[InfiniteNow]

Originally Posted by modest

As I understand Reason's question we are comparing the very smallest thing to the very largest and how we fit in between. This being the case I would propose using a plank length of meters which has the added advantage of being close to the proposed size of a string.

I like the idea of using a planck length. While it may not reflect any size attributes of a quark, it does reflect the smallest "thing" we can use in calculations, and would appear closer to Reason's original intent.

However, the number your link offered for the size of the universe is smaller than the one I used. Your link said:

In SI units, the Planck length is approximately 1.6 × 10^−35 metres. The estimated radius of the observable universe (4.4 × 10^26 m or 46 billion light-years) is 2.7 × 10^61 Planck lengths.

While I was working from an estimate of 156 billion light-years, per my link. I've also seen others that propose 78 billion light years, so we would need to first find agreement on the size of the observable universe and perhaps start this whole exercise over again.




(Btw, Tormod... math tags are still breaking inside quotes. I reported this in your project bug tracker like you asked last time I brought this up several days ago)

[modest]

Originally Posted by InfiniteNow

I like the idea of using a planck length. While it may not reflect any size attributes of a quark, it does reflect the smallest "thing" we can use in calculations, and would appear closer to Reason's original intent.

However, the number your link offered for the size of the universe is smaller than the one I used. Your link said:

In SI units, the Planck length is approximately 1.6 × 10^−35 metres. The estimated radius of the observable universe (4.4 × 10^26 m or 46 billion light-years) is 2.7 × 10^61 Planck lengths.

While I was working from an estimate of 156 billion light-years, per my link. I've also seen others that propose 78 billion light years, so we would need to first find agreement on the size of the observable universe and perhaps start this whole exercise over again.

A whole other can of worms.

I like 92 billion lightyears. That is the comoving distance of the observable universe from horizon to horizon of the last scattering surface or CMB. I believe the figure you've found of 156 and 78 are both completely in error as described on wiki:

Observable universe - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Originally Posted by InfiniteNow

(Btw, Tormod... math tags are still breaking inside quotes. I reported this in your project bug tracker like you asked last time I brought this up several days ago)

Until they iron out the wrinkles (and you may already be aware), you can use this fix:

http://hypography.com/forums/tutoria...tml#post216498

~modest

[REASON]

Originally Posted by REASON

I guess that was just too easy.

I guess this wasn't as easy as it first appeared.

As usual, definition of terms is the key.

But it's fun watching you guys solve this.

[modest]

So, using the plank length (which I think is best) we find the human body is about 10^35 plank lengths. The universe is about 10^26 human body lengths.

The best way to think of this or put it in context would be to consider something the size of a plank length looking at something the size of a human body and compare that to a human looking at the visible universe. As 10^35 / 10^26 is one billion we would say: The plank length looking at the human body sees something a billion times larger than the human looking at the visible universe.

You could also say, starting from the size of a human, there is a billion more times room to shrink than grow considering the constraints above.

I think this is cool to think about. Puts us in a kind of universal context. Nice thread idea Reason

~modest

[Tormod]

If I remember correctly, John Barrow has a sketch showing the relative size of humans in the scale of the Cosmos in one of his books. I can't remember which one...maybe The Anthropic Principle...

[LaurieAG]

Originally Posted by REASON

Fortunately, I wasn't trying project any level of value or importance to size with this question.

I was genuinely curious about where the scale that we exist in in our daily lives lies in relation to the biggest thing we can observe and one of the smallest things we can consider.

Hi Modest,

Excellent topic. The scale you talk about is basically ratios between small (atomic), medium (the world we live in) and large (universal). As the solar system was used as the basis for our first atomic models this distinction is valid and has precedents.

The question that seems to leap out at me is, while it appears that relativity is currently being used on both universal and atomic levels, is there any proof of this scalability being applicable to our own level?

i.e. can the same phenomena be observed at both the micro and the macro level from our medium level. Is there anything else that has a similar type of relationship between its extremes?

[REASON]

Originally Posted by LaurieAG

Hi Modest,

Excellent topic. The scale you talk about is basically ratios between small (atomic), medium (the world we live in) and large (universal). As the solar system was used as the basis for our first atomic models this distinction is valid and has precedents.

The question that seems to leap out at me is, while it appears that relativity is currently being used on both universal and atomic levels, is there any proof of this scalability being applicable to our own level?

i.e. can the same phenomena be observed at both the micro and the macro level from our medium level. Is there anything else that has a similar type of relationship between its extremes?

Hi Laurie,

I was wondering if you could expand on your last question a bit? I'm not sure I understand what you're asking.

But I have a feeling it's interesting.

[coldcreation]

Originally Posted by REASON

Hi Laurie,

I was wondering if you could expand on your last question a bit? I'm not sure I understand what you're asking.

But I have a feeling it's interesting.

I like Laurie's last question.

Originally Posted by LaurieAG

... Is there anything else that has a similar type of relationship between its extremes?

The size issue reminds me of the temperature scale (see for example Absolute zero). Though obviously not the same, there is a comparison to be made, where the absolute smallness is unattainable is both cases, and so too the other extreme, at least to the srcutiny accessible experiment.

For this reason, the Kelvin temperature scale is often plotted exponentially. See here for example: Orders of magnitude (temperature).

In this chart, note the extremes: absolute zero, free-bodies are still, no interaction within or without a thermodynamic system, and 1.4×10^32 K, Planck temperature of micro black holes temperature 5×10^44 seconds after the Big Bang, Landau poles.

See too the location of the standard human body temperature (detailed list of temperatures from 100 K to 1000 K below) in comparison.

Cool.



CC

[LaurieAG]

Originally Posted by REASON

I was wondering if you could expand on your last question a bit? I'm not sure I understand what you're asking.

But I have a feeling it's interesting.

Hi Reason and CC,

It seems to me that some of the more interesting (but as yet not adequately explained) phenomena such as FTL and TIR (Faster Than Light and Total Internal Reflection, to name a couple) that appear to operate at the atomic scale (but are observable on our scale) should have counterparts that operate on an observable universal (or at least galactic) scale in direct proportion to each other.

While one of the latest news pieces on the precession of paired binary pulsars Einstein's Theory Passes Strict, New Test - Hypography - Science for everyone might be regarded as further proof for GR there does not appear to be any atomic equivalent.

Put simply, should we be able to observe a scalable symetry between the micro and the macro? In any or all observable phenomena? That obey a consistent set of physical laws?

[LaurieAG]

Originally Posted by coldcreation

Though obviously not the same, there is a comparison to be made, where the absolute smallness is unattainable is both cases, and so too the other extreme, at least to the srcutiny accessible experiment.

Hi CC,

Correct, and there chould also be a relationship between the maximum and minimum allowable extremes in both the micro and the macro scales. Incidentally, there may be a similar relationship between the various phase change thresholds of different materials that are apparent on our own scale.

And this 4 way (possibly symetric) relationship between max/min/micro/macro should provide a stable platform for a time component that can only be expected to vary whenever parts go close to any of the extremes.