A Scientific Evaluation of a Confusing Conundrum


	The question was raised: "If a man alone in the woods speaks, and his 
	wife cannot hear him, is he still wrong?" 

	I have considered this question in light of the principles of Modern 
	Physics and offer my thesis, dedicated to my wife, who anchors me in 
	reality. 

	In the year 1900 Max Planck discovered that the energy of light is 
	quantified. In 1905 Albert Einstein used Planck's Constant to write the 
	theory of the Photoelectric Effect, that light behaves as a particle 
	when it comes to energy transfer. Louis de Broglie proposed that 
	particles can have a wave nature and this fact was later verified. 
	
	These discoveries led Neils Bohr to propose a radical theory of the 
	atom, which was partially successful in explaining the emission spectra 
	of the hydrogen atom. Neils Bohr was compelled to introduce the 
	Principle of "Complementarity," that light is both a particle and a 
	wave. 
	
	The modern theories were extended when Max Born showed that the 
	distribution of energy was a function of probability. Further, Warner 
	Heisenberg wrote the Principle of Uncertainty, which says that it is 
	impossible to determine the exact location of an electron and the vector 
	direction of its momentum at the same time. 
	
	This was followed with the master stroke penned by Erwin Schrodinger. 
	Using the "Psi function" of Quantum Mechanics, Schrodinger could map the 
	"wave field" of any particle, thus giving us a theoretical explanation 
	for the structure of an atom and the entire periodic table of the 
	elements. 
	
	The Quantum mechanics predicts that a wave of a single frequency would 
	stretch out to infinite proportions, the superposition of a narrow range 
	of frequencies produces a standing wave function which can be localized 
	to a much more precise location. Thus the electron and its position 
	within an atom becomes a cloud of probability. 
	
	From this I infer that there are such states as being right and being 
	wrong, within certain parameters of uncertainty. Applying the Psi 
	function, the more vague the statement of the man the greater the 
	probability of him being correct. The narrower and more specific his 
	utterance the greater the likelihood of his being wrong. 
	
	Also, the Principle of Complementarity assures us that if a man alone in 
	the woods speaks, and his wife can not hear him, he is BOTH right and 
	wrong until he comes out of the woods. 
	
	In the analogy of Schrodinger's Cat, the cat in the box is both dead and 
	alive until someone opens the lid. The act of observing the phenomenon 
	determines the outcome. 
	
	Thus, the inevitable conclusion is that it doesn't matter what the man 
	says only his wife can determine whether or not he is correct. 
	
	
	





Back to Lori's Humor Page