[#80776] prerelease of Guis-1.3pre1 (a GTK widget server) for Ruby — Basile STARYNKEVITCH <basile@...>

Dear All,

11 messages 2003/09/01

[#80849] Simple question(s) — Michael Campbell <michael_s_campbell@...>

(I think...)

16 messages 2003/09/02

[#80870] show me the ruby way — nord ehacedod <nordehacedod@...>

This works, but there must be a more natural way to do

18 messages 2003/09/02
[#80916] Re: show me the ruby way — aero6dof@... (Alan Chen) 2003/09/02

ts <decoux@moulon.inra.fr> wrote in message news:<200309021525.h82FPkM17085@moulon.inra.fr>...

[#80918] Re: show me the ruby way — "Warren Brown" <wkb@...> 2003/09/02

alan,

[#80873] RDoc: how to turn off automatic linking for a word? — leikind@... (Yuri Leikind)

Hello all,

12 messages 2003/09/02
[#80962] Re: RDoc: how to turn off automatic linking for a word? — William Webber <wew@...> 2003/09/03

On Wed, Sep 03, 2003 at 12:32:23AM +0900, Yuri Leikind wrote:

[#81014] unknown node type 0 — Hal Fulton <hal9000@...>

Hello, all.

15 messages 2003/09/03

[#81028] webrick and ruby — ahoward <ahoward@...>

12 messages 2003/09/03

[#81057] WEBrick and mod_ruby performance — quixoticsycophant@... (Jeff Mitchell)

I've been scoping out ruby for an upcoming server project.

16 messages 2003/09/03

[#81075] Unit Tests and Encapsulation — Scott Thompson <easco@...>

This may be off-topic in a Ruby list, although I have noticed that a

18 messages 2003/09/04

[#81167] Difference between .. and ... in boolean ranges — Oliver Dain <odain2@...>

I'm a bit confused by some Ruby behavior I'm seeing with ranges. As I

12 messages 2003/09/04

[#81234] Correction: "religious" — Daniel Carrera <dcarrera@...>

It has come to my attention that the word religious can, indeed, be

12 messages 2003/09/05

[#81239] rcalc 2.0 (Ruby Calculator) — "Josef 'Jupp' Schugt" <jupp@...>

Saluton!

14 messages 2003/09/05

[#81345] ANN: MetaTags 1.0 — Ryan Pavlik <rpav@...>

MetaTags 1.0

73 messages 2003/09/08
[#81361] Re: ANN: MetaTags 1.0 — Tobias Peters <tpeters@...> 2003/09/08

Ryan Pavlik wrote:

[#81371] Re: ANN: MetaTags 1.0 — why the lucky stiff <ruby-talk@...> 2003/09/08

On Monday 08 September 2003 06:58 am, Tobias Peters wrote:

[#81384] Re: ANN: MetaTags 1.0 — Chad Fowler <chad@...> 2003/09/08

On Tue, 9 Sep 2003, why the lucky stiff wrote:

[#81386] Re: ANN: MetaTags 1.0 — dblack@... 2003/09/08

Hi --

[#81394] Re: ANN: MetaTags 1.0 — why the lucky stiff <ruby-talk@...> 2003/09/08

On Monday 08 September 2003 12:08 pm, dblack@superlink.net wrote:

[#81396] Re: ANN: MetaTags 1.0 — Hal Fulton <hal9000@...> 2003/09/08

why the lucky stiff wrote:

[#81452] Re: ANN: MetaTags 1.0 — matz@... (Yukihiro Matsumoto) 2003/09/09

Hi,

[#81454] Re: ANN: MetaTags 1.0 — Dave Thomas <Dave@...> 2003/09/09

[#81615] Re: ANN: MetaTags 1.0 — Richard Kilmer <rich@...> 2003/09/10

On Monday, September 8, 2003, at 11:59 PM, Dave Thomas wrote:

[#81374] problem with Module#append_features — Ferenc Engard <ferenc@...>

Hi all,

24 messages 2003/09/08

[#81503] Memory consumption of Ruby/mod_ruby combo on Apache — David Heinemeier Hansson <david@...>

I'm seeing memory consumption in the area of 30-35mb per Apache process

12 messages 2003/09/09
[#81504] Re: Memory consumption of Ruby/mod_ruby combo on Apache — mgarriss <mgarriss@...> 2003/09/09

David Heinemeier Hansson wrote:

[#81535] using a filter inside Ruby — Eric Schwartz <emschwar@...>

I've the contents of a raw log file in memory, and a program that will

12 messages 2003/09/09

[#81587] Fwd: Calling fun taking struct and not pointer to struct? — Robert Feldt <feldt@...>

