Jump to content


Senior Members
  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by RichIsnang

  1. Steven hawking proposes that information leaks into other universes? Shouldn't we be able to detect some leakage into our universe then?
  2. The particles that make up our bodies are constantly interacting with other particles, so in effect they are being measured or observed by the other particles, so their wave functions are always collapsed to 1 location with the probability of them being elsewhere excruciatingly small, so this is why we do not suddenly find ourselves in the andromeda galaxy from time to time. However, if you have an electron in a perfect vacuum, nothing will be observing it, so it's wave function does not collapse so it is in all places at once.
  3. That's a good point but then I think about the massive amounts of energy we get from the sun every second, and that only keeps us at an average of like 283K ( I don't know the exact average). I think it would drop pretty damn quickly without that energy.
  4. Just for the record, if you were the size of an electron, nuclei would not resemble planets it would most likely be completely weird, quantum physics has taught us this
  5. How does the black hole have enough money to pay back the loan? All it's savings are in a gravitational well so how can it just give some of that up?
  6. Yeah I got you, sorry I wasn't very clear in my post. What I meant is that the universe wouldn't lend you the particles in the first place because it would know that you won't be able to pay them back
  7. I like the bank analogy, but you can fool the bank into giving you $20 and then eat half of it, but you can't fool the universe into giving you two particles on loan then eat one of them and not be able to give the other one back. The bank doesn't know what you will do with the money after it lends it to you, but quantum mechanics and the universe are timeless, they won't lend you the particles in the first place because they know what's going to happen.
  8. No worries, that is the formula for working out basic gravitational attraction, you have to divide the product of the masses by the distance squared, even if you have something a billion billion billion metres away ( 10^27m) and you square it ( 10^54), the formula will still say there is some attraction, granted it will be about a 10^50th of a Newton (ridiculously small), but it will never reach zero, no matter how far away it is.
  9. This is all just speculation but here goes: The temperature would drop rapidly, so all water would freeze, including the water vapour in the air, soon enough, nitrogen would turn to liquid, then oxygen, so the atmosphere would not do too well there. Also, without the protection of the suns magnetic field, the earths magnetic field may not be enough to protect us from the particles out in interstellar space. Life would die extremely fast, we probably wouldnt make it to Pluto before we froze to death (I have no clue how far we would get, that's just a guess). I think the main thing would be the temperature drop.
  10. F=GMm/r^2 That's the Newtonian equation for Gravitational attraction, as r increases, the force between the two decreases, but will never reach 0, as a fraction with all non 0 values in it cannot equal 0. So every mass attracts every other mass in the universe, just with very little force. I hope that's what you were after Also, you can never have completely empty space, there is always fields there, the Higgs field for example will take a non zero value when there is no matter or energy in the region (and it is cooled) so there is always somethin there.
  11. From what I understand, hawking radiation is when two particles are created, either by a photon momentarily splitting into an anti particle-particle pair, or an antiparticle-particle pair being created out of nothing (within the limits of the Heisenberg uncertainty principle). One of these particles falls into the event horizon and the other doesn't, so one particle is created out of nothing and the black hole loses a small amount of mass (black hole evaporation). This seems to me to be a little dodgy, it seems like quantum mechanics is being tricked. And as we have learnt from many many experiments, it cannot. For example, light from distant stars, coming in as a particle, people try and trick it by putting a double slit there and making an interference pattern. ( not a very good example I know as light is both simultaneously, but I hope you get the jist of what I'm talking about). Also I'm a little unclear on how the black hole loses a small amount of mass when a particle falls in, instead of gaining mass.
  12. Firstly, I understand that electrons occupy no volume, so aren't they smaller than planck length? Also, do neutrinos occupy a volume?
  13. I think it's a really nice idea, however non-living objects do feel time( not photons really but planets definitely) so they would definitely excite a theoretical time field.
  14. Ok cool, so chromodynamics is similar to electrodynamics?
  15. Im having a little trouble grasping a little maths that Cantor came up with. Its the one where you write every single decimal real number in a list, then you take the first decimal digit of the first number, the second digit of the second number in the list, the third digit of the third number etc. to get a 'new' number. you then change that number in a set way, and you have a completely new decimal. my problem is that although you have a number that has a different first digit to the first number, so its not the first one, and its not the second one, and so on, you will still have written every possible decimal real number, so how is it not in the list?
  16. Is it theoretically possible for there to be infinite smaller particles? i personally think that it will stop relatively soon, like maybe we may find a couple more layers of 'sub-currently elementary' particles, then we will have the correct ones, but it is possible for it to go on forever, particles getting smaller and smaller? Does Planck length/mass come into it, does it state that there is a theoretical limit that particles cant be smaller than? or are there any other concept that come into it?
  17. What Aort of things do the following categories of quantum physics look at? Quantum field theory Quantum chromodynamics Quantum electrodynamics Quantum mechanics I'd really appreciate if somebody could clear this up for Me once and for all
  18. OK thanks timo, sorry about my poor grammar, one of the downsides of being dyslexic all i meant by 'the numbers' was the initial momentum of the electron and positron and all i meant by 'the equation' was the equation you may use to determine the energy of the photons and potentially directions. but yeah you answered my question
  19. OK, ill try to be careful when I write this we have space-time, which requires 4 co-ordinates to specify any point in it. then on top of that we have the electromagnetic field, which is a vector field, and I guess we have the Higgs field on top of it too? i say on top of because i don't really know the proper wording, I guess any point in space-time has many fields with certain vectors in it? on it? lol how many fields are there? and space-time and the fields are pretty much two separate things?
  20. i dont really understand your confusion about people talking about the creation of the universe. what we know at the moment is that there is some stuff here, why would you not want to ask where it came from. how do you know a beginning from literally nothing is impossible? and when we say the universe, we dont mean the observable universe, we mean the whole thing, regardless of what it is and how big it is, they are two different things, you cant just say we should refer to one as the other.
  21. Ok so the electromagnetic field is a field, what is the relation(if any) to the spatial dimension(could they be described as fields?) and what about time? Is the Higgs field the proposed idea about the spatial dimensions with the Higgs boson working as the photon? And is that QFT?
  22. Is the electromagnetic (field) a field or a dimension or neither? And what is the difference between a field and a dimension? Does QCD say that photons are like ripples in the electromagnetic dimension/field?
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.