You are Here: Home

# If a man in the woods speaks watch

1. The question was raised: "If a man alone in the woods speaks, and his wife cannot hear him, is he still wrong?"

I have considered this question in light of the principles of Modern
Physics and offer my thesis, dedicated to my wife, who anchors me in
reality.

In the year 1900 Max Planck discovered that the energy of light is
quantified. In 1905 Albert Einstein used Planck's Constant to write the
theory of the Photoelectric Effect, that light behaves as a particle
when it comes to energy transfer. Louis de Broglie proposed that
particles can have a wave nature and this fact was later verified.

These discoveries led Neils Bohr to propose a radical theory of the
atom, which was partially successful in explaining the emission spectra
of the hydrogen atom. Neils Bohr was compelled to introduce the
Principle of "Complementarity," that light is both a particle and a
wave.

The modern theories were extended when Max Born showed that the
distribution of energy was a function of probability. Further, Warner
Heisenberg wrote the Principle of Uncertainty, which says that it is
impossible to determine the exact location of an electron and the vector
direction of its momentum at the same time.

This was followed with the master stroke penned by Erwin Schrodinger.
Using the "Psi function" of Quantum Mechanics, Schrodinger could map the
"wave field" of any particle, thus giving us a theoretical explanation
for the structure of an atom and the entire periodic table of the
elements.

The Quantum mechanics predicts that a wave of a single frequency would
stretch out to infinite proportions, the superposition of a narrow range
of frequencies produces a standing wave function which can be localized
to a much more precise location. Thus the electron and its position
within an atom becomes a cloud of probability.

From this I infer that there are such states as being right and being
wrong, within certain parameters of uncertainty. Applying the Psi
function, the more vague the statement of the man the greater the
probability of him being correct. The narrower and more specific his
utterance the greater the likelihood of his being wrong.

Also, the Principle of Complementarity assures us that if a man alone in
the woods speaks, and his wife can not hear him, he is BOTH right and
wrong until he comes out of the woods.

In the analogy of Schrodinger's Cat, the cat in the box is both dead and
alive until someone opens the lid. The act of observing the phenomenon
determines the outcome.

Thus, the inevitable conclusion is that it doesn't matter what the man
says only his wife can determine whether or not he is correct.
2. (Original post by _Devour_You)
The question was raised: "If a man alone in the woods speaks, and his wife cannot hear him, is he still wrong?"

I have considered this question in light of the principles of Modern
Physics and offer my thesis, dedicated to my wife, who anchors me in
reality.

In the year 1900 Max Planck discovered that the energy of light is
quantified. In 1905 Albert Einstein used Planck's Constant to write the
theory of the Photoelectric Effect, that light behaves as a particle
when it comes to energy transfer. Louis de Broglie proposed that
particles can have a wave nature and this fact was later verified.

These discoveries led Neils Bohr to propose a radical theory of the
atom, which was partially successful in explaining the emission spectra
of the hydrogen atom. Neils Bohr was compelled to introduce the
Principle of "Complementarity," that light is both a particle and a
wave.

The modern theories were extended when Max Born showed that the
distribution of energy was a function of probability. Further, Warner
Heisenberg wrote the Principle of Uncertainty, which says that it is
impossible to determine the exact location of an electron and the vector
direction of its momentum at the same time.

This was followed with the master stroke penned by Erwin Schrodinger.
Using the "Psi function" of Quantum Mechanics, Schrodinger could map the
"wave field" of any particle, thus giving us a theoretical explanation
for the structure of an atom and the entire periodic table of the
elements.

The Quantum mechanics predicts that a wave of a single frequency would
stretch out to infinite proportions, the superposition of a narrow range
of frequencies produces a standing wave function which can be localized
to a much more precise location. Thus the electron and its position
within an atom becomes a cloud of probability.

From this I infer that there are such states as being right and being
wrong, within certain parameters of uncertainty. Applying the Psi
function, the more vague the statement of the man the greater the
probability of him being correct. The narrower and more specific his
utterance the greater the likelihood of his being wrong.

Also, the Principle of Complementarity assures us that if a man alone in
the woods speaks, and his wife can not hear him, he is BOTH right and
wrong until he comes out of the woods.

In the analogy of Schrodinger's Cat, the cat in the box is both dead and
alive until someone opens the lid. The act of observing the phenomenon
determines the outcome.

Thus, the inevitable conclusion is that it doesn't matter what the man
says only his wife can determine whether or not he is correct.
no offence.

3. (Original post by eric bischoff)
no offence.

but what the f**k you on about?

i second that!
4. "the Principle of Complementarity assures us that if a man alone in
the woods speaks, and his wife can not hear him, he is BOTH right and
wrong until he comes out of the woods"

That is a very funny paradox
5. (Original post by Neogandalf)
"the Principle of Complementarity assures us that if a man alone in
the woods speaks, and his wife can not hear him, he is BOTH right and
wrong until he comes out of the woods"

That is a very funny paradox
what happens if he comes out of the woods but his wife still can't hear him
6. (Original post by _Devour_You)
The question was raised: "If a man alone in the woods speaks, and his wife cannot hear him, is he still wrong?"

I have considered this question in light of the principles of Modern
Physics and offer my thesis, dedicated to my wife, who anchors me in
reality.

In the year 1900 Max Planck discovered that the energy of light is
quantified. In 1905 Albert Einstein used Planck's Constant to write the
theory of the Photoelectric Effect, that light behaves as a particle
when it comes to energy transfer. Louis de Broglie proposed that
particles can have a wave nature and this fact was later verified.

These discoveries led Neils Bohr to propose a radical theory of the
atom, which was partially successful in explaining the emission spectra
of the hydrogen atom. Neils Bohr was compelled to introduce the
Principle of "Complementarity," that light is both a particle and a
wave.

The modern theories were extended when Max Born showed that the
distribution of energy was a function of probability. Further, Warner
Heisenberg wrote the Principle of Uncertainty, which says that it is
impossible to determine the exact location of an electron and the vector
direction of its momentum at the same time.

This was followed with the master stroke penned by Erwin Schrodinger.
Using the "Psi function" of Quantum Mechanics, Schrodinger could map the
"wave field" of any particle, thus giving us a theoretical explanation
for the structure of an atom and the entire periodic table of the
elements.

The Quantum mechanics predicts that a wave of a single frequency would
stretch out to infinite proportions, the superposition of a narrow range
of frequencies produces a standing wave function which can be localized
to a much more precise location. Thus the electron and its position
within an atom becomes a cloud of probability.

From this I infer that there are such states as being right and being
wrong, within certain parameters of uncertainty. Applying the Psi
function, the more vague the statement of the man the greater the
probability of him being correct. The narrower and more specific his
utterance the greater the likelihood of his being wrong.

Also, the Principle of Complementarity assures us that if a man alone in
the woods speaks, and his wife can not hear him, he is BOTH right and
wrong until he comes out of the woods.

In the analogy of Schrodinger's Cat, the cat in the box is both dead and
alive until someone opens the lid. The act of observing the phenomenon
determines the outcome.

Thus, the inevitable conclusion is that it doesn't matter what the man
says only his wife can determine whether or not he is correct.
You what?
7. (Original post by tommypip)
what happens if he comes out of the woods but his wife still can't hear him
she will assume he has been having an affair with another woman who lives in the woods.
8. (Original post by elpaw)
she will assume he has been having an affair with another woman who lives in the woods.
so if she thinks he's having an affair then the question should be will she BOTHER to litsten to his explination
9. (Original post by tommypip)
so if she thinks he's having an affair then the question should be will she BOTHER to litsten to his explination
i think _devour_you will have to delve into string theory to answer that one.
10. (Original post by elpaw)
i think _devour_you will have to delve into string theory to answer that one.