Related to the recent thread about nested structs

16 messages 2003/09/10
[#81590] Re: Calling fun taking struct and not pointer to struct? — "Nathaniel Talbott" <nathaniel@...> 2003/09/10

Robert Feldt [mailto:feldt@ce.chalmers.se] wrote:

[#81594] Re: Calling fun taking struct and not pointer to struct? — Robert Feldt <feldt@...> 2003/09/10

Nathaniel Talbott <nathaniel@NOSPAMtalbott.ws> skrev den Wed, 10 Sep 2003 22:42:24 +0900:

[#81596] Re: Calling fun taking struct and not pointer to struct? — "Nathaniel Talbott" <nathaniel@...> 2003/09/10

Robert Feldt [mailto:feldt@ce.chalmers.se] wrote:

[#81597] Re: Calling fun taking struct and not pointer to struct? — Robert Feldt <feldt@...> 2003/09/10

Nathaniel Talbott <nathaniel@NOSPAMtalbott.ws> skrev den Thu, 11 Sep 2003 00:06:18 +0900:

[#81612] What *are* variables? Which are nil now? — Hugh Sasse Staff Elec Eng <hgs@...>

Reading about reflection, ObjectSpace will give you the objects in

22 messages 2003/09/10
[#81632] Re: What *are* variables? Which are nil now? — Austin Ziegler <austin@...> 2003/09/10

> raise "@b1 is nil" if @b1.nil

[#81623] Chasing a garbage collection bug — "Thomas Sondergaard" <thomas@...>

I just discovered that I have a GC related bug, or that is to say it doesn't

17 messages 2003/09/10

[#81755] Passing an Object Class from a method to a caller — "RLMuller" <RLMuller@...>

Hi All,

14 messages 2003/09/11

[#81840] Re: Dir.foreach not with patterns? — "Weirich, James" <James.Weirich@...>

I like the Dir[] form (or its "glob" alternative). I used to write

14 messages 2003/09/12
[#82500] Re: Dir.foreach not with patterns? — Jason Creighton <androflux@...> 2003/09/19

On Thu, 18 Sep 2003 15:59:25 +0100

[#81871] Duck Typing — Jim Weirich <jweirich@...>

In the Method Redefinition thread, this explanation of Duck Typing is

38 messages 2003/09/13
[#81884] Re: Duck Typing — dblack@... 2003/09/13

Hi --

[#81929] actual debian ruby packages are unuseable with tk — Ferenc Engard <ferenc@...>

Dear debian ruby package maintainers,

12 messages 2003/09/13

[#81960] Dot versus double-colon — Hal Fulton <hal9000@...>

OK, I've been thinking (always dangerous after 11 pm).

18 messages 2003/09/14

[#82012] performance and style advice requested — Alex Martelli <aleaxit@...>

I'm trying to learn some Ruby, so I want to write some Ruby code, starting

53 messages 2003/09/14
[#82028] Re: performance and style advice requested — Ben Giddings <bg-rubytalk@...> 2003/09/14

Some style advice:

[#82029] Linguistics 0.02 — Michael Granger <ged@...>

Hi fellow Rubyists,

19 messages 2003/09/14

[#82056] Test::Unit -- multiple errors in test method ??? — Johan Holmberg <holmberg@...>

14 messages 2003/09/15

[#82166] scrambler one-liner — Xavier Noria <fxn@...>

I just came across this interesting article at Slashdot that explains that

27 messages 2003/09/16

[#82206] #{} and \" don't like each other — Peter <Peter.Vanbroekhoven@...>

From the Programming Ruby book:

32 messages 2003/09/16

[#82419] wiki reccomendations — ahoward <ahoward@...>

15 messages 2003/09/18

[#82448] closing stderr — Michael Garriss <mgarriss@...>

I would like to prevent some output that is going to stderr during a

15 messages 2003/09/18

[#82547] fork not available? — walter@...

I am running windows 2000 using the PragProgs install.

