3247: Particle Census - Revision history

82.13.184.33: /* Explanation */

2026-05-21T08:10:52Z

‎Explanation

81.179.199.253: /* Trivia */ 'Twas a perfectly cromulent word, I vouchsafe. (I did not write that original UK-style spelling, myself, but I just wanted it on the record that it was probably considered a correctly-spelt word, by whoever it was that did.)

2026-05-21T00:53:09Z

‎Trivia: 'Twas a perfectly cromulent word, I vouchsafe. (I did not write that original UK-style spelling, myself, but I just wanted it on the record that it was probably considered a correctly-spelt word, by whoever it was that did.)

YZ100: /* Trivia */ correct spelling of "spelled"

2026-05-21T00:14:48Z

‎Trivia: correct spelling of "spelled"

BunsenH: Undo revision 413139 by GSLikesCats307 (talk) The page is recent and still under heavy revision

2026-05-20T14:21:59Z

Undo revision 413139 by GSLikesCats307 (talk) The page is recent and still under heavy revision

82.132.239.85: /* Explanation */ "Send in the auditors" is sometimes euphemistically more to do with ending in the heavy mob to cause problems. Even when not, it can be an annoying event to have to endure, however tight a ship the workplace already tries to be.

2026-05-20T12:20:21Z

‎Explanation: "Send in the auditors" is sometimes euphemistically more to do with ending in the heavy mob to cause problems. Even when not, it can be an annoying event to have to endure, however tight a ship the workplace already tries to be.

82.13.184.33: /* Explanation */

2026-05-20T11:02:18Z

‎Explanation

82.13.184.33: /* Explanation */

2026-05-20T10:58:36Z

‎Explanation

82.13.184.33: /* Explanation */

2026-05-20T10:57:36Z

‎Explanation

82.13.184.33: /* Explanation */

2026-05-20T07:29:01Z

‎Explanation

174.94.118.233: sp

2026-05-19T23:58:05Z

@@ Line 12: / Line 12: @@
 {{incomplete|This page was created at an INDETERMINITE TIME. Don't remove this notice too soon.}}
-This comic references the {{w|Heisenberg uncertainty principle}} of quantum mechanics. Put simply, it states that there's a limit to how precisely we can know both the position and momentum of a particle — the more precisely we know one, the less we know the other. [[Megan]] says that 'physicists' are taking a {{w|census}} of the positions of all particles in the universe, so they'll be known precisely; therefore, all their momenta will be unknowable. By the time we use the census results, we won't know where any of the particles are — we'll just know where they were at the instant their positions were recorded by the census.
+This comic references the {{w|Heisenberg uncertainty principle}} of quantum mechanics. Put simply, this states that there's a limit to how precisely we can know both the position and momentum of a particle — the more precisely we know one, the less we know the other. [[Megan]] says that 'physicists' are taking a {{w|census}} of the positions of all particles in the universe, so they'll be known precisely; therefore, all their momenta will be unknowable. By the time we use the census results, we won't know where any of the particles are — we'll just know where they were at the instant their positions were recorded by the census.
 In the United States, the constitution mandates that a population census of people living in all the states be taken every ten years. This is primarily for the purpose of apportioning representatives to Congress, but it has come to be used for many other demographic purposes. There's no law (human or physical) requiring a decennial physics census; if physicists want to do this, it's their own decision.

@@ Line 42: / Line 42: @@
 ==Trivia==
 *When this comic was uploaded the normal sized image [https://web.archive.org/web/20260518185623/https://xkcd.com/3247/ was incorrectly 2x size]. It kept showing up at 2x size on [[unixkcd]] for awhile.
-*"Indeterminate" is spelled "indeterminite" in the second panel text.
+*"Indeterminate" is spelled<!-- https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/spelt#Verb --> "indeterminite" in the second panel text.
 {{comic discussion}}<noinclude>

@@ Line 42: / Line 42: @@
 ==Trivia==
 *When this comic was uploaded the normal sized image [https://web.archive.org/web/20260518185623/https://xkcd.com/3247/ was incorrectly 2x size]. It kept showing up at 2x size on [[unixkcd]] for awhile.
-*"Indeterminate" is spelt "indeterminite" in the second panel text.
+*"Indeterminate" is spelled "indeterminite" in the second panel text.
 {{comic discussion}}<noinclude>

← Older revision		Revision as of 14:21, 20 May 2026
Line 10:		Line 10:

