The first episode of NUMB3RS was interesting, and tonight's was as well, until their mathematician claimed that the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle applies to anything larger than subatomic particles: in particular, the claim that the HUP says anything about how people's behavior changes when they're being observed is absurd.

I e-mailed CBS about this, suggesting that they should have techinical consultants - physicists or mathematicians - who really understand this stuff.

Who knows . . . .

 

Are you sure their is no evidence for their claim? (not that I would really know if they are right or wrong.)
BTW are you a mathematician?

 

well, considering the HUP is related to difficulties in measuring with precision both the position and velocity of an subatomic particle such as an electron (if you know one 100%, you know the other 0%)... it's quite a stretch to say that that has any relation to peoples behavior changes when they are being observed.

in fact, it's more than a stretch. it's absurd. quantum mechanics is weird... but only in the micro realm. out in the macro world, it's all classical mechanics. and really, neither of those two things have anything to do with what happens when someone stares at you.

I think the narrator of that show over-extrapolated from Schrodinger's cat. and threw in a bit of superstition.

p.s.-- hi Magician

 

Although formally relating the HUP to non-subatomic particles maybe incorrect it is fairly common to apply his general theorum to everyday activities. It's not meant to say that there is efficacy to the statement rather that it's just an anecdotal observation about daily life.

Plus the reference is not commonly applied to this statement:

"The more precisely
the position is determined,
the less precisely
the momentum is known"

rather it's this:

 

[quote name='ImportSport' date='Jan 29 2005, 06:07 AM'] Although formally relating the HUP to non-subatomic particles maybe incorrect it is fairly common to apply his general theorum to everyday activities. It's not meant to say that there is efficacy to the statement rather that it's just an anecdotal observation about daily life.

Plus the reference is not commonly applied to this statement:

"The more precisely
the position is determined,
the less precisely
the momentum is known"

rather it's this:

 

 

"i got a snake mang. it was slithering this way and that"

 

I didnt see the show so I dont know how the original reference applies. But I have run into this same conversation before and the typical point of confusion is what I pointed out. Bascially people focusing on different aspects of the theory.

 

"it was all ed up"

 

There's a narrator in the show? I don't remember there being a narrator.