Is space as big as the internet?

Surely you probably could in theory. Seeing as most of the Universe is just a vacuum, and all the planets and such are made of 99.9% empty space.
 
Judgeneo said:
As far as I'm aware, you don't.

I'm only in the second year of my degree, but even a lot of the quantum this year is pretty much impossible to visualise, you just reduce it to maths and make predictions a lot of the time.
Click to expand...
I think that's a little unfair to theoretical physicists. Without doubt, the primary concern is the model, i.e. the numbers produced have to meet experiment. But a good physicist doesn't simply stop at the numbers - in fact, I don't think any professional physicist would do such a thing. A physicist learns to interpret the mathematics. You mention quantum mechanics: I'm sure you must have encountered a quantum mechanical system that can be setup on a finite dimensional vector space, in which case I'm sure you could probably find it in yourself to picture the states of the system as vectors and the observables as endomorphisms on your space of states.

Here's what often happens in physics: the physicist has an idea in which he needs to use a mathematical trick. He then extrapolates, and blindly applies the same idea in places where the mathematical trick makes little sense. If it produces valid experimental predictions, then hooray for the physicist - but the mathematicians are often left lagging behind, since they need to make rigorous the seemingly dodgy mathematics implemented by the physicist. To cement ideas, consider this example:

Quantum field theory is horrendously complex from a mathematical point of view. Even coming up with a set of axioms which produces a viable field theory is difficult. Even now, the foundations of axiomatic *** are not set in stone. Does this bother the physicist? Hell no! Thanks to Richard Feynman, they have some wonderful interpretations of the computations that need to be carried out in quantum field theory (Feynman diagrams). The physicists' gung-ho use of Feynman diagrams has led to one of the most accurate theories of physics every produced (quantum electrodynamics).

So it's often far more important, from the point of view of research, that a physicist can interpret the model rather than be able to make exact mathematical sense of it. They are willing to leave that to the mathematicians and mathematical physicists. :)
 
Nix said:
nydryl, read Brian Greene's Elegant Universe. The latter part of the book will be of interest to you I imagine.
Click to expand...

Just finished reading that this week. I have a degree in physics and I need to read the last half again:p
Recommended, might want to skip the first few chapters if you have read a few other pop science books or have a background in physics though.
 
w11tho said:
I think that's a little unfair to theoretical physicists. Without doubt, the primary concern is the model, i.e. the numbers produced have to meet experiment. But a good physicist doesn't simply stop at the numbers - in fact, I don't think any professional physicist would do such a thing. A physicist learns to interpret the mathematics. You mention quantum mechanics: I'm sure you must have encountered a quantum mechanical system that can be setup on a finite dimensional vector space, in which case I'm sure you could probably find it in yourself to picture the states of the system as vectors and the observables as endomorphisms on your space of states.

Here's what often happens in physics: the physicist has an idea in which he needs to use a mathematical trick. He then extrapolates, and blindly applies the same idea in places where the mathematical trick makes little sense. If it produces valid experimental predictions, then hooray for the physicist - but the mathematicians are often left lagging behind, since they need to make rigorous the seemingly dodgy mathematics implemented by the physicist. To cement ideas, consider this example:

Quantum field theory is horrendously complex from a mathematical point of view. Even coming up with a set of axioms which produces a viable field theory is difficult. Even now, the foundations of axiomatic *** are not set in stone. Does this bother the physicist? Hell no! Thanks to Richard Feynman, they have some wonderful interpretations of the computations that need to be carried out in quantum field theory (Feynman diagrams). The physicists' gung-ho use of Feynman diagrams has led to one of the most accurate theories of physics every produced (quantum electrodynamics).

So it's often far more important, from the point of view of research, that a physicist can interpret the model rather than be able to make exact mathematical sense of it. They are willing to leave that to the mathematicians and mathematical physicists. :)
Click to expand...

That sounds like the sort of thing my housemate would say :P He does straight physics and has that opinion, I study maths/physics and have already presented myself as much more cynical. I guess I just get fustrated at physics maths
 
Judgeneo said:
That sounds like the sort of thing my housemate would say :P He does straight physics and has that opinion, I study maths/physics and have already presented myself as much more cynical. I guess I just get fustrated at physics maths
Click to expand...
You'll be happy to know that any physics you see in an undergraduate course has firm mathematical basis! In fact, if you get an opportunity to do a course in functional analysis, it's a good exercise to go back through your quantum mechanics courses and see if you can fill in the gaps.
 
maybe i'm asleep and your all my dream!!!! if so im having a rubbish dream sitting typing on OC's, at least its better then the one when you dream you've just worked a full shift then wake up to realise you have to go to work >.<
 
Philz0r said:
maybe i'm asleep and your all my dream!!!! if so im having a rubbish dream sitting typing on OC's, at least its better then the one when you dream you've just worked a full shift then wake up to realise you have to go to work >.<
Click to expand...

This thread suggests that a whole load of Drugs have been dropped over the North of England, the OP looks like a northerner and so does this guy.
 
chaosdestro0 said:
No it can't, you can't fit every atom or a representation of that atom on something smaller than the universe.
Click to expand...

Well actually you can.
Apparently if you took all the space out of every human being on the planet they would fit in a sugar cube so you could actually compact all the atoms in the Universe down to a much smaller object.
In fact wasn't it called the Big Bang?
 
dmpoole said:
Well actually you can.
Apparently if you took all the space out of every human being on the planet they would fit in a sugar cube so you could actually compact all the atoms in the Universe down to a much smaller object.
In fact wasn't it called the Big Bang?
Click to expand...

I think this is only possible where the gravitational field strength is incredibly strong and only in circumstances such as neutron stars.
I am not that qualified to answer that question but I doubt human interaction is possible to cause it, it's probably better to wait for the real physicists to come along.

Edit: Type in neutron start in google images and you will get some pretty god damn awesome pictures.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom