🚀 go-pugleaf

Chris Wagner wrote:
> 
> Chris Muffett wrote:
> >     I like the idea of this "Heisenberg Uncertainty Compensator", but it
> > simply wouldn't work :)
> >
> >     The method you have proposed to remove Heisenberg's Uncertainty is
> > similar to the thought experiment known as the "EPR Paradox". This
> > experiment tries to discredit the accuracy of Quantum Mechanics (and the
> > Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle) by showing a way to simultaneously
> > deduce the position and momentum of two interacting particles. It turns
> 
> Similar but not the same.  My model for the HUC does not violate the
> HUP.  All states are not measured and known at once.  It measures
> certain critical values and then guesses at what the other values
> *should*
> be.  Keyword: Should Be.  By the laws of probability it doesn't matter
> if you know the exact x,y,z coordinates of a particle.  Only that there
> is x% chance of y value being z.  But the transporter requiers exact
> values.  So the HUC just *picks* a value that satisfies the
> probabilities.

    Yep, I can grasp this concept of "guessing" the particles
attributes, but do you think that the reconstructed object (with
approximated particles) would be sufficiently identical to the original?
Perhaps there is a quantum equivalent of the "Butterfly Effect" causing
the original and the copy to gradually diverge in physical appearances.
If I transported myself, would I still be 'me'?


	Regards,
	 Chris.