14 messages 2003/09/19

[#82561] Trouble with binary files? — <agemoagemo@...>

I'm trying to write a program that will read a binary

24 messages 2003/09/19
[#82562] Re: Trouble with binary files? — Heinz Werntges <werntges@...> 2003/09/19

agemoagemo@yahoo.com wrote:

[#82583] Re: Trouble with binary files? — Tim Hammerquist <tim@...> 2003/09/19

<agemoagemo@yahoo.com> graced us by uttering:

[#82575] Article on oreilly.net on how to build Unix tools with Ruby — Xavier <NOSPAM@...>

Thought you'd like to know about this article

24 messages 2003/09/19
[#82829] Re: Article on oreilly.net on how to build Unix tools with Ruby — Paul Brannan <pbrannan@...> 2003/09/23

On Sat, Sep 20, 2003 at 06:00:21AM +0900, Xavier wrote:

[#82589] POP3Filter for SoBig.F Virus: — Austin Ziegler <austin@...>

Here's an updated version of the Ruby pop3filter that was written. This

32 messages 2003/09/20
[#82592] Re: POP3Filter for SoBig.F Virus: — Austin Ziegler <austin@...> 2003/09/20

I've made more updates. Rather than just putting them here, I've created a

[#82609] Re: POP3Filter for SoBig.F Virus: — Austin Ziegler <austin@...> 2003/09/20

On Sat, 20 Sep 2003 10:14:39 +0900, Austin Ziegler wrote:

[#82617] Re: POP3Filter for SoBig.F Virus: — "Shashank Date" <sdate@...> 2003/09/20

[#82618] Re: POP3Filter for SoBig.F Virus: — Gavin Sinclair <gsinclair@...> 2003/09/20

On Saturday, September 20, 2003, 9:03:18 PM, Shashank wrote:

[#82621] Re: POP3Filter for SoBig.F Virus: — Austin Ziegler <austin@...> 2003/09/20

On Sat, 20 Sep 2003 22:15:40 +0900, Gavin Sinclair wrote:

[#82623] Re: POP3Filter for SoBig.F Virus: — Jose Quesada <quesadaj@...> 2003/09/20

On Sat, 20 Sep 2003 23:52:39 +0900, Austin Ziegler <austin@halostatue.ca>

[#82624] Re: POP3Filter for SoBig.F Virus: — Xavier Noria <fxn@...> 2003/09/20

On Saturday 20 September 2003 18:56, Jose Quesada wrote:

[#82632] Real emails on newsgroup version (was Re: POP3Filter) — Ben Giddings <bg-rubytalk@...> 2003/09/20

This whole worm thing brings up a question:

[#82683] Re: Real emails on newsgroup version (was Re: POP3Filter) — Dave Thomas <Dave@...> 2003/09/22

[#82661] Performance: Ruby vs Java — lalit_pant@... (Lalit Pant)

I'm a newcomer to Ruby, and thought I would write a little

18 messages 2003/09/22

[#82715] Ruby package for Linux — Jim Freeze <jim@...>

Ok, I know nothing about linux packages.

22 messages 2003/09/22

[#82832] upper to lower first letter of a word — yvon.thoravallist@... (Yvon Thoraval)

Recently, i get a vintage list (more than 500 items) with poor typo, for

30 messages 2003/09/23

[#82884] When threads block — Hans Fugal <fugalh@...>

It's difficult to do any serious multi-threaded network programming when

13 messages 2003/09/24

[#82964] Re: Prove internet package for Microsoft Internet Explorer — "Anthony Neville" <anthony.neville@...>

13 messages 2003/09/25

[#83002] TCPSocket.gethostbyname difficulties — "Nathaniel Talbott" <nathaniel@...>

I'm trying to use TCPSocket.gethostbyname to verify that a given domain

35 messages 2003/09/25
[#83006] Re: TCPSocket.gethostbyname difficulties — Peter <Peter.Vanbroekhoven@...> 2003/09/25

> I can browse to either of those hosts, so what's different about them? Any

[#83014] Re: TCPSocket.gethostbyname difficulties — "Nathaniel Talbott" <nathaniel@...> 2003/09/26

Peter [mailto:Peter.Vanbroekhoven@cs.kuleuven.ac.be] wrote:

[#83030] Re: TCPSocket.gethostbyname difficulties — ts <decoux@...> 2003/09/26

>>>>> "N" == Nathaniel Talbott <nathaniel@NOSPAMtalbott.ws> writes:

[#83035] Re: TCPSocket.gethostbyname difficulties — "Nathaniel Talbott" <nathaniel@...> 2003/09/26

ts [mailto:decoux@moulon.inra.fr] wrote:

[#83036] Re: TCPSocket.gethostbyname difficulties — ts <decoux@...> 2003/09/26

>>>>> "N" == Nathaniel Talbott <nathaniel@NOSPAMtalbott.ws> writes:

[#83037] Re: TCPSocket.gethostbyname difficulties — "Nathaniel Talbott" <nathaniel@...> 2003/09/26

ts [mailto:decoux@moulon.inra.fr] wrote:

[#83011] Adding, removing and redefining features at runtime — "Thomas Sondergaard" <thomas@...>

