What is the hardest thing for you to wrap your brain around

[uperkurk]

Maybe the sheer size of the universe? The speed at which light travels? The size of a quark?

Out of all the things in the universe, what is hardest for you to possibly imagine, as long as it's generally accepted it doesn't have to be proven.

For me it's both the size of the universe and the size of a quark. I mean, sitting here trying to wrap my head around how something can be so unbelievably large, yet also thinking how something can be so unbelievably tiny.

Kind of ironic a little bit, how something like a solar system is similar to an atom even though their sizes vary beyond belief.

 

[leroyjenkens]

I used to have a problem with infinity. I kept using it like it was a number.
For example, I couldn't understand that the amount of numbers between both 0 and 1 and 0 and 2 were both the same.

 

[Dadface]

My brain.

 

[Pythagorean]

I haven't quite wrapped my brain around it yet.

 

[drizzle]

The structure of the human eye and how the process of vision functions, and then dreams.

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

Diamond.

 

[NemoReally]

What is the hardest thing for me to wrap my brain around? Has to have to been a tarmac road surface ... well, I suppose wrapping my skull around the road and my brain around the inside of my skull is technically more accurate.

Other than that it is probably why anything exists at all (and, please, do not try and expound some hypothesis involving quantum theory and zero point energy fluctuations ... such hypotheses presuppose the existence of a quantum field and so on)

 

[ImaLooser]

The Riemann Hypothesis. I don't understand it.

But I'm not even very good at differential equations.

 

[MarneMath]

The platypus. Need I say more?

 

[julcab12]

Women...

 

[uperkurk]

Diamond.

Why diamonds?

 

[tahayassen]

I used to have a problem with infinity. I kept using it like it was a number.
For example, I couldn't understand that the amount of numbers between both 0 and 1 and 0 and 2 were both the same.

Aren't some infinities larger than other infinities?

 

[Jack21222]

Aren't some infinities larger than other infinities?

In a way, yes, that's what Cantor demonstrated in the late 1800s.

If you took the number of numbers in between 0-1 and divided it by the number of numbers between 0-2, you should get 1/2.

Let x be the number of numbers between 0-1. There are an equal number of numbers between 0-1 and between 1-2, so the number of numbers between 0-2 is x + x, or 2x. So you have x/2x, and even if x is infinity, they cancel (they're the same infinity).

I'm sure mathematicians will murder me for doing it that way, since I probably did all kinds of things wrong, but I think that's the general idea.

 

[OmCheeto]

Why diamonds?

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

Why diamonds?

Hard to say.

 

[tahayassen]

Why diamonds?

Jimmy Snyder likes to joke a lot. Diamonds are extremely hard. His post above mine is also a pun.

 

[The Jericho]

How and if an inverse tangent function "jumps" from positive infinity to negative infinity.

 

[EricVT]

Memory.

How tiny chemical reactions and electrical signals can conjure up such vivid memories from 20+ years ago amazes me. Occasionally I have a dream that has been recurring since I was 7-8 years old (currently 27 years old), and it just fascinates me to think about what all is stored in our brain and how some of it surfaces when you least expect it.

 

[leroyjenkens]

In a way, yes, that's what Cantor demonstrated in the late 1800s.

If you took the number of numbers in between 0-1 and divided it by the number of numbers between 0-2, you should get 1/2.

Let x be the number of numbers between 0-1. There are an equal number of numbers between 0-1 and between 1-2, so the number of numbers between 0-2 is x + x, or 2x. So you have x/2x, and even if x is infinity, they cancel (they're the same infinity).

I'm sure mathematicians will murder me for doing it that way, since I probably did all kinds of things wrong, but I think that's the general idea.

The problem is you're using infinity as if it's a number. You added infinity with infinity. That makes no sense if infinity isn't a number.

 

[Jack21222]

The problem is you're using infinity as if it's a number. You added infinity with infinity. That makes no sense if infinity isn't a number.

It makes plenty of sense. For every number in the 0-1 set, there is a corresponding number in the 1-2 set. In my example, x is not necessarily infinity, it's the number of numbers in between 0-1.

The concept of infinities cancelling out, and one infinity being "bigger" than the other, is used ALL THE TIME in calculus when dealing with limits. For example, consider (2^x)/(x!) As x goes to infinity, the top and bottom are both infinity. However, the bottom infinity is "larger" so the limit as it goes to infinity is zero.

 

[EricVT]

The concept of infinities cancelling out, and one infinity being "bigger" than the other, is used ALL THE TIME in calculus when dealing with limits. For example, consider (2^x)/(x!) As x goes to infinity, the top and bottom are both infinity. However, the bottom infinity is "larger" so the limit as it goes to infinity is zero.

For x equal to infinity, both the numerator and denominator are infinitely large, but their ratio is not zero.

For x approaching infinity -- but still finite -- the numerator and denominator also have finite values and their ratio is close to zero, but not zero.

Taking the limits of functions like this is not the same as dividing infinity by infinity.

 

[leroyjenkens]

It makes plenty of sense. For every number in the 0-1 set, there is a corresponding number in the 1-2 set. In my example, x is not necessarily infinity, it's the number of numbers in between 0-1.

It is necessarily infinity.

The concept of infinities cancelling out, and one infinity being "bigger" than the other, is used ALL THE TIME in calculus when dealing with limits.

It is, but adding infinity to infinity is not.

 

[encorp]

Entropy.

Why it is what it is, and so on.

 

[WannabeNewton]

The concept of infinities cancelling out, and one infinity being "bigger" than the other, is used ALL THE TIME in calculus when dealing with limits.

But that isn't what you did at all; you didn't do a limiting case argument. It would probably be beneficial if you looked at Cantor's original argument.

