It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Googol-sized Particles Larger Than Thousands of Galaxies Fill the Universe -New Discovery

page: 2
63
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 12 2009 @ 03:40 PM
link   
So anyhow, does this mean then that our universal bubble could actually be just one of these mega-neutrinos?




posted on Jun, 12 2009 @ 03:55 PM
link   
I'm always amazed by the people who believe we are alone in the universe.

I mean, I can understand not believing aliens visit us or that anything in our skies is anything other than secret military craft, but...

with all that's in the universe -- especially considering everything we haven't even seen yet -- how can one possibly reach the conclusion we are alone?

It seems to me that probability alone proves otherwise.



posted on Jun, 12 2009 @ 04:03 PM
link   
I really wish I could understand what this is all about, could someone explain this to me in simple way, is it possible? Yes, I am oviously ignorant on this subject. :/



posted on Jun, 12 2009 @ 04:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by TravelerintheDark

Originally posted by ngchunter
I think that quantum mechanics would tell us that you can't control the collapse any more than you can force schrodinger's cat to be dead or alive.


Until you open the box.

What I mean is, forcing the state you want, in other words, knowing that when you open the box the cat will be dead.



posted on Jun, 12 2009 @ 04:25 PM
link   
interesting hope they get to come with more info



posted on Jun, 12 2009 @ 04:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by ngchunter

Originally posted by Soylent Green Is People
If these "stretched neutrinos" are single particles, could they provide an instantaneous information link across vasts distances?

We think alike, I was wondering the same thing when i read this. I suspect the "handwavium trick" would be to control the collapse of the wave function. In order to be useful for communication you have to control where the particle collapses to, and I think that quantum mechanics would tell us that you can't control the collapse any more than you can force schrodinger's cat to be dead or alive. The ability to do so would indicate one has a "star trek-like" grasp of quantum states, heisenberg compensators and all.


I thought the idea of communication over vast distances in space was related to quantum entanglement ? What makes one giant neutrino so fit for the task?


Quantum entanglement is a possible property of a quantum mechanical state of a system of two or more objects in which the quantum states of the constituting objects are linked together so that one object can no longer be adequately described without full mention of its counterpart — even though the individual objects may be spatially separated.

en.wikipedia.org...


Re: ngchunter, Schroedingers cat thought experiment.

In the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics, a system stops being a superposition of states and becomes either one or the other when an observation takes place.
/Wikipedia

[edit on 2009/6/12 by reugen]



posted on Jun, 12 2009 @ 05:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by System
Isn't science just wonderful. I love hearing things like this. It makes me wonder what we'll know in the next 50 years. I just hope I'm still around to find out.


But the thing is this discovery is more proof that we know nothing then anything else. Every time one of these massive discoveries is made it only serves to further deepen the mysteries of the Universe and raise more questions than it answers. We shouldn't pretend our scientists have more than a tentative grasp on the Universe especially when these mind blowing discoveries that NONE of them saw coming is made...

The mystery deepens and that's music to my ears



posted on Jun, 12 2009 @ 05:42 PM
link   
i still do not agree that the universe is expanding,
and i do not agree with the age assessment of the universe

but i do agree that our universe is actually a sub atomic particle within an atom within a greater universe



posted on Jun, 12 2009 @ 06:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by badw0lf
reply to post by warrenb
 


Im missing something somewhere, but what a googol sized anything?



A Gogool is 1 followed by 100 zero's:

10.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.00

0.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000

Sorry for the "0" spam, just wanted to illustrate it


 


Made the zero's into two lines - stretching page

[edit on 13/6/09 by masqua]



posted on Jun, 12 2009 @ 06:41 PM
link   
I think the term your looking for is "non-locality" or what Einstein referred to as "spooky action."



posted on Jun, 12 2009 @ 06:49 PM
link   
reply to post by warrenb
 


You did post this at 11:11!! Wonder if that had anything to do with the universe ?!




posted on Jun, 12 2009 @ 06:52 PM
link   
reply to post by warrenb
 


Wow, excellent discovery and thanks for bringing this to the attention of us all.


