I'll admit this is a crap thread because I have absolutely no references, BUT:
I was sitting in an orthodontist's waiting room, waiting, and I picked up a magazine. In my stupidity, I really can't remember what magazine it is, but it had this article about professor penrose, and how he might've finally explained why at (sub)atomic levels, particles can be in two places at once (quantum theories), but at macroscopic levels (IE humans), things cannot.
It had something to do with the fact that previous calculations did not take into effect the gravity force of these small objects (as according to einstein's theories of space-time with gravity), because people thought it was so small that it could be discarded. However, because it takes energy to maintain a thing in two spots, small things like subatomic particles could remain in that state indefinitely because gravity does not "rip" it back into it's one-state state of being -- while large things, like humans, revert from their as-a-whole two places at once state to their one place at one time state in a trillionth of a trillionth of a second, or something like that, due to the high amount of energy needed to maintain a human in two places as a result of the human's gravitational forces (human in two places = two large chunks of gravity warping spacetime, as opposed to one).
And then something about conducting an experiment with a half-reflective mirror and a speck of dust or something.
I've presented this really poorly, but by the chance that anyone read that article or has heard or seen anything about this, please feel free to point out any misconceptions or inaccuracies I've had n elaborate on this.
I was sitting in an orthodontist's waiting room, waiting, and I picked up a magazine. In my stupidity, I really can't remember what magazine it is, but it had this article about professor penrose, and how he might've finally explained why at (sub)atomic levels, particles can be in two places at once (quantum theories), but at macroscopic levels (IE humans), things cannot.
It had something to do with the fact that previous calculations did not take into effect the gravity force of these small objects (as according to einstein's theories of space-time with gravity), because people thought it was so small that it could be discarded. However, because it takes energy to maintain a thing in two spots, small things like subatomic particles could remain in that state indefinitely because gravity does not "rip" it back into it's one-state state of being -- while large things, like humans, revert from their as-a-whole two places at once state to their one place at one time state in a trillionth of a trillionth of a second, or something like that, due to the high amount of energy needed to maintain a human in two places as a result of the human's gravitational forces (human in two places = two large chunks of gravity warping spacetime, as opposed to one).
And then something about conducting an experiment with a half-reflective mirror and a speck of dust or something.
I've presented this really poorly, but by the chance that anyone read that article or has heard or seen anything about this, please feel free to point out any misconceptions or inaccuracies I've had n elaborate on this.
一个大西瓜