I am working on an article on the subject of implementing dynamically typed

23 messages 2003/09/26

[#83105] Fwd: FW: Porting Suggestions: Lucene to Ruby; Perl Text::Balanced — Erik Hatcher <erik@...>

I was alerted about me being mentioned on ruby-talk, as I was not

12 messages 2003/09/27
[#83117] OT: alerts - was Re: Fwd: FW: Porting Suggestions: Lucene to Ruby; Perl Text::Balanced — Hal Fulton <hal9000@...> 2003/09/27

Erik Hatcher wrote:

[#83140] Thoughts on yield — nolan_d@... (Nolan J. Darilek)

I've begun working on a music-related ruby project, and recently I've

17 messages 2003/09/28

[#83223] Article on ARTIMA — Peter Hickman <peter@...>

There is the start of a series of articles on ARTIMA with Matz.

21 messages 2003/09/29

[#83310] Making == symmetric? — elbows@... (Nathan Weston)

It has always bothered me that == is not symmetric in ruby:

22 messages 2003/09/30

The Uncertainty Principle Is Untenable

From: "ada" <ada_adams@...>
Date: 2003-09-29 11:02:22 UTC
List: ruby-talk #83207
please reply to hdgbyi@public.guangzhou.gd.cn
thank you.

 
THE UNCERTAINTY PRINCIPLE IS UNTENABLE

By re-analysing Heisenberg's Gamma-Ray Microscope experiment and the ideal experiment from which the uncertainty principle is derived, it is actually found that the uncertainty principle can not be obtained from them. It is therefore found to be untenable. 

Key words: 
uncertainty principle; Heisenberg's Gamma-Ray Microscope Experiment; ideal experiment 

Ideal Experiment 1

                 Heisenberg's Gamma-Ray Microscope Experiment


A free electron sits directly beneath the center of the microscope's lens (please see AIP page http://www.aip.org/history/heisenberg/p08b.htm or diagram below) . The circular lens forms a cone of angle 2A from the electron. The electron is then illuminated from the left by gamma rays--high energy light which has the shortest wavelength. These yield the highest resolution, for according to a principle of wave optics, the microscope can resolve (that is, "see" or distinguish) objects to a size of dx, which is related to and to the wavelength L of the gamma ray, by the expression: 

dx = L/(2sinA) (1) 

However, in quantum mechanics, where a light wave can act like a particle, a gamma ray striking an electron gives it a kick. At the moment the light is diffracted by the electron into the microscope lens, the electron is thrust to the right. To be observed by the microscope, the gamma ray must be scattered into any angle within the cone of angle 2A. In quantum mechanics, the gamma ray carries momentum as if it were a particle. The total momentum p is related to the wavelength by the formula, 

p = h / L, where h is Planck's constant. (2) 

In the extreme case of diffraction of the gamma ray to the right edge of the lens, the total momentum would be the sum of the electron's momentum P'x in the x direction and the gamma ray's momentum in the x direction: 

P' x + (h sinA) / L', where L' is the wavelength of the deflected gamma ray. 

In the other extreme, the observed gamma ray recoils backward, just hitting the left edge of the lens. In this case, the total momentum in the x direction is: 

P''x - (h sinA) / L''. 

The final x momentum in each case must equal the initial x momentum, since momentum is conserved. Therefore, the final x momenta are equal to each other: 

P'x + (h sinA) / L' = P''x - (h sinA) / L'' (3) 

If A is small, then the wavelengths are approximately the same, 

L' ~ L" ~ L. So we have 

P''x - P'x = dPx ~ 2h sinA / L (4) 

Since dx = L/(2 sinA), we obtain a reciprocal relationship between the minimum uncertainty in the measured position, dx, of the electron along the x axis and the uncertainty in its momentum, dPx, in the x direction: 

dPx ~ h / dx or dPx dx ~ h. (5) 

For more than minimum uncertainty, the "greater than" sign may added. 

Except for the factor of 4pi and an equal sign, this is Heisenberg's uncertainty relation for the simultaneous measurement of the position and momentum of an object. 

Re-analysis

To be seen by the microscope, the gamma ray must be scattered into any angle within the cone of angle 2A. 

The microscope can resolve (that is, "see" or distinguish) objects to a size of dx, which is related to and to the wavelength L of the gamma ray, by the expression: 

dx = L/(2sinA) (1) 

This is the resolving limit of the microscope and it is the uncertain quantity of the object's position. 

The microscope can not see the object whose size is smaller than its resolving limit, dx. Therefore, to be seen by the microscope, the size of the electron must be larger than or equal to the resolving limit. 

