Hey Crazies.
Have you ever wondered why we have size?
No, I mean like really thought about it.
Why do we take up space?
Asking this calls into question the very nature
of space itself.
It might seem like a strange question, so
let’s take this slowly.
One step at a time.
In a previous video, we said this about a
tennis ball:
This ball is made of a rubber shell covered in a nylon felt surrounding a pocket of air.
Each of those materials is made of molecules, which are made of atoms,
which are made of subatomic particles, some of which are made of even smaller particles.
On a basic level, we are made of the same
stuff as that tennis ball.
Everything is!
Every atom on the periodic table is made of
protons, neutrons, and electrons.
Those protons and neutrons are made
of the same two types of quarks.
But how big are quarks and electrons?
There are actually a few different ways to
answer that.
It depends on what kind of quantum physicist
you are.
If you’re extremely cautious, you might
remember what I said in the Planck video:
At 10 to the negative 18 meters, we reach the smallest distance we've ever measured
at the making of this video.
at which point, you’d say:
All we really know is that quarks and electrons
are, at most, 10 to the negative 18 meters
across.
That isn’t any fun though.
So, if you’re like me and you don’t want
to sit on the metaphorical fence
there are two ways you can go.
Option one!
You could say it depends on how it’s interacting
with other particles.
Say an electron is in particular energy state
like 3s.
It could be anywhere that’s orange.
Therefore, it’s everywhere that’s orange.
Therefore, that’s how big it is,
which is effectively the size of the entire atom.
Even if you use a photon to measure a more
specific position for the electron,
you’ll still have an uncertainty about it.
Whatever that uncertainty is, that’s how
big the electron is.
But that’s not very satisfying, nor is it
particularly useful.
Option two!
Richard Feynman once said:
"The electron is either here, or there, or
somewhere else; but, wherever it is, it is
a point charge."
What’s that mean?
He’s saying particles don’t have size.
Here’s the basic idea:
This picture doesn’t actually show the electron,
only the probability of where it might be.
This spot is dimmer, so it has a lower chance
of being here.
That spot is brighter, so it has a higher
chance of being there.
But, wherever it happens to be,
regardless of what uncertainty your measurement
might have,
it is only a single point.
It has no size.
So how can a bunch of things that don’t
have size
come together to make something that does
have size?
It’s the space between particles that gives
everything size.
A proton has size because its quarks are separated
by some distance.
An atom has size because of the space between
electrons and the nucleus.
Thinking like this still has its problems
though.
Problem number one!
It gives you the impression that somehow space
is empty,
when it’s actually very full.
The space between quarks is full of gluons
binding those quarks together,
giving all atoms 99% of their mass through
E equals mc squared,
and causing unstable quarks to pop in & out
of existence.
But gluons don’t have any size either, so this
doesn’t solve our problem.
It just makes the picture more complicated,
so we’re not going there.
Problem two!
The definition of a “point” leads to some
paradoxes.
A single point has no size and zero dimensions.
It has no length, no width, no height, no
surface area, and no volume.
It just is.
A line is a collection of points.
It has one dimension: a length.
But it has no thickness.
A bunch of points make a line and a bunch
of lines make an area
and a bunch of areas make a volume or what
you might call "a space."
Unfortunately, this just brings us back to
our previous question.
So how can a bunch of things that don’t
have size
come together to make something that does
have size?
Well, there are only a few ways we can reconcile this.
Solution one!
Am I making too many lists?
Never!
Solution one!
Maybe something weird happens because space
is infinitely divisible.
For any two different points on this line,
there is an infinite number of points
between them.
This level of infinity or cardinality is labeled
by a Fraktur Script “c” for continuum.
So, somehow, we gain additional dimensions
by having an
infinite number of lower-dimensional objects.
But you know me, I’m always hesitant to
apply infinities to the real universe.
Solution two!
Maybe points have to be separated by some
unoccupiable distance.
Yeah, I said "unoccupiable."
I don’t care if it’s not an official word
as long as it takes the idea out of my brain
and puts it into yours.
Anyway!
I’m just saying that an electron could exist
here, here, or here,
but nowhere in between.
That might seem a little weird, but it fits
right into the status quo of quantum physics.
Solution three!
Maybe points actually have size.
Maybe they’re not zero-dimensional.
If they make up a three dimensional space,
then they might also be three dimensional.
But that brings up a bunch of other questions:
What shape are they?
If points are boxy, what are the length, width,
and height?
If points are round, what is their diameter?
How do they fit together?
Are they all the same?
IT’S MADNESS!!!!!
Physicists are currently working hard on it,
but it might take a while.
What do you think the solution is?
Infinities?
Mandatory separations?
Points with size?
Or something else?
Please share in the comments.
Thanks for liking and sharing this video.
Subscribe if you'd like to keep up with us.
And until next time, remember, it’s OK to
be a little crazy.
In the last video, we discussed why humans
are the size they are.
Comment response time!
Spa Skeeba was wondering if octopus arms behaving
independently of the central brain was anything
like having your left and right brains separated.
When human brain hemispheres get separated,
they do seem to behave independently
in some ways.
I’ll put some links in the doobly-doo about
it.
But even then, there still seems to be a single
cohesive consciousness.
You’re still you... mostly.
You’ve just lost the ability to do a few
things like properly identify objects.
An octopus brain is different because it benefits
from the independence, whereas you are hindered
by it.
PS!
I hope I didn’t come across harsh correcting
you about squids vs octopuses.
I wanted to save your question for comment
responses,
but also wanted to make sure you didn’t
make the mistake with someone less forgiving
before I had a chance to make this video.
David21686 asked why we couldn’t just be
10 times taller and change our body
structure so we could handle it.
Geronimo Cornplanter responded with an answer
I couldn’t have said any better.
We could be 10 times taller, but then we wouldn’t
be human.
This body structure is part of what defines
our species.
Elliot Grey can’t get the “Attack On Titan”
theme out of his head.
You’re not alone, Elliot.
Tetra-carbon seems to have accidentally started
a conversation about the
metric system, math bases, and counting.
I got involved and mentioned that,
technically, we already count to twelve.
If we really only counted to 10, then, instead
of “eleven” and “twelve”,
we’d say “oneteen” and “twoteen”
or as Chock Thirty-Two would say
“firsteen” and “seconteen”
which, you know, I think those actually sound
better.
If you’re into that sort of thing, you should
check it out.
And Nenad Tehpavuhk, your consistent encouragement
does not go unnoticed.
Just wanted you to know.
Anyway, thanks for watching!
See you next time!
