Ohhhhhh, thanks diomed1 although now I feel even dumber for having it explained that way. But I enjoyed the discussion from chess4david, Skarukin, and ck516... and anyone I left out. This is one of the most interesting discussions I have ever read and I read most comments 3 or 4 times.
So just to clarify as well, light is the fastest thing known to man?
Wasn't talking down to ya wildcard, believe me I know less than anyone about this stuff, just making an example. The only thing faster than light is that weird two particle symmetry thing, where one particle spins the opposite of the second particle, simultainiously, no matter the distance. But you'd need someone else to explain it 'cause quantum theory is way out of my league
I'm dumber than you at this stuff Diomed1... even though i did start this group
It's a great group chessman_calum, thanks for getting it going. I say we challenge chess.com to a game soon. If the dream team can be taken seriously why can't we? I think I saw some "stellar" players in our group lol
yes light is the fastest thing that i know.
I think that we have seen that there are many valid opinions. At the end of the day all you can do is learn as much as you can and make the best assessment based on your knowledge. It is mildly amusing that this astronomy group has been a bit bogged down with particle physics! Personally I think we have seen a very high level of discussion and it would be nice to see it continue.
diomed1 wrote:
Wasn't talking down to ya wildcard, believe me I know less than anyone about this stuff, just making an example. The only thing faster than light is that weird two particle symmetry thing, where one particle spins the opposite of the second particle, simultainiously, no matter the distance. But you'd need someone else to explain it 'cause quantum theory is way out of my league
Glad to see the discussion is still live :)
What you have mentioned here is a freaky bit of quantum mechanics called quantum entanglement. If for example you have a 2 electron system, Pauli exclusion states that one must be spin up and one must be spin down, but you can't tell the spin of an electron without observing it. With it being QM, you end up with a probablity function to describe the spin of electron A and electron B:
PA(up) + PA(down) = 1
PB(up) + PB(down) = 1
If you decided you wanted to measure the spin of electron A, and you measured it to be up, this forces electron B to be down spin. This happens regardless of the distance between the electrons in apparent defiance of physics. Basically, you can't fully describe electron A without mentioning electron B (hidden variable!). This is still quite a debatable topic, Einstein called it "spooky action at a distance". Although he did hate quantum mechanics, despite it being based on work he did...
What are your thoughts that there will be a grand unified theory soon ck516?
It is quite a shame that Einstein died when he did. He was spending alot of time on problems with quantum mechanics.
Shall I ask Erik if we could challenge the rest of chess.com?
you assume Higgs Boson exists. It might not.
We already have QED, so we have a single theory that can describe electromagnetism and the weak/strong force. That's a pretty good start for a theory of everything really! If they find the Higg's boson, that's one step closer to unifying a theory of gravitation with QED...which would pretty much sum up everything! It's plausible, but we're not close yet, assuming that gravity can be unified with the other forces like we expect...
The graviton is quite a stumbling block
Ok, sorry to bring up the subject again. I was trying to read a book tonight but it kept nagging at me that I could remember something that I had NOT heard so I started looking again for the answer for how fast a red giant can collapse. Finally, Google proved itself as always but just barely. I read on a web page (and tried to find more like it to confirm or better explain but couldn't) that the CORE of a red giant, when it goes to Iron, will collapse in a 1/4 of a second. But a core of a red giant has already been contracting while the outer layers were expanding which left me wondering how big the core was before it did this freakish collapse? Sorry to beat the dead horse.
Thanks, David/ Wildcard
PS This has been the best discussion I have ever semi-participated in. Thanks!
I think I'm going to have to go back to uni to get my textbooks out, things are getting quite deep here! It'll be pretty big, Jupiter-sized maybe?
I think you mean how big is the inner core just before supernova when this is occurring (see diagram). It is meant to be approximately 30 km. I used the diagram to save my self a lengthy explanation and to clarify that we are talking about the same event. Was this what you were asking or am I miles off?
In that case what do you think causes mass?
Then why don't you think Higgs boson exists then?
I'm not sure whether it exists, and I think there probably is a carrier particle for gravity, but I don't think they will find it. Good luck to them though!
I have been trying to say that perception and the real speeds are two different things but people just nitpick.