Hey evenbob, I have a question for you.

Quote: rxwine

So, what then when the Universe was smaller than a atom? It was the quantum theory universe, not the relativity universe?

That' a great question.

Since we don't know what happened until after a tiny fraction of a second after the Big Bang, we don't know what conditions were like in the primordial atom.

But if it contained all the energy of the universe, then relativity says it also held all matter (matter=energy), therefore it also manifested all the gravity. The General Theory of Relativity deals with gravitational fields.

But we don't really know. I sure as hell don't know.

Quote: pew

The bottom line is, could quantum effects account for the survival of the human psyche, soul, spirit or whatever you want to call it after death?

I'm busier than an electric charge in a tritium nucleus. SO I'll answer for now: I don't see how.

Quote:

On another note, I think it's weird that the distance between a nucleus and an electron is relatively great and between atoms also. I've read that the reality we deal with daily is mostly empty space. If that's the case why can't we walk through walls or walk away from a head on collision at 60 mph.

I can give you the short answer in one word: fields.

More later.

Quote: pew

The bottom line is, could quantum effects account for the survival of the human psyche, soul, spirit or whatever you want to call it after death?

I don't see how.

There's something called quantum entanglement. Basically if you have two entangled particles and change one, the other changes at the same time in the same way, even if they be a long distance from each other. This troubled physicist, end in particular it troubled Einstein. he called it "spooky action at a distance." See, nothing acts remotely, but rather is connected by some means. A remote-control plane, for example, uses a physical radio link to the operator's transmitter. Suppose your transmitter is off, it emits no radio waves at all, yet it continues to control the RC plane. That's what entanglement feels like to scientists.

Some people think particles in the brain, for example, could be entangled with particles elsewhere, so when you die your mind still exists in the entangled particles.

Nice idea, right?

But even though atoms can be entangled, it's not as though all particles are entangled naturally. It does happen, just not with every particle in the universe. I think molecules have been entangled, but I'm not sure. For certain large molecules, like most organic molecules, have never been entangled, neither has something as monstrously big to the quantum universe as a single cell.

So no.

Quote: pew

I've read that the reality we deal with daily is mostly empty space.

YEs and no. Imagine a uranium atom with a nucleus the size of a basketball. If it were at the center of a large city, the outermost electron shell would be at the city limits, many miles away. All of the city's volume, cubic miles of it, would contain only 92 electrons. That would make it seem the whole city is empty.

But particles are best thought of as fields as much as solid objects. If you ask "Are electrons waves or particles?" The answer is "yes."

Confused? Join the club!

I think about it, and this isn't necessarily right, that the fields take up the space, and these fields cannot penetrate each other.

Quote:

If that's the case why can't we walk through walls or walk away from a head on collision at 60 mph.

Keep in mind, too, that matter=energy. Regardless of the space a particle takes up, its energy content has a mass equal to its rest mass (technical term). So if a bunch of them hit you at speed, you'll feel it. Think of air. You can move through it effortlessly. But if the wind blows strongly enough, it can push you around.

Quote: Nareed

Take the expression "quantum leap." It's supposed to mean a gigantic leap, or mayor advance.

You mixed a little Spanish spelling into your English.

I think it's original use in popular slag followed physics and was concerned with going from state A to state B without intervening steps. But just as "light year" was developed to give you a convenient way of talking about large distances, the popular mind corrupted "light year" to mean periods of long time, and quantum leap to mean jumps of great distances.

Even though the "Tao of Physics" is now 40 years old, it is still a good way to read about the more abstract parts of physics without resorting to mathematics.

Quote: Pacomartin

the popular mind corrupted "light year" to mean periods of long time, and quantum leap to mean jumps of great distances.

An never mind doing the Kessel Run in three parsecs, eh?

Would you hire a spaceship pilot who does not know the difference between speed and distance?

Funnier still, in the SW universe people travel at "light speed." This means Luke, Han, Obi-Wan and the Wookie took years, at least, to travel to Alderan. I think in latter movies they changed it to "hyperdrive," which is good, solid, SF slang for "somehow faster than light."

Speaking of science fiction, back in the old days some writers would endow their ships with a maximum speed of "the square of the speed of light." That's very fast. But consider this:

In the Imperial system, this means 186,000 miles per second times 186,000 miles per second.

In the Metric system it means 300,000 kilometers per second times 300,000 kilometers per second.

They can't both be right.

The square of the speed of the light is the numerical quantity, not the unit of measurement.

Quote: boymimbo

The square of the speed of the light is the numerical quantity, not the unit of measurement.

Yup.

186,000 mps times 1.6 = Metric Speed of Light.

Quote: Nareed

In the Imperial system, this means 186,000 miles per second times 186,000 miles per second.

In the Metric system it means 300,000 kilometers per second times 300,000 kilometers per second.

They can't both be right.

why not?

Do the math.

km: (3 x 10^5) = 9 x 10 ^10 km/s (at this speed you get to the orbit of Neptune in about .05 seconds)
miles: (1.86 x 10^5) * (1.86 x 10^5) = 3.46 x 10^10 miles/second (at this speed you get to the orbit of Neptune in about .08 seconds)

There are 1.609km in a mile. Obviously they are out by a factor of 1.609.

Therefore the speed of light squared in each system is not equivalent.

Simplify this. If you are going 1.609344km/hour = 1mph and you square your velocity, how fast are you going in each system?