Don't say that! He probably will. It'll be another page of explination that doesn't make sense!
11. (Original post by tommypip)
Don't say that! He probably will. It'll be another page of explination that doesn't make sense!
have some rep for that
12. (Original post by eric bischoff)
have some rep for that
Ta very much!
13. (Original post by tommypip)
Ta very much!
14. You don't actually apply any of these theories of the "principles of modern physics" to the specified question, so no, you ahve no considered it in the ligh of modern physics.

It appears you have come on here just to "proclaim" the knowledge you have, and so boasting that you know so much (in fact you reckon you know much, in reality your knowledge is sparse at best).

Thankyou, idiot, for wasting a vital space on this forum; I say vital but the space is better empty than being occupied by a disposable point that is completely crap and meaningless.

Hear ye hear ye, Devour you is an idiot, any Joe Schmo can "copy out of a textbook" and put it on a forum without any individual thought.

You have been offcially awarded the idiot bronze badge, which makes you an idiot.
Well done, idiot.
15. What if the wife is deaf?
16. (Original post by gayboy09)
You don't actually apply any of these theories of the "principles of modern physics" to the specified question, so no, you ahve no considered it in the ligh of modern physics.

It appears you have come on here just to "proclaim" the knowledge you have, and so boasting that you know so much (in fact you reckon you know much, in reality your knowledge is sparse at best).

Thankyou, idiot, for wasting a vital space on this forum; I say vital but the space is better empty than being occupied by a disposable point that is completely crap and meaningless.

Hear ye hear ye, Devour you is an idiot, any Joe Schmo can "copy out of a textbook" and put it on a forum without any individual thought.

You have been offcially awarded the idiot bronze badge, which makes you an idiot.
Well done, idiot.
who's got the silver and gold medals?
17. (Original post by _Devour_You)
From this I infer that there are such states as being right and being wrong, within certain parameters of uncertainty. Applying the Psi function, the more vague the statement of the man the greater the probability of him being correct. The narrower and more specific his utterance the greater the likelihood of his being wrong.
that assumes he is making a declarative about the nature of observable reality. he could just be singing
18. (Original post by elpaw)
who's got the silver and gold medals?
No no no, it is an award for it, like the Dickin's award (the now famous award for animals contributing to aid us humanoids), and like other awards as the iron cross.
There is no official standings, and also you can not race/do gymnastics/throw something far/jump high/lift some weights to get a silver or gold medal, the only thing you can do is be as much of an idiot as you can if you want the anti-prestigious gold idiot medal.
19. (Original post by gayboy09)
No no no, it is an award for it, like the Dickin's award (the now famous award for animals contributing to aid us humanoids), and like other awards as the iron cross.
There is no official standings, and also you can not race/do gymnastics/throw something far/jump high/lift some weights to get a silver or gold medal, the only thing you can do is be as much of an idiot as you can if you want the anti-prestigious gold idiot medal.
Is that anything like the "Darwin Awards" where it is given to people at the end of every year for killing themselves in such a stupid manner that we are thankful they removed themself from the gene pool??? Eg: The woman who tried to gas herself in her apartment, yet feeling a new found love for life, decided to celebrate by screaming happy things out her window and lighting a cigarette. BOOM. Bang goes one idiot. And lets not forget the 4 blokes who tried to go down a laundry chute on the 4th floor of a library. Uhmm libraries don't have laundry chutes by the way. Just paper compactors. Buh bye to the first one. So are we talking about the same thing at all? If so, do you know of a comprehensive listing I can view?
20. (Original post by Sire)
If so, do you know of a comprehensive listing I can view?
http://www.darwinawards.com/

TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

This forum is supported by:
Updated: December 9, 2003
Today on TSR

### He lied about his age

Thought he was 19... really he's 14

Poll
Useful resources

## Articles:

Debate and current affairs forum guidelines