[2012-Apr-10] Plancking

Blame Quintushalls for this.

Moderators: NeatNit, Kimra

User avatar
ChaoticBrain
[ASK] me about supple pony flanks
Posts: 230
Joined: Mon Dec 20, 2010 10:26 am
Location: 404 - Sanity Not Found

[2012-Apr-10] Plancking

Post by ChaoticBrain »

http://www.smbc-comics.com/index.php?db ... 2576#comic

In case people want to know what Zach is even talking about.

Of course, what the engineer failed to take into account is that string theory indicates that objects can be smaller than the Planck length, and those that are can basically defy the laws of physics as we can identify them on the human scale, making them, for all intents and purposes, incorporeal. And since the philosophical implication of this question is that angels are incorporeal... well, simply put, this bozo managed to make engineering look like a less legitimate field of study than philosophy.

User avatar
Klip
Posts: 11
Joined: Mon Mar 12, 2012 8:10 pm

Re: [2012-Apr-10] Plancking

Post by Klip »

Also, (and I've never really heard of that frase being debated, but after a quick wikipedia search), isn't the typical answer that that angels could take the same space at the same time, just like bosons can have same quantum states at the same time? Limiting a single angel to a plank area seems too much of a constraint.

Also, I would appreciate it if it would be previously noted that short scale notation is being used for numbers, as I was terribly confused as to where the other approximately 1^120 angels were coming from.

star mass

Re: [2012-Apr-10] Plancking

Post by star mass »

Klip wrote:the other approximately 1^120 angels
1^120 is approximately 1.

User avatar
Sahan
"I promise you no penis jokes."
Posts: 4360
Joined: Sat Jan 26, 2008 6:20 am
Location: Perth, Australia
Contact:

Re: [2012-Apr-10] Plancking

Post by Sahan »

star mass wrote:
1^120 is approximately 1.
COMEDY GOLD
Destructicus wrote: Alt text:
"I wonder if chemists feel bad that they're always left out of these sorts of jokes."

Since when is chemistry not a science?

User avatar
DonRetrasado
los más retrasadadados
Posts: 2845
Joined: Tue Aug 31, 2010 6:27 am
Location: ¡Canadia!

Re: [2012-Apr-10] Plancking

Post by DonRetrasado »

Our profits will triple!!
Astrogirl wrote:Lethal, nobody wants to know about your herpes.
Lethal Interjection wrote:That's good to know. I can avoid a few awkward phone calls now.

cgseife

Re: [2012-Apr-10] Plancking

Post by cgseife »

No, Mr. smartypants.

Angels are bosonic.

User avatar
Oldrac the Chitinous
Chicken O' the Sea
Posts: 3477
Joined: Fri Dec 12, 2008 11:41 pm
Location: The Perfect Stillness of the Deep
Contact:

Re: [2012-Apr-10] Plancking

Post by Oldrac the Chitinous »

It's gonna be a loooong time before engineering and the Planck scale have anything to do with each other.
Police said they spent some time working out if they could charge the man with being armed with a weapon, as technically he was armed with part of a fish.

Spaceguy5
Posts: 60
Joined: Thu Jan 19, 2012 2:19 am

Re: [2012-Apr-10] Plancking

Post by Spaceguy5 »

Oldrac the Chitinous wrote:It's gonna be a loooong time before engineering and the Planck scale have anything to do with each other.
Tell that to jeeeeesus.

User avatar
Kaharz
This Intentionally Left Blank
Posts: 1572
Joined: Fri Feb 25, 2011 12:17 pm

Re: [2012-Apr-10] Plancking

Post by Kaharz »

Oldrac the Chitinous wrote:It's gonna be a loooong time before engineering and the Planck scale have anything to do with each other.
And they will just round it to 3x10^-70 anyway...
Kaharz wrote:I don't need a title. I have no avatar or tagline either. I am unique in my lack of personal identifiers.

ThatGuy

Re: [2012-Apr-10] Plancking

Post by ThatGuy »

How has no one mentioned that 0 is a perfectly valid answer as well?

User avatar
Sprinkles
[Insert Here]
Posts: 207
Joined: Mon Mar 05, 2012 8:51 pm

Re: [2012-Apr-10] Plancking

Post by Sprinkles »

It's like how with big enough numbers you can predict how a group of radioactive particles will behave, but you cannot at a smaller scale.

It's like that, but instead of radioactive particles, pricks on the internet

GLKilowog

Re: [2012-Apr-10] Plancking

Post by GLKilowog »

ThatGuy wrote:How has no one mentioned that 0 is a perfectly valid answer as well?
This; angels can't dance.

User avatar
K^2
Posts: 13
Joined: Tue Mar 23, 2010 11:30 pm

Re: [2012-Apr-10] Plancking

Post by K^2 »

And this is precisely why we don't let engineers anywhere near real physics.

User avatar
Sprinkles
[Insert Here]
Posts: 207
Joined: Mon Mar 05, 2012 8:51 pm

Re: [2012-Apr-10] Plancking

Post by Sprinkles »

Hey everybody, we're in the presence of the representative of all physicists. Oh wise master, what say you on the border between physics and chemistry?

User avatar
Lethal Interjection
Death by Elocution
Posts: 8051
Joined: Wed Oct 12, 2005 2:17 pm
Location: Behind your ear. It's magic!
Contact:

Re: [2012-Apr-10] Plancking

Post by Lethal Interjection »

Sprinkles wrote:Hey everybody, we're in the presence of the representative of all physicists. Oh wise master, what say you on the border between physics and chemistry?
Applesauce.

Post Reply