But if the size of the electron is larger than or equal to the resolving limit dx, the electron will not be in the range dx. Therefore, dx can not be deemed to be the uncertain quantity of the electron's position which can be seen by the microscope, but deemed to be the uncertain quantity of the electron's position which can not be seen by the microscope. To repeat, dx is uncertainty in the electron's position which can not be seen by the microscope. 

To be seen by the microscope, the gamma ray must be scattered into any angle within the cone of angle 2A, so we can measure the momentum of the electron. 

dPx is the uncertainty in the electron's momentum which can be seen by microscope. 

What relates to dx is the electron where the size is smaller than the resolving limit. When the electron is in the range dx, it can not be seen by the microscope, so its position is uncertain. 

What relates to dPx is the electron where the size is larger than or equal to the resolving limit .The electron is not in the range dx, so it can be seen by the microscope and its position is certain. 

Therefore, the electron which relates to dx and dPx respectively is not the same. What we can see is the electron where the size is larger than or equal to the resolving limit dx and has a certain position, dx = 0. 

Quantum mechanics does not rely on the size of the object, but on Heisenberg's Gamma-Ray Microscope experiment. The use of the microscope must relate to the size of the object. The size of the object which can be seen by the microscope must be larger than or equal to the resolving limit dx of the microscope, thus the uncertain quantity of the electron's position does not exist. The gamma ray which is diffracted by the electron can be scattered into any angle within the cone of angle 2A, where we can measure the momentum of the electron. 

What we can see is the electron which has a certain position, dx = 0, so that in no other position can we measure the momentum of the electron. In Quantum mechanics, the momentum of the electron can be measured accurately when we measure the momentum of the electron only, therefore, we have gained dPx = 0. 

And, 

dPx dx =0. (6) 

Every physical principle is based on an Ideal Experiment, not based on MATHEMATICS, including heisenberg uncertainty principle.

For example, the Law of Conservation of Momentum is based on the collision of

two stretch ball in the vacuum; the Principle of equivalence(general relativity)

is besed on the Einstein's laboratory in the lift.

Heisenberg's Gamma-Ray Microscope experiment is an ideal experiment.

Einstein said, One Experiment is enough to negate a physical principle.

Heisenberg's Gamma-Ray Microscope experiment has negated the uncertainty principle.

 

Ideal experiment 2

Single Slit Diffraction Experiment


Suppose a particle moves in the Y direction originally and then passes a slit with width dx(Please see diagram below) . The uncertain quantity of the particle's position in the X direction is dx, and interference occurs at the back slit . According to Wave Optics , the angle where No.1 min of interference pattern is can be calculated by following formula: 

sinA=L/2dx (1) 

and L=h/p where h is Planck's constant. (2) 

So the uncertainty principle can be obtained 

dPx dx ~ h (5) 

Re-analysis

According to Newton first law , if an external force in the X direction does not affect the particle, it will move in a uniform straight line, ( Motion State or Static State) , and the motion in the Y direction is unchanged .Therefore , we can learn its position in the slit from its starting point. 

The particle can have a certain position in the slit and the uncertain quantity of the position is dx =0. According to Newton first law , if the external force at the X direction does not affect particle, and the original motion in the Y direction is not changed , the momentum of the particle int the X direction will be Px=0 and the uncertain quantity of the momentum will be dPx =0. 

This gives: 

dPx dx =0. (6) 

No experiment negates NEWTON FIRST LAW. Whether in quantum mechanics or classical mechanics, it applies to the microcosmic world and is of the form of the Energy-Momentum conservation laws. If an external force does not affect the particle and it does not remain static or in uniform motion, it has disobeyed the Energy-Momentum conservation laws. Under the above ideal experiment , it is considered that the width of the slit is the uncertain quantity of the particle's position. But there is certainly no reason for us to consider that the particle in the above experiment has an uncertain position, and no reason for us to consider that the slit's width is the uncertain quantity of the particle. Therefore, the uncertainty principle, 

dPx dx ~ h (5) 

which is derived from the above experiment is unreasonable. 

Conclusion


From the above re-analysis , it is realized that the ideal experiment demonstration for the uncertainty principle is untenable. Therefore, the uncertainty principle is untenable. 


Reference:
1. Max Jammer. (1974) The philosophy of quantum mechanics (John wiley & sons , Inc New York ) Page 65
2. Ibid, Page 67
3. http://www.aip.org/history/heisenberg/p08b.htm 

 

 

Author : BingXin Gong
Postal address : P.O.Box A111 YongFa XiaoQu XinHua HuaDu
               GuangZhou 510800 P.R.China

E-mail: hdgbyi@public.guangzhou.gd.cn
Tel: 86---20---86856616 

In This Thread

Prev Next