the point of Posey book, many of the tracks were not even connected--they were there for looks. If nothing else, I require a layout where the trains can actually go somewhere. Like many here, I fall somewhere in the middle, I really like realistic operations and realistic scenery. I do allow myself artistic license and I like dramatic effects. I want someone to say "wow," when they see the layout. I want them to be entertained at my vignettes. But I also want an inherent self-integrity to the layout. This meaning, within the scope of the layout, nothing is out of place.
Within my current view, "Accuracy" is not a crutch. But it is not a stumbling block either.
Dave Vollmer wrote: This is getting silly. Physics is pretty much a set of rules by which we all live. We may not know all the rules, but the rules still apply to us regardless.Anyhoo, if Malcolm Furlow really said what Sam Posey's book says he said, his credibility in my mind just dropped like a rock. Back in the 1980s I was a big Furlow fan. I was a kid then.Now I find that making things look like they do (or did) in real life is far more rewarding. Sway-backing a stock car until its truss-rods drag on the railheads may be "cute" but it ain't railroading.I've said this before... Look at what Furlow used to do to his freight cars and locomotives. Now, I volunteer periodically at a local tourist railroad operation, so I have some experience (albeit limited) with real trains and real railroad safety.Brakie, jump in and correct me, but no railroader who wants to live past his next shift would even operate most of the equipment in the condition Malcolm models. Rotten, broken cars, rusted-out engines, trestles that look like they couldn't bear the weight of an average-sized dog... It's cute and neat to look at, but it's not a model of a railroad. Therefore, should we even call it model railroading? I don't know. But I wouldn't hold it up as high as someone like Tony Koester who has modeled a recognizable stretch of real railroad.
This is getting silly. Physics is pretty much a set of rules by which we all live. We may not know all the rules, but the rules still apply to us regardless.
Anyhoo, if Malcolm Furlow really said what Sam Posey's book says he said, his credibility in my mind just dropped like a rock. Back in the 1980s I was a big Furlow fan. I was a kid then.
Now I find that making things look like they do (or did) in real life is far more rewarding. Sway-backing a stock car until its truss-rods drag on the railheads may be "cute" but it ain't railroading.
I've said this before... Look at what Furlow used to do to his freight cars and locomotives. Now, I volunteer periodically at a local tourist railroad operation, so I have some experience (albeit limited) with real trains and real railroad safety.
Brakie, jump in and correct me, but no railroader who wants to live past his next shift would even operate most of the equipment in the condition Malcolm models. Rotten, broken cars, rusted-out engines, trestles that look like they couldn't bear the weight of an average-sized dog... It's cute and neat to look at, but it's not a model of a railroad. Therefore, should we even call it model railroading? I don't know. But I wouldn't hold it up as high as someone like Tony Koester who has modeled a recognizable stretch of real railroad.
Dave,Absolutely! If we saw a car in such condition it would not be picked up until a car man has inspected the car..Then there would be speed and in train placement restictions...Most old line conductors would place any BO cars behind the caboose with red flag protection.
As a forklift operator I would refuse to unload such cars quoting company and union safety rules.
Midnight Railroader wrote: Yeah, I read Richard Bach in high school, too.
Yeah, I read Richard Bach in high school, too.
May we hear your interpretation of Richard Bach. I would be interested.
Dave Vollmer wrote: This is getting silly. Physics is pretty much a set of rules by which we all live. We may not know all the rules, but the rules still apply to us regardless.Anyhoo, if Malcolm Furlow really said what Sam Posey's book says he said, his credibility in my mind just dropped like a rock. Back in the 1980s I was a big Furlow fan. I was a kid then.
I agree on two counts. It got silly. Physic are pretty much a set of rules we live by.
And I applaud the movement back to the topic.
However, I think you might be a little harsh on Furlow. Posey, took four words and presented them without a context. While is intent might not have been purposefully antagonistic, it was certainly literary sensationalism. He was setting up Furlow to be the polar opposite of Koester.
What I tried to do earlier was to frame a context in which Furlow could be making a point within his world view--that of the artist. It was also one that was not diametrically opposed to the views of Koester within that context. I was hoping to start a discussion of modeling theory.
Did it think it would digress, sure. But I've yet to figure out how to talk about modeling theory without a nit-picking of arguments to the point of digression or people taking offense at differing points of view, or people attacking others instead of a point of view.
I still think hearing and participating in debate about theory is productive.
SpaceMouse wrote: MidlandPacific wrote: Chip, there's a point that I think you're missing here. We don't say that there's a "Newtonian world" that's distinct from a "Quantum world." Newtonian physics, whether done with algebra or calculus, is just a model we use to describe observed phenomena; it's not a structure that confines our thinking, it's a mathematical method of describing what's really happening. It's not really a question of being open or closed-minded; it's more a question of distinguishing the difference between observed reality and speculation. I don't think people's minds are necessarily closed to the possibility that there could be levitation, they just recognize that without some concrete proof, it doesn't reach the level of theory, let alone law - it's speculation. Good distinction. You are right, of course. I was arguing the model as if it were a world-view. However, I would venture to guess that very few here were seeing it as a model. Because I am not a scientist, I have the luxury of speculation--as long as I don't try to convince you that it is fact. This levetaion thing has gone quite along way considering that it was used as an example of differences in perception.