	==Explanation==		==Explanation==
		+	{{incomplete\|This page was created at an INDETERMINITE TIME. Don't remove this notice too soon.}}
		+
	This comic references the {{w\|Heisenberg uncertainty principle}} of quantum mechanics. Put simply, it states that there's a limit to how precisely we can know both the position and momentum of a particle — the more precisely we know one, the less we know the other. [[Megan]] says that 'physicists' are taking a {{w\|census}} of the positions of all particles in the universe, so they'll be known precisely; therefore, all their momenta will be unknowable. By the time we use the census results, we won't know where any of the particles are — we'll just know where they were at the instant their positions were recorded by the census.		This comic references the {{w\|Heisenberg uncertainty principle}} of quantum mechanics. Put simply, it states that there's a limit to how precisely we can know both the position and momentum of a particle — the more precisely we know one, the less we know the other. [[Megan]] says that 'physicists' are taking a {{w\|census}} of the positions of all particles in the universe, so they'll be known precisely; therefore, all their momenta will be unknowable. By the time we use the census results, we won't know where any of the particles are — we'll just know where they were at the instant their positions were recorded by the census.

@@ Line 20: / Line 20: @@
 In the third panel, someone speaks up and is worried about what will happen to particles during the potential “disruption”. Randomly taking someone’s particles and relocating them would be considered unpleasant,{{Citation needed}} even if you ''could'' tell them where the particles are going, which you can't in this instance.
 If all particles' locations were determined (as exactly as possible) it would have to be done using very high energy particles (which would, themselves, have to have their locations determined), leaving all the measured particles moving very fast (less than the speed of light, of course, but close to it), destroying everything and everyone. Given that, the concern voiced is very fair, but unnecessary, as it would not be possible to perform the task that Megan claims will happen.
 The title text refers to the {{w|Pauli exclusion principle}}, which states that no two {{w|fermions}} — types of particles that include all ordinary matter — can occupy the same quantum state. As the data recorded by the census is confidential, physics officials will not use it to determine whether to issue citations for particles that violate the exclusion principle. This confuses physical laws, which describe how the universe works and by their nature cannot be violated, with societal laws, which declare what is allowed or required by the government.

@@ Line 18: / Line 18: @@
 Many particles, even within the observable universe, are at vast distances from Earth, where they will be difficult to detect. Some particles, particularly neutrinos, are extremely difficult to detect at all, because of their limited interaction with other forms of matter. Simultaneity is impossible, because of relativity, so it would be meaningless to try to catalog them at a specific time. Furthermore, some of those particles will be in the equipment used to measure, and the people doing the measuring, which will further complicate matters.
-In the third panel, someone speaks up and is worried about what will happen to particles during the potential “disruption”. Randomly taking someone’s particles and relocating them would be considered unpleasant,{{Citation needed}} even if you ''could'' tell them where the particles are going. Which you can't in this instance.
+In the third panel, someone speaks up and is worried about what will happen to particles during the potential “disruption”. Randomly taking someone’s particles and relocating them would be considered unpleasant,{{Citation needed}} even if you ''could'' tell them where the particles are going, which you can't in this instance.
-If all particles' locations were determined (as exactly as possible) it would have to be done using very high energy particles (which would, themselves, have to have their locations determined), leaving all the measured particles moving very fast (less than the speed of light, of course, but close to it), destroying everything (and everyone). So the concern voiced is very fair, but unnecessary, as it would not be possible to perform the task that Megan claims will happen.
+If all particles' locations were determined (as exactly as possible) it would have to be done using very high energy particles (which would, themselves, have to have their locations determined), leaving all the measured particles moving very fast (less than the speed of light, of course, but close to it), destroying everything and everyone. Given that, the concern voiced is very fair, but unnecessary, as it would not be possible to perform the task that Megan claims will happen.
-The title text refers to the {{w|Pauli exclusion principle}}, which states that no two {{w|fermions}} — types of particles that include all ordinary matter — can occupy the same quantum state. As the results of the census are confidential, physics officials will not use it to determine whether to issue citations for particles that violate the exclusion principle. This confuses physical laws, which describe how the universe works and by their nature cannot be violated, with societal laws, which declare what is allowed or required by the government.
+The title text refers to the {{w|Pauli exclusion principle}}, which states that no two {{w|fermions}} — types of particles that include all ordinary matter — can occupy the same quantum state. As the data recorded by the census is confidential, physics officials will not use it to determine whether to issue citations for particles that violate the exclusion principle. This confuses physical laws, which describe how the universe works and by their nature cannot be violated, with societal laws, which declare what is allowed or required by the government.
 ==Transcript==

