Leaky Nun

(i mean u could also say that atoms would not exist, or atoms would be scaled up to our magnitude, so we would have existed in an even higher magnitude, etc.)

if that value is in our magnitude, then we would have quantum behaviours right?

@TobiasFünke i'm reading the wiki page, and it says, "The inequality at the heart of the uncertainty principle of quantum mechanics follows from the properties of Fourier integrals and from assuming time invariance."; which, very well, but why does the constant in that equation have the value that it has?

which part is the difficult part?

i'm not sure i have

am i understanding this correctly

wait, the mass is the difficult part about the helium atom??

i just said that because to my knowledge nobody has solved the equation for that case right

i mean i don't really see why

two electrons in one atom will be the non-linear example right

hmm

and what was his answer?

i don't know that paper, but sounds interesting

i guess to expand on what i mean by "why", it's more like, "why" should we expect quantum particles to behave according to linear algebra?

both are linear right

a bit of a broad question, but, why is Schrödinger's equation linear?

how can we test whether there is really a delay between absorption and emission?

If mirrors “absorb” the photons and then “emit” them after a random interval, wouldn’t the resulting light wave be destructively interfering with itself?

@SillyGoose “fixed that for you”

i guess the question is, what does the metric look like on earth?

i see

so what actually happens, and how do the "small scales" sum up to get the whole (i'm using reductionism again)

are we assuming here that the space expansion is caused by a "force" then?

well are the two claims true then?

oh, you meant the uniformly claim

so they're the same claim

well empty space as in in deep space, so nowhere near earth

so the atoms in my hands aren't actually getting further apart

it's more like only expanding near empty space or something like that

an unrelated tangent, i've heard it said that the universe isn't actually expanding uniformly everywhere

i see

then what is the 100 Mly?

right, but how would you phrase that distance?

@ACuriousMind how do you express that assuming it always travelled at speed c, its distance now would be 200 Mly?

@ACuriousMind and in this case 100 Mly is the "proper distance" and 200 Mly is the "comoving distance"?

so how do you measure distance?

ah, ok i understand

i just showed that if an object moves at near +c speed, its observed velocity will be +0.5c

it's not 0.01%

you use luminosity to measure distance?

oh

how do you confirm Hubble's law if you can't measure distance?

wait

that is a good point, i was just about to say that it doesn't matter because the redshfit velocity doesn't experience this sort of distortion

(and this is not the redshift velocity!)

nobody ever said this in any scipop!

an object moving at 0.9 c away will be observed as having velocity 0.47 c

i feel like people don't emphasise this enough

after 1 year, the actual distance is 1.2, so the observed distance must be 1.2/1.1 = 1.09

orange is the "apparent speed"