|
Register | Blogging | Today's Posts | Search |
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
11-18-2011, 11:30 AM | #121 (permalink) | |
Groupie
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: West Coast U.S.
Posts: 26
|
Quote:
Now that I think of it that way. |
|
11-26-2011, 01:49 AM | #122 (permalink) |
Music Addict
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: hairball cluster
Posts: 326
|
.
I Got Your Neutrinos Right Here The oldest of the subatomic particles called neutrinos might each encompass a space larger than thousands of galaxies, simulations suggest. We think of fundamental particles as being very small, but “relic” neutrinos left over from the big bang could be big. Really big. The quantum wave describing one could be billions of light-years across, a good fraction of the observable universe. Such a large wave raises questions about how a quantum particle interacts with gravity at the scale of galaxies and galaxy clusters -- questions that remain unresolved. University of California researchers George Fuller and Chad Kishimoto were checking whether a theoretical upper limit could be placed on neutrino masses based on galaxy observations when they realized that the wave functions describing relic neutrinos might extend billions of light years. Half of a neutrino’s wave function could, for instance, be in our galaxy while the other half would be out at the edge of the observable universe. (from 2009 article) Fresh neutrinos like CERN recently clocked exceeding lightspeed are exempt from such speculation. Physics - Ginormous Neutrino .
__________________
. . .
Last edited by skaltezon; 11-27-2011 at 02:15 AM. |
12-19-2011, 01:35 AM | #124 (permalink) |
Account Disabled
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 2,773
|
Seeing pictures of Systems and Galaxies, and watching the epic space film 2001: A Space Odyssey has given me a new outlook on life. Our existence might not have any meaning, but that doesn't mean we can't admire it's spontaneous beauty. I feel like there is still much to be discovered. Like for example, when scientists were able to make subatomic particles travel faster than the speed of light. As for the universe beginning? I believe it never began, and it will never end. I think time is one of the things that can't apply to the "creation" of the universe.
|
12-19-2011, 03:22 AM | #125 (permalink) |
Juicious Maximus III
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Scabb Island
Posts: 6,525
|
As far as I know, the "faster than speed of light" neutrinos have yet to be verified. Until it is verified, I'm hesitant to accept a statement which breaks with one of physics most well known and theoretically useful principles.
__________________
Something Completely Different Last edited by Guybrush; 12-19-2011 at 04:02 AM. |
12-19-2011, 03:44 PM | #127 (permalink) |
Music Addict
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 2,126
|
E F pastor emeritus: Physicist, Sir Roger Penrose, says Stephen Hawking's "no-God-needed" theory of the universe is "hardly science and not even a theory"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dg_95...eature=related Last edited by blastingas10; 12-19-2011 at 03:52 PM. |
01-10-2012, 02:51 PM | #128 (permalink) |
Groupie
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 19
|
I remember watching a TV-program where they said that there are particles in atoms that just appear and disappear at random. A theory was that our universe is like that. If it is, and our whole universe is just a microscopic particle inside another atom, then....... hyper mind****.
|
|