<h2>Answer: The more precisely you know the position of a particle, the less well you can know the momentum of the particle
</h2>
The Heisenberg uncertainty principle was enunciated in 1927. It postulates that the fact that each particle has a wave associated with it, imposes restrictions on the ability to determine <u>its position and speed at the same time. </u>
In other words:
<em>It is impossible to measure simultaneously (according to quantum physics), and with absolute precision, the value of the position and the momentum (linear momentum) of a particle.</em>
<h2>So, the greater certainty is seeked in determining the position of a particle, the less is known its linear momentum and, therefore, its mass and velocity. </h2><h2 />
In fact, even with the most precise devices, the uncertainty in the measurement continues to exist. Thus, in general, the greater the precision in the measurement of one of these magnitudes, the greater the uncertainty in the measure of the other complementary variable.
Therefore the correct option is C.
Answer:
The deformation is 0.088289 m
The final height of the monument is 170-0.088289 = 169.911702 m
Explanation:
Thermal coefficient of marble varies between (5.5 - 14.1) ×10⁻⁶/K = α
So, let us take the average value
(5.5+14.1)/2 = 9.8×10⁻⁶ /K
Change in temperature = 35-(-18) = 53 K = ΔT
Original length = 170 m = L
Linear thermal expansion
The deformation is 0.088289 m
The final height of the monument is 170-0.088289 = 169.911702 m (subtraction because of cooling)
I was about to say: because people generally get comfortable with
what they think they know, and don't like the discomfort of being told
that they have to change something they're comfortable with.
But then I thought about it a little bit more, and I have a different answer.
"Society" might initially reject a new scientific theory, because 'society'
is totally unequipped to render judgement of any kind regarding any
development in Science.
First of all, 'Society' is a thing that's made of a bunch of people, so it's
inherently unequipped to deal with scientific news. Anything that 'Society'
decides has a lot of the mob psychology in it, and a public opinion poll or
a popularity contest are terrible ways to evaluate a scientific discovery.
Second, let's face it. The main ingredient that comprises 'Society' ... people ...
are generally uneducated, unknowledgeable, unqualified, and clueless in the
substance, the history, and the methods of scientific inquiry and reporting.
There may be very good reasons that some particular a new scientific theory
should be rejected, or at least seriously questioned. But believe me, 'Society'
doesn't have them.
That's pretty much why.
