Timeline for What is the fastest process or shortest time in nature?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
8 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| May 26, 2014 at 9:09 | comment | added | Mike Scott | @VladimirKalitvianski No one really knows what it even means for something to be in a quantum state when there are no external observers -- and obviously the whole universe can have no external observers, only internal ones, who don't count. | |
| May 6, 2011 at 16:45 | comment | added | Vladimir Kalitvianski | @Spencer Nelson You are right but this something should be in a quantum state which is not so easy to achieve for macroscopic bodies. The larger body, the harder to prepare a quantum state. | |
| May 6, 2011 at 16:36 | comment | added | spencer nelson | @Vladimir something doesn't have to be a single particle to have a quantum wave. In fact, people have observed de Broglie interference of C60: nature.com/nature/journal/v401/n6754/abs/401680a0.html | |
| May 5, 2011 at 22:09 | comment | added | Vladimir Kalitvianski | The mass of the Universe does not belong to one particle! Similarly the mass of a macroscopic body does not belong to any particle so it is useless in your example. | |
| May 5, 2011 at 20:29 | vote | accept | zozo | ||
| May 5, 2011 at 18:55 | comment | added | dbrane | Aren't decoherence times of macroscopic objects typically much shorter than the Planck time? | |
| May 5, 2011 at 17:54 | comment | added | Vladimir Kalitvianski | If a microblackhole is so unstable, it can hardly be created then. | |
| May 5, 2011 at 17:05 | history | answered | Luboš Motl | CC BY-SA 3.0 |