tonyh29 Posted November 26, 2014 Share Posted November 26, 2014 Atoms are made up mostly of empty space. If the space were removed from atoms, all the protons, neutrons and electrons in all the human bodies on the planet would fit into something the size of a sugar cube. I hate it when I read facts like this ... makes my brain hurt still trying to get my head around the Prof Cox thing where he said something like electrons in the universe can't sit in precisely the same energy level in the universe ( sum total of all the electrons in the universe must respect Pauli.) and that if you changed the structure of one , everything else in the entire universe would have to change ( I may be slightly paraphrasing ) 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MakemineVanilla Posted November 26, 2014 Share Posted November 26, 2014 Atoms are made up mostly of empty space. If the space were removed from atoms, all the protons, neutrons and electrons in all the human bodies on the planet would fit into something the size of a sugar cube. I hate it when I read facts like this ... makes my brain hurt still trying to get my head around the Prof Cox thing where he said something like electrons in the universe can't sit in precisely the same energy level in the universe ( sum total of all the electrons in the universe must respect Pauli.) and that if you changed the structure of one , everything else in the entire universe would have to change ( I may be slightly paraphrasing ) I saw that lecture. I was pretty amazed when he said so but I understood that his claim was ridiculed and debunked pretty quickly. He originally said that if you change the energy state of one electron it changes all others in the universe. It was pointed out that this would require something to travel faster than the speed of light, which is not possible. One of those over-simplifications meant to instruct but which misinforms. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
useless Posted November 26, 2014 Share Posted November 26, 2014 Probably nothing to do with what Proffesor Brian Cox was trying to explain but some particles can communicate with each other instantaneously (so quicker than light speed), I don't know anything about that (obviously) but I think it's something to do with quantum entanglement. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lapal_fan Posted November 26, 2014 Share Posted November 26, 2014 I wish I could see what physicists see. Even for a day. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CrackpotForeigner Posted November 26, 2014 Share Posted November 26, 2014 Probably nothing to do with what Proffesor Brian Cox was trying to explain but some particles can communicate with each other instantaneously (so quicker than light speed), I don't know anything about that (obviously) but I think it's something to do with quantum entanglement. Quantum entanglement! That's what I was trying to remember. Yeah, that's some super-freaky science. Twinned particles that "know" the state of their twin no matter how much distance separates them. I really don't begin to know how to explain it. So, definitely God. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MakemineVanilla Posted November 26, 2014 Share Posted November 26, 2014 Probably nothing to do with what Proffesor Brian Cox was trying to explain but some particles can communicate with each other instantaneously (so quicker than light speed), I don't know anything about that (obviously) but I think it's something to do with quantum entanglement. Quantum entanglement! That's what I was trying to remember. Yeah, that's some super-freaky science. Twinned particles that "know" the state of their twin no matter how much distance separates them. I really don't begin to know how to explain it. So, definitely God. I thought the whole point of entanglement was that no quanta can viewed separately, only the system as a whole? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CrackpotForeigner Posted November 26, 2014 Share Posted November 26, 2014 Probably nothing to do with what Proffesor Brian Cox was trying to explain but some particles can communicate with each other instantaneously (so quicker than light speed), I don't know anything about that (obviously) but I think it's something to do with quantum entanglement. Quantum entanglement! That's what I was trying to remember. Yeah, that's some super-freaky science. Twinned particles that "know" the state of their twin no matter how much distance separates them. I really don't begin to know how to explain it. So, definitely God. I thought the whole point of entanglement was that no quanta can viewed separately, only the system as a whole? I dunno. But somehow information regarding the state of the entangled particles is transmitted between them instantaneously. According to Wikipedia, the speed at which this occurs has been measured (!) at about 10,000 times the speed of light. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MakemineVanilla Posted November 26, 2014 Share Posted November 26, 2014 Probably nothing to do with what Proffesor Brian Cox was trying to explain but some particles can communicate with each other instantaneously (so quicker than light speed), I don't know anything about that (obviously) but I think it's something to do with quantum entanglement. Quantum entanglement! That's what I was trying to remember. Yeah, that's some super-freaky science. Twinned particles that "know" the state of their twin no matter how much distance separates them. I really don't begin to know how to explain it. So, definitely God. I thought the whole point of entanglement was that no quanta can viewed separately, only the system as a whole? I dunno. But somehow information regarding the state of the entangled particles is transmitted between them instantaneously. According to Wikipedia, the speed at which this occurs has been measured (!) at about 10,000 times the speed of light. It just gets curiouser and curiouser, don't it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nigel Posted November 27, 2014 VT Supporter Share Posted November 27, 2014 Universe facts are truly fascinating.. On a diagram of the solar system to scale, with the Earth reduced to about the diameter of a pea, Jupiter would be over 300 metres away and Pluto would be two and a half kilometres distant (and about the size of a bacterium, so you wouldn’t be able to see it anyway). (from A short history/Bryson) Neutron stars are so dense that a single teaspoon would weigh a billion tons. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nigel Posted November 27, 2014 VT Supporter Share Posted November 27, 2014 The distance to the edge of our solar system is 50,000 times the distance to Pluto. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mjmooney Posted November 27, 2014 VT Supporter Share Posted November 27, 2014 The distance to the edge of our solar system is 50,000 times the distance to Pluto. But... but... if Pluto is the furthest out (ex-) planet in the Solar System, then what defines the 'edge'? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post blandy Posted November 27, 2014 Moderator Popular Post Share Posted November 27, 2014 what defines the 'edge'? The riff on "where the streets have no name"? 9 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
useless Posted November 27, 2014 Share Posted November 27, 2014 (edited) I remember watching a video on the Khan Academy and I think they said the Kepler belt (sp) is often considered the edge of the Solar System but there's no definate answer. Also not sure if Pluto has been re-classified as a planet. Edit: Just had quick search and looks like it might be the Heliosphere (whatever that is) Edited November 27, 2014 by useless Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
coda Posted November 27, 2014 Share Posted November 27, 2014 I thought it was the Oort cloud which is the limit of the sun's gravity. Recently watched Cosmos (2014) and already struggling to remember it. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post useless Posted November 27, 2014 Popular Post Share Posted November 27, 2014 "dog food lid backwards spells dildo of god" 9 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mockingbird_franklin Posted November 28, 2014 Share Posted November 28, 2014 Neutron stars are so dense that a single teaspoon would weigh a billion tons. A tea spoon weighing a billion tons, Bloody hell, I'm not offering to make the tea then there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leve90 Posted November 28, 2014 Share Posted November 28, 2014 You can say with mathematical certainty that if you shuffle a pack of cards, that they have never been in the same order before. The odds are: 80,658,175,170,943,878,571,660,636,856,403,766,975,289,505,440,883,277,824,000,000,000,000 to 1. (Stolen from QI, cheers Fry) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stevo985 Posted November 28, 2014 VT Supporter Share Posted November 28, 2014 I bring that up whenever I play poker. (and everyone hates me for it) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wainy316 Posted November 28, 2014 Share Posted November 28, 2014 Do you quote the exact figure? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nigel Posted November 28, 2014 VT Supporter Share Posted November 28, 2014 (edited) I thought it was the Oort cloud which is the limit of the sun's gravity. Recently watched Cosmos (2014) and already struggling to remember it. Current understanding is the furthest edge of the oort cloud is around half way to the point of the suns gravitational boundary, which dominates for around 2 light years. EDIT - but it does start to get subjective by what is classified as gravitational boundary. Edited November 28, 2014 by Nigel Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts