Heisenburg Limit Broken

[krenshala]

D'oh, I should have thought of iceberg. :/

I did a quick search for heisen (heißen) and found this: http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/hei%C3%9Fen

Etymology 1

Old High German heizzan. Cognate with archaic English verb hight (“to name; to be named”).

So I guess that would make heisenberg "hight mountain" or, in a more modern sense "named (of|for the) mountain".

[KitemanSA]

Werner Heisenberg
Werner who's name is mountain... ?

[Ivy Matt]

You know, I don't think I ever learned what the German word for ice is. Is it Eis? That would make sense, it would be the same root, just spelled differently.

Eis is "ice", and also "ice cream". In Old English it ("ice", not "ice cream") was īs.

Werner Heisenberg
Werner who's name is mountain... ?

Or Werner of/from Heisenberg. Heisenberg is undoubtedly a place name, but the only Heisenberg I can find that is not a street is a hamlet in the borough () of Wasseralfingen, in the city of Aalen, in the German state of Baden-Württemberg. Würzburg, where Werner Heisenberg was born, is about 120 kilometers almost due north of Heisenberg. Of course, that still leaves the question of where the village of Heisenberg got its name. I am uncertain () that it comes from heißen.

Werner (sometimes spelled "Wernher"), on the other hand, is more-or-less well understood. The first element comes from Germanic warin, which has been interpreted to mean "guard", "protection", or "shelter", but also may have come by way of the Germanic tribe known to the Romans as the Varini, just as Old English wendel literally meant "wanderer", but often referred to the people known to the Romans as the Vandali.* The second element comes from Germanic hari, which meant "army". If the name existed in Old English, it would have been Wærnhere or Wernhere. The surname Warner is probably the same name, via Norman French.

*To go even further off-topic, there is a related verb, "wend", that is uncommon in Modern English. Its modern past tense form is "wended". Its earlier past tense form, however, was "went". That's right, "go" stole its modern past tense form from another verb.

[CaptainBeowulf]

I suspect, though I'm not sure, that "wend" may come from the same proto-Indo European root that produced the Latin ven- verbs for "to go," like French "venir." Something I always intended to look up in a comparative linguistics book, but never got around to.

I do seem to recall reading that "wind," which is "vent-" in Latinate languages, comes from the ven-/wen- verb. Given that you get basically the same noun for air blowing past in both Germanic and Latin, I suspect you had the same verb for "to go" until a relatively late stage in proto-Germanic linguistic development.

[CaptainBeowulf]

Cognate with archaic English verb hight

And in Old English, hattan. It seems to have been the most frequent/preferred construction in Old English, ie:

He hat Krenshala

Where IIRC German would be:

Er heisst Krenshala

It's been a while since I've read Old English texts, but I seem to remember that in Old English you could also say something like:

He is Krenshala genemnod/genemmed (depending on dialect) (Literally "he is Krenshala named")

[KitemanSA]

Hmmm. Dwayne "HeisenRock" Johnson?

[happyjack27]

changing the amount of uncertainty in a particle is logically equal to changing its information carrying capacity of it. (because all things being equal, its casual predecesors and antecendents must then form a more rigorous connection, so what you've done is made it communicate faster or slower; you've turned a t1 into a fiber-optic cable or vice-versa. you've changed the bandwidth.

and that in turn is logically equivalent to changing the differential rate at which its signal changes in response to changes in configuration of its environment. in this case its signal is its position and velocity, so the multiplier on that rate would be its mass. so changing its uncertainty is logically the same as changing its mass. for a mass-less particle such as e.g. a photon it would be equal to changing the wavelength or energy.

morale of the story is: either there math is wrong, or they mis-measured their mass/energy levels. (or they mis-measured the uncertainty, of course.)

[Giorgio]

@ Happyjack27.

I think you misunderstood the experiment. What they did was using a 2 photon entanglement state to prove that they could get a better reading (beyond the Heisenberg limit) of the intended parameter than when photons were not in entangled state.

Here is the full PDf paper:
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/101 ... 5787v1.pdf

[happyjack27]

@ Happyjack27.

I think you misunderstood the experiment. What they did was using a 2 photon entanglement state to prove that they could get a better reading (beyond the Heisenberg limit) of the intended parameter than when photons were not in entangled state.

Here is the full PDf paper:
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/101 ... 5787v1.pdf

nothing of what i said is at all relevant to what to the particular experiment they did. it holds true true quite regardless.

my point is that u have to look at energy, mass, and uncertainty from the point of view of information and communication. once u do that, "heisenberg uncertainty" is utterly trivial.

the planck constant is just a scale parameter for e.g. information density of flat space. and what they did in their experiment is just, as all experiments are, a communication channel and they measured the bandwidth of it and what they will get as a result is woh and behold what you would get when adding and multiplying and what not the capacitys and what not of the communication channels. which is the same principle by which the so-called "uncertainty" limit exists. you are not "getting around it" you are just misinterpreting the results, or, alternatively, the thing you think you're "getting around", or both.

my guess is they miscalculated-the energy. a pair of photons in an entangled state might very well have a lower or higher energy than the same photons non-entagled, due to the difference in shannon entropy.

[Giorgio]

my guess is they miscalculated-the energy. a pair of photons in an entangled state might very well have a lower or higher energy than the same photons non-entagled, due to the difference in shannon entropy.

It should be the von Neumann entropy, as we are in quantum mechanic case. Anyhow, if we doubt that they correctly calculated the energy of the photons than you might as well be right.

We will discover this in quite a short time as I bet that this experiment will be quickly replicated (and improved) from many of the major research labs.