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

I'm sure mathematicians will murder me for doing it that way, since I probably did all kinds of things wrong, but I think that's the general idea.

Wrong on both counts. I won't repeat it here, but there's a famous example of a hotel with an infinite number of rooms, all of them full. An infinite number of new guests arrive and the hotel is able to accommodate them using only the existing rooms.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Wrong on both counts. I won't repeat it here, but there's a famous example of a hotel with an infinite number of rooms, all of them full. An infinite number of new guests arrive and the hotel is able to accommodate them using only the existing rooms.

I think Travelocity operates according to this example.

 

[ImaLooser]

Entropy.

Why it is what it is, and so on.

John von Neumann told Shannon to call a certain quantity "entropy" because no one understood what it was. This would increase respect for Shannon's information theory.

 

[turbo]

My conundrum is "why would anybody harm or kill another person absent any threat".

 

[PhizKid]

why I'm so dumb

 

[NemoReally]

My conundrum is "why would anybody harm or kill another person absent any threat".

a. Mu ha ha ha ha ... (this is a science forum)
b. It's fun.
c. I want something they've got and I couldn't be bothered to "ask nicely" or "barter" ... duh!
d. Bored, bored, boreditty, bored, BORED!
e. Seemed like a good idea at the time.
f. I vos only obeying orders.
g. They told me my driving was poor / They cut me up at an intersection / They took "my" parking place.

... although I suppose f & g could fall into the "any" threat category (if I don't kill the "Jews" / "capitalist running dogs" / "commie lovers" they'll take over the world / the State will kill me) (my precious little ego is deeply hurt by the aspersions cast up my ability to control a vehicle)

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

What have I got in my pocket?

 

[Danger]

Women...

Roger that.
It's amazing that they say almost exactly the opposite of what they mean, and then rag on you for a week because you took them at their word. ("I don't care about Nancy's party; I want to stay home with you," turns rapidly into "We could be having fun at Nancy's party instead of sitting here watching Jeapardy.")

 

[Borg]

What have I got in my pocket?

I'm sure it's precious.

 

[Danger]

I'm sure it's precious.

I believe that would just be "prec", since there were several "S's" absent from the end of his post. We must keep our tensesses straight.

 

[Chi Meson]

Entropy.

Why it is what it is, and so on.

I'm all set with entropy; it's enthalpy that I still don't quite get (beyond it's definition, and how to calculate the change thereof).

Enthalpy isn't taught in basic physics, so I haven't had the professional requirement of coming up with a dozen analogies to explain it.

 

[OmCheeto]

I'm all set with entropy; it's enthalpy that I still don't quite get (beyond it's definition, and how to calculate the change thereof).

Enthalpy isn't taught in basic physics, so I haven't had the professional requirement of coming up with a dozen analogies to explain it.

I remember Enthalpy! It was a term they used when teaching us how nuclear reactor systems worked.

But being somewhat old, and mentally degenerating at a very rapid pace, anything I learned before yesterday is generally hard for me to wrap my brain around.

 

[Gomar]

Had the meteor not struck planet Earth when the dinos walked all over killing them all, then they would still be around. Ifcourse, had that same meteor struck just 500 years ago, I would not be writing this now.

 

[Yayfordoritos]

The hardest thing for me to wrap my head around is how people can still think the universe was created in 6 days, and that a virgin got pregnant by an immaculate conception.

 

[OmCheeto]

The hardest thing for me to wrap my head around is how people can still think the universe was created in 6 days, and that a virgin got pregnant by an immaculate conception.

A "day" can be defined other than a time period of 24 hours. Perhaps the biblical creation day is 2 billion years long.

And we impregnate people like that all the time where I work. Never asked them if they were virgins of course. It's a bit of a personal question.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zjz16xjeBAA​

Science explains everything.

Neil deGrasse Tyson explained the science of Santa Claus the other day on NPR. He is a freakin' genius.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8YAQh9O0rm8​

ps. Magnets! Someone explain magnets to me!

 

[Whovian]

Number Theory. Or Human stupidity. I'd say both are equally hard for me to wrap my head around.

 

[ahaanomegas]

The hardest thing for my to wrap my brain around is how people can confuse two different subjects like Philosophy and Quantum Mechanics or Astrology and Quantum Physics? Every subject is wonderful in its own way and should be dealt with differently. Yes, there is no border between subjects and they can be intermingled but not to the extent that you make a subject lose its integrity.

Understanding people is hard. Well, understanding the universe is hard.

 

[1MileCrash]

I think it's Graham's number for me.

 

[Drakkith]

I can't understand why my bank account is constantly empty...I think QCD may have something to do with it.

 

[PNGeng]

How humans survived in the wild.

 

[Jow]

Anything greater than or equal to Graham's number. (Alright, not technically a physics thing).
The most difficult, actual thing, for me to wrap my brain around: every single thing in Quantum Mechanics :)

 

[lisab]

Graham crackers.

 

[Drakkith]

Graham crackers.

I thought you put white/grey squishy things BETWEEN the crackers??

 

[nitsuj]

Memory.

How tiny chemical reactions and electrical signals can conjure up such vivid memories from 20+ years ago amazes me.

This is it for me too.

 

[NWH]

What came first, the chicken or the egg? It's an analogy that can be applied to almost any practical situation and asks the very question of existence.

 

[NemoReally]

What came first, the chicken or the egg? It's an analogy that can be applied to almost any practical situation and asks the very question of existence.

Egg? (chicken came from egg, but what laid egg wasn't necessarily chicken - probably tasted as good, though ... I find the distinction question interesting in cases like this; the thing in the farmyard is "clearly" a chicken and its wayback ancestor clearly isn't (it probably had teeth and a long bony tail) - where along the evolutionary trail does a chicken become a chicken and not a chickosaurus?)