Turn on thread page Beta
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    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.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (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.

    but what you on about?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by eric bischoff)
    no offence.

    but what the f**k you on about?

    i second that!
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    "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
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (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
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (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?
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (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.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (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
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (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.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (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!
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (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
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by eric bischoff)
    have some rep for that
    Ta very much!
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by tommypip)
    Ta very much!
    your welcome
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    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.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    What if the wife is deaf?
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (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?
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (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
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (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.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (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?
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Sire)
    If so, do you know of a comprehensive listing I can view?
    http://www.darwinawards.com/
 
 
 
Poll
How are you feeling in the run-up to Results Day 2018?
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.