MidlandPacific wrote: Chip, there's a point that I think you're missing here. We don't say that there's a "Newtonian world" that's distinct from a "Quantum world." Newtonian physics, whether done with algebra or calculus, is just a model we use to describe observed phenomena; it's not a structure that confines our thinking, it's a mathematical method of describing what's really happening. It's not really a question of being open or closed-minded; it's more a question of distinguishing the difference between observed reality and speculation. I don't think people's minds are necessarily closed to the possibility that there could be levitation, they just recognize that without some concrete proof, it doesn't reach the level of theory, let alone law - it's speculation.
Chip, there's a point that I think you're missing here. We don't say that there's a "Newtonian world" that's distinct from a "Quantum world." Newtonian physics, whether done with algebra or calculus, is just a model we use to describe observed phenomena; it's not a structure that confines our thinking, it's a mathematical method of describing what's really happening.
It's not really a question of being open or closed-minded; it's more a question of distinguishing the difference between observed reality and speculation. I don't think people's minds are necessarily closed to the possibility that there could be levitation, they just recognize that without some concrete proof, it doesn't reach the level of theory, let alone law - it's speculation.
Good distinction. You are right, of course. I was arguing the model as if it were a world-view. However, I would venture to guess that very few here were seeing it as a model.
Because I am not a scientist, I have the luxury of speculation--as long as I don't try to convince you that it is fact. This levetaion thing has gone quite along way considering that it was used as an example of differences in perception.
SpaceMouse wrote: Dave Vollmer wrote: Chip... Most of us scientists do accept quantum mechanics (Einstein being a notable exception), but at the sub-atomic level where they belong. Certainly knowledge is not static. We're still looking for a workable Unified Field Theory. But, again, I think most of us have to take it as truth that gravity exists. Because it does. What else accelerates you at 9.81 m/s^2 toward the center of the earth?When I said most people take gravity as Law but people who levitate would disagree, I was being argumentative. You had to know that. If people levitate, and there is anecdotal evidence that some yogis do, it merely means that I don't know how they do it, not that gravity doesn't exist. Like you said, Newtonian physics works well in the macro-world, but I'm not so sure we can write off Quantum Mechanics to sub atomic levels. (Okay, I know I am on shaky ground here because by definition it is limited to sub-atomic levels.) At any rate, I'm not so sure that matter is a solid as it has been believed to be. And if it is not, that changes all the rules. On the other hand, I realize that it doesn't make sense to live in anything but a Newtonian world. A rock thrown at me will still hurt if I forget to duck. Speculating that the world is not solid is therefore relegated to an intellectual exercise and as yet I've found no practical applications. But I like to keep open to possibilities though, because as soon as you form an opinion, you limit yourself to it.
Dave Vollmer wrote: Chip... Most of us scientists do accept quantum mechanics (Einstein being a notable exception), but at the sub-atomic level where they belong. Certainly knowledge is not static. We're still looking for a workable Unified Field Theory. But, again, I think most of us have to take it as truth that gravity exists. Because it does. What else accelerates you at 9.81 m/s^2 toward the center of the earth?
But, again, I think most of us have to take it as truth that gravity exists. Because it does. What else accelerates you at 9.81 m/s^2 toward the center of the earth?
When I said most people take gravity as Law but people who levitate would disagree, I was being argumentative. You had to know that. If people levitate, and there is anecdotal evidence that some yogis do, it merely means that I don't know how they do it, not that gravity doesn't exist.
Like you said, Newtonian physics works well in the macro-world, but I'm not so sure we can write off Quantum Mechanics to sub atomic levels. (Okay, I know I am on shaky ground here because by definition it is limited to sub-atomic levels.) At any rate, I'm not so sure that matter is a solid as it has been believed to be. And if it is not, that changes all the rules.
On the other hand, I realize that it doesn't make sense to live in anything but a Newtonian world. A rock thrown at me will still hurt if I forget to duck. Speculating that the world is not solid is therefore relegated to an intellectual exercise and as yet I've found no practical applications.
But I like to keep open to possibilities though, because as soon as you form an opinion, you limit yourself to it.
Midnight Railroader wrote: SpaceMouse wrote: If people levitate, and there is anecdotal evidence that some yogis do, it merely means that I don't know how they do it, not that gravity doesn't exist. That's a load of peanut butter, and you lose credibility by suggesting that just because some people say they saw it (which is what the phrase "anecdotal evidence" means), it might actually be true. SpaceMouse wrote:But I like to keep open to possibilities though, because as soon as you form an opinion, you limit yourself to it. Yeah, I read Richard Bach in high school, too.
SpaceMouse wrote: If people levitate, and there is anecdotal evidence that some yogis do, it merely means that I don't know how they do it, not that gravity doesn't exist.
SpaceMouse wrote:But I like to keep open to possibilities though, because as soon as you form an opinion, you limit yourself to it.
What have you go against levitation?
With a stomach like mine I can gather ample evidence of it most mornings I work at the factory. Colleagues levitate right out the truck cab in no time. They're not unknown to levitate right out the back while we're loading...
Forget Jonathon Livingstone and read "Stranger to the Ground". Then again, if you put the two together maybe Vietnam wasn't the first place weed was being past around...