Particles as large as galaxies, could fill the universe.

[ericjarvis]

Quantum physics is a model for looking at things. It has great predictive power but it breaks in certain places, and people who regard it as some kind of objective 'truth' tend to be those on the journey to psychosis.

When you say things like 'particles as large as galaxies could fill the universe' you've wandered out of the model significantly eneough to be just talking nonsense.

Not at all. The only problem is that you are trying to interpret the phrase using the definition of particle from classical physics and applying it to a non-classical situation.

Actually I suspect the real problem is somebody chasing more funding by deliberately misleading a journalist by using inappropriate analogies. In terms of the actual physics it's not tremendously new and exciting.

 

[8ball]

Not at all. The only problem is that you are trying to interpret the phrase using the definition of particle from classical physics and applying it to a non-classical situation.

No. For instance, 'fill the universe' implies an exclusion of other things. It means that the description of size (as large as galaxies) implies continuity of form, rather than the perfectly valid 'QM shorthand' use of the word 'size'. It is classical language.

Actually I suspect the real problem is somebody chasing more funding by deliberately misleading a journalist by using inappropriate analogies. In terms of the actual physics it's not tremendously new and exciting.

Yeah, agree totally there. Mix up the classical language and QM shorthand to make something that sounds weird and attention-grabbing.

 

[EastEnder]

When you say things like 'particles as large as galaxies could fill the universe' you've wandered out of the model significantly eneough to be just talking nonsense.

I suppose they could've described it as a hypothesised change in the probability density of primordial neutrinos as a result of cosmic expansion. If you think people would've found that easier to grasp...

 

[8ball]

I suppose they could've described it as a hypothesised change in the probability density of primordial neutrinos as a result of cosmic expansion. If you think people would've found that easier to grasp...

Yes, that would be much better.

 

[Macabre]

'might' 'simulation' 'fuzzy range' 'possible locations' 'impossible to detect directly' all words and phrases that made me change to chemsitry . Stop talking shite in the theoretical pit you've dug yourselves into and give us something substancial

*legs it*

 

[ericjarvis]

'might' 'simulation' 'fuzzy range' 'possible locations' 'impossible to detect directly' all words and phrases that made me change to chemsitry . Stop talking shite in the theoretical pit you've dug yourselves into and give us something substancial

*legs it*

Why would we bother? You are a chemist. Your sole purpose is to provide absolute alcohol to add to the punch at parties.

 

[Macabre]

Why would we bother? You are a chemist. Your sole purpose is to provide absolute alcohol to add to the punch at parties.

Yeah, physicists can't handle the drugs

 

[kyser_soze]

To be able to look at it you'd have to interact with it, the result of which would to be collapse its probability function, instantly reducing it to an infinitesimal point in space time. It's not really "big" to start with, its range of possible locations is utterly vast, but to know its actual location is to reduce that range down to 1.

First thing is you have to understand what is actually meant by particle and size. A particle on the quantum scale is not a solid lump. It's a vibration in space-time that exists over a range of probable locations. So it's not so much a neutrino the size of the universe in the sense that I am a human being 175cm long. It's more the equivalent of saying I am a human being the size of London because I have a travel card and could thus be anywhere in the City.

So basically, it's not actually a single object, but the intergalatic equivalent of a pixel, which only exists as one single point but because it moves so quickly it appears as a picture on a screen.

Obviously there are problems with this metaphor - not least that a pixel is a defined object rather than a potential object and therefore isn't a probability - but it works for me...

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

http://physicalsciences.ucsd.edu/news/archives/archive_detail.php?clip_id=381

meganutrinos ftw

Well if these giant invisible particles exist, maybe ghosts exist, too.

 

[jonH]

they must be big to fill an infinite universe

 

[xes]

we fill the entire universe, through our connection to the infinate one.

 

[kyser_soze]

we fill the entire universe, through our connection to the infinate one.

Will you stop boasting about the size of yer cock FFS

 

[xes]

not fucking likely

 

[EastEnder]

So basically, it's not actually a single object, but the intergalatic equivalent of a pixel, which only exists as one single point but because it moves so quickly it appears as a picture on a screen.

Obviously there are problems with this metaphor - not least that a pixel is a defined object rather than a potential object and therefore isn't a probability - but it works for me...

It's not a single object in the sense that a discrete macroscopic entity is, it's really more of a wave. You can't know both its position & momentum with complete accuracy, if you try to measure one you collapse the wave function, which increases the uncertainty of the other. The range of possible values for a property of a particle, such as its position, is determined by its probability density - which is normally quite narrow, constraining the "size" of a particle to a small region ("size" is really a macroscopic concept, it doesn't work too well at the quantum scale). These hypothesised mega-neutrinos have been "blown up" along with the expanding universe such that their probability density now describes a vastly bigger area - in essence, each particle has a probability of existing at vastly more points in space time than your average neutrino. The fuzzy cloud of probabilities that describes the particle's position is many orders of magnitude greater than normal.

 

[kyser_soze]

That I understood that paragraph makes me happy.

 

[ericjarvis]

Yeah, physicists can't handle the drugs

If physicists couldn't handle drugs there would be no quantum theory.



OK, maybe you have a point.

 

[ericjarvis]

I find it helps to look at it this way.

We live on a guitar. On the strings. The vibration of the strings is normal to us so we can't measure it directly. The only way we can find out what string we are on is to make a point on the string stay still, and then we can hear a harmonic. However we can only do that in one place at a time. So we have to find out what string we are on by testing for the harmonics, and from that we can describe the note even though we can't directly experience it.

The difficulties in relating quantum phenomena to our everyday experience are not due to the nature of quantum phenomena. They are due to our nature compared to the nature of quantum phenomena.