@@ Line 14: / Line 14: @@
 In the United States, the constitution mandates that a population census of people living in all the states be taken every ten years. This is primarily for the purpose of apportioning representatives to Congress, but it has come to be used for many other demographic purposes. There's no law (human or physical) requiring a decennial physics census; if physicists want to do this, it's their own decision.
-[https://www.quora.com/How-many-particles-are-there-in-the-universe There are estimated] to be approximately 10<sup>80</sup> protons, neutrons, neutrinos and electrons in the observable universe, which would make even the task of simply enumerating them difficult. And proton and neutron 'particles' are in turn composed of three quarks (numbers of which which also form other so-called-particles/hadrons), which may easily multiply the the number of separately surveyable particles. If photons are to be included in the census, that increases the number of particles to about 10<sup>89</sup>... with a further problem that detecting them would involve processes that generate more photons than are being surveyed. If dark matter is to be included, we don't even know what it ''is'', let alone have a method of detecting and recording its particles (if any). We don't know the size of the universe as a whole, and many physicists theorise it is infinite, in which case, covering all the particles in that would be an infinite task. If any meaningful and usable information about each particle is to be recorded, storing that information would require many particles for each particle in the universe, which would be a logical contradiction unless all of the extra particles were coming from some other space (such as an alternate universe).
+[https://www.quora.com/How-many-particles-are-there-in-the-universe There are estimated] to be approximately 10<sup>80</sup> protons, neutrons, neutrinos and electrons in the observable universe, which would make even the task of simply enumerating them difficult. Proton and neutron 'particles' are in turn composed of three quarks (numbers of which which also form other so-called-particles/hadrons), which may easily multiply the the number of separately surveyable particles. If photons are to be included in the census, that increases the number of particles to about 10<sup>89</sup>... with a further problem that detecting them would involve processes that generate more photons than are being surveyed. If dark matter is to be included, we don't even know what it ''is'', let alone have a method of detecting and recording its particles (if any). We don't know the size of the universe as a whole, and many physicists theorise it is infinite, in which case, covering all the particles in that would be an infinite task. If any meaningful and usable information about each particle is to be recorded, storing that information would require many particles for each particle in the universe, which would be a logical contradiction unless all of the extra particles were coming from some other space (such as an alternate universe).
 Many particles, even within the observable universe, are at vast distances from Earth, where they will be difficult to detect. Some particles, particularly neutrinos, are extremely difficult to detect at all, because of their limited interaction with other forms of matter. Simultaneity is impossible, because of relativity, so it would be meaningless to try to catalog them at a specific time. Furthermore, some of those particles will be in the equipment used to measure, and the people doing the measuring, which will further complicate matters.

@@ Line 14: / Line 14: @@
 In the United States, the constitution mandates that a population census of people living in all the states be taken every ten years. This is primarily for the purpose of apportioning representatives to Congress, but it has come to be used for many other demographic purposes. There's no law of physics requiring a decennial physics census; if physicists want to do this, it's their own decision.
-[https://www.quora.com/How-many-particles-are-there-in-the-universe There are estimated] to be approximately 10<sup>80</sup> protons, neutrons, neutrinos and electrons in the observable universe, which would make even the task of simply enumerating them difficult. And proton and neutron 'particles' are in turn composed of three quarks (numbers of which which also form other so-called-particles/hadrons), which may easily multiply the the number of seperately surveyable particles. If photons are to be included in the census, that increases the number of particles to about 10<sup>89</sup>... with a further problem that detecting them would involve processes that generate more photons than are being counted. If dark matter is to be included, we don't even know what it ''is'', let alone have a method of detecting and counting its particles (if any). The universe as a whole is generally assumed to be infinite,{{Actual citation needed}} so covering all the particles in that would be an infinite task. If any meaningful and usable information about each particle is to be recorded, storing that information would require many particles for each particle in the universe, which would be a logical contradiction unless all of the extra particles were coming from some other space (such as an alternate universe).
+[https://www.quora.com/How-many-particles-are-there-in-the-universe There are estimated] to be approximately 10<sup>80</sup> protons, neutrons, neutrinos and electrons in the observable universe, which would make even the task of simply enumerating them difficult. And proton and neutron 'particles' are in turn composed of three quarks (numbers of which which also form other so-called-particles/hadrons), which may easily multiply the the number of separately surveyable particles. If photons are to be included in the census, that increases the number of particles to about 10<sup>89</sup>... with a further problem that detecting them would involve processes that generate more photons than are being counted. If dark matter is to be included, we don't even know what it ''is'', let alone have a method of detecting and counting its particles (if any). The universe as a whole is generally assumed to be infinite,{{Actual citation needed}} so covering all the particles in that would be an infinite task. If any meaningful and usable information about each particle is to be recorded, storing that information would require many particles for each particle in the universe, which would be a logical contradiction unless all of the extra particles were coming from some other space (such as an alternate universe).
 Many particles, even within the observable universe, are at vast distances from Earth, where they will be difficult to detect. Some particles, particularly neutrinos, are extremely difficult to detect at all, because of their limited interaction with other forms of matter. Simultaneity is impossible, because of relativity, so it would be meaningless to try to catalog them at a specific time. Furthermore, some of those particles will be in the equipment used to measure, and the people doing the measuring, which will further complicate matters.