This is going to throw some major kinks into our current understandings of quantum and macro realms. To think a neutrino can be that large.....wow. To be honest this could change everything, although it will take more time and research to fully understand this. As far as I know know one as ever postulated this has being a possibility before, but I might be wrong, none the less what a extraordinary find.

 


To the poster who did not know what experiment it was that it was found out that somehow "two particles know what the other is doing". That was discovered in the Copenhagen Experiment and is called Quantum Entanglement, the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle is also a major player in this effect. This effect was argued against by Albert Einstein (who didn't believe in quantum theory) and his associates in the famous EPR arguments with Dr. Neils Bohr in 1935. This action was called "Spooky at a distance "by Dr. Einstein.


 


So can we really still call these 'particles' if they are that large??


As far as I read these do not exist anymore as far as we know, they only existed in the early universe right? I wonder what M-Theory can learn from this, as well as others.






[edit on 6/12/2009 by jkrog08]



posted on Jun, 12 2009 @ 06:53 PM
link   
reply to post by IthinkIbelieve
 


Now show me a Googol Plex!

LOL...............



posted on Jun, 12 2009 @ 07:04 PM
link   
reply to post by jkrog08
 


I'm afraid that might be a bit harder...to quote from the wikipedia article on the googolplex:

"In the PBS science program Cosmos: A Personal Voyage, Episode 9: "The Lives of the Stars", astronomer and television personality Carl Sagan estimated that writing a googolplex in numerals (i.e., "10,000,000,000...") would be physically impossible, since doing so would require more space than the known universe occupies."

Sorry for the off-topic rant...



posted on Jun, 12 2009 @ 07:20 PM
link   
reply to post by warrenb
 


I call it Magick.

In Star Wars they called it "The Force"

Its been called many things over the eons and languages.

Whatever you call it its amazing.



posted on Jun, 12 2009 @ 07:26 PM
link   
reply to post by IthinkIbelieve
 


Ha, I was just playing around, a Googol (damn, still wanna spll it like the search engine!) Plex is best represented as the following exponent: 10^10^100.



posted on Jun, 12 2009 @ 07:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by Moodle
reply to post by warrenb
 


here come those crazy neutrinos again, you know, the ones we've never found. not a single solitary one.

all scientific discovries involving deep space should have a disclaimer:

"This information is purely for entertainment and should not be taken seriously. Everything you are reading is at best, pure speculation and was proven wrong 50+ years ago although it's a little too profitable to let go."

this is just another thing in an ever increasing line of BS passed off as science.

string theory, dark matter, dark energy, dark energy flows, black holes, big bangs, quasars etc etc etc


You're saying quasars aren't real? Even though they can be seen? Black holes, the big bang, quasars, etc etc etc are all real.



posted on Jun, 12 2009 @ 07:50 PM
link   
If in fact neutrinos are being stretched, what is anchoring them?
Is there something that prevents them from moving? Wouldn't the ability to move, negate the stretching? If these particles have such a hard time effecting other, more terrestrial matter, then what is it that is effecting them in this manner? could it be another type of particle, or that somehow, these neutrinos are being held fast, by existing in another dimension? Another dimension perhaps could act as an anchor, while the 3rd dimension pulls at it and somehow it never looses it's grip on the dimension it originates from. Perhaps it originates from 3d space, and is being pulled elsewhere.


[edit on 12/6/2009 by reticledc]



posted on Jun, 12 2009 @ 07:52 PM
link   
This started a realy good topic on sience and the crazies went nuts
go back to your "fying discs" bit plz



posted on Jun, 12 2009 @ 07:56 PM
link   
reply to post by reticledc
 


Well the 'dimensional tethering' would certainly be possible if M-Theory or other string-type theories are correct. Most think that we are tethered to a membrane of up to 11 dimensions by 6 or 7 dimensional 'tethers', or that the membrane occupies the whole of our universe. Very interesting and maybe this new discovery will prove one of these theories or at least help them out greatly.



new topics

top topics



 
63
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join