I like Laurie's last question. 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.
Ahh. Yes, CC. I've thought about this as well. Good example. While I don't know if it's actually true or not, I've always considered that we exist in this minute zone of temperature, perfectly balanced between hot and cold. This is probably because I can't distinguish between something 1,000 degrees F, and something 10,000 degrees F, for example. It's all just really hot.
But in the case of temperature, do we exist closer to the cold or the hot end of the spectrum?
I'm guessing cold.
__________________ When what you believe is refuted by evidence, you are faced with a choice.
But in the case of temperature, do we exist closer to the cold or the hot end of the spectrum?
I'm guessing cold.
Good question. Perhaps modest can help us out here. It seems as if we are close to the center of the temperature scale, as we are close to the middleground of the size scale. Certainly, when temperature is plotted in standard Kelvins (with increments equal to Centigrade) we are fairly cold creatures (310 K = 37 °C = 98.6 °F = standard human body temperature). But when considering orders of magnitude that looks not to be the case.
Where is modest when we need him?
CC
__________________ Coldcreation
Last edited by coldcreation; 07-10-2008 at 09:59 PM.
Reason: typo
But in the case of temperature, do we exist closer to the cold or the hot end of the spectrum?
I'm guessing cold.
Good question. Perhaps modest can help us out here. It seems as if we are close to the center of the temperature scale, as we are close to the middleground of the size scale. Certainly, when temperature is plotted in standard Kelvins (with increments equal to Centigrade) we are fairly cold creatures (310 K = 37 °C = 98.6 °F = standard human body temperature). But when considering orders of magnitude that looks not to be the case.
Where is modest when we need him?
I think we are (as is our environment here on earth) very close to absolute zero indeed. Many of our human and environmental bits and pieces are frozen solid which is necessary for life; but, in the universal scale of things we see much higher temperatures. Even if we were vaporized into a gas we would still be relatively cold at only a few hundred or thousand Kelvin. Getting ever hotter we'd turn into quark-gluon plasma at about 2,000,000,000,000 Kelvin. As each particle gains more kinetic energy the temperature would rise and I don't think there's an upper theoretical limit on that. The strong force for example is supposed to unify with the electroweak force at 10^28 Kelvin. That's a one with 28 zeros after it.
If you subscribe to standard cosmology (which I do) then universal size and temperature are directly related. By the ideal gas law, it's easy to show smaller volume makes for higher temperatures. Going back in time to a smaller and smaller volume universe increases the average kinetic energy or temp. There's a really good wiki page I've referenced in the past that would serve to illustrate this:
So yeah, being only a few hundred degrees away from absolute zero makes us very cold little creatures. Or, did we establish that we're not little creatures? That's right, we did. Very, very cold medium sized creatures then
I think we are (as is our environment here on earth) very close to absolute zero indeed. ...
So yeah, being only a few hundred degrees away from absolute zero makes us very cold little creatures. Or, did we establish that we're not little creatures? That's right, we did. Very, very cold medium sized creatures then
~modest
If you look here, Orders of magnitude (temperature), you will see that we are actually quite hot (by many orders of magnitude) in relation to absolute zero temperature, just as we are quite large compared to the Plank scale.
If you look here, Orders of magnitude (temperature), you will see that we are actually quite hot (by many orders of magnitude) in relation to absolute zero temperature, just as we are quite large compared to the Plank scale.
Nice link.
I think you’ve got a good point. Earlier I was describing the plank size compared to a human and the human size compared to the universe. There’s some trickery in that which I didn’t say very clearly. Obviously there is much less physical length to a person than the universe. The only way to make the human body comparable in size to the universe is having two different units of measurement - the plank length and the meter (or human size). While this works for getting a grip on how big we as humans are compared to the smallest and largest things, there’s no useful way to do that with temperature.
With temp, I took a different route of saying we only have a couple hundred degrees colder we could get yet we’ve got billions and trillions of degrees hotter we could get: therefore we’re cold. I think this is the better way to think of temperature especially considering there’s no really small unit we’re trying to compare.
As you’re looking at orders of magnitude on the link you gave, it would be something like this:
we could get this cold:
.000000001 K
or, we could get this hot:
100000000 K
In fact, you could put an infinite number of zeros and the tendency would be to say we could get infinitely cold or infinitely hot. But that would be incorrect. We could get infinitely close to zero, which is very different from infinitely cold. The temperature scale has a lower bound at zero and an upper bound at infinity.
So, In terms of degrees of temperature, we’ve got much less room to get colder than warmer. In terms of real centimeters, we’ve got much less room to shrink than grow. In terms of plank size compared to human size compared to universe size, we’re medium and perhaps on the large side. There’s definitely some trickery there and I’m having the hardest time explaining it.
So, In terms of degrees of temperature, we’ve got much less room to get colder than warmer. In terms of real centimeters, we’ve got much less room to shrink than grow. In terms of plank size compared to human size compared to universe size, we’re medium and perhaps on the large side. There’s definitely some trickery there and I’m having the hardest time explaining it.
~modest
Hi Modest,
I don't think it's trickery.
Temperature causes phase changes in elements that do not vary for the same elements on any other scale and therefore don't scale in the same way as measures. In the case of measures there can be things (comprised of elements) that do scale (according to their total mass) even if their density is less and their volume greater.
The difference between the two types of scales above are related to the specific processes that can occur between different elements when they have the same ratio of discrete proportions. i.e. a constants range vs a real scale.
Where measurements of photons (or single photons) are made over great distances through particles that would not be considered very dense, and are then scaled down to our own 'scale', they should scale in proportion to more dense (or even solid) objects over smaller distances (in scale) and provide similar observational data.
__________________ Corollary to the Peter Principle: Once you have promoted all of your competents to their highest level of incompetence you must change your management philosophy from top down to bottom up, because the staff at the bottom are the only competent ones in your entire organisation.
As you’re looking at orders of magnitude on the link you gave, it would be something like this:
we could get this cold:
.000000001 K
or, we could get this hot:
100000000 K
In fact, you could put an infinite number of zeros and the tendency would be to say we could get infinitely cold or infinitely hot. But that would be incorrect. We could get infinitely close to zero, which is very different from infinitely cold. The temperature scale has a lower bound at zero and an upper bound at infinity.
So, In terms of degrees of temperature, we’ve got much less room to get colder than warmer. In terms of real centimeters, we’ve got much less room to shrink than grow. In terms of plank size compared to human size compared to universe size, we’re medium and perhaps on the large side. There’s definitely some trickery there and I’m having the hardest time explaining it.
~modest
It sounds like you're saying that smallness has no lower bound, i.e., smallness tends to infinity.
It seems to me that there is an ultimate limit to smallness (say, a point particle) just as there is an ultimate limit to coldness (absolute zero).
If this is the case, then contrary to your statement, "we’re medium and perhaps on the large side," it would seem we are quite small, just as we are quite cold, compared to the upper bound, whatever that may be.
It sounds like you're saying that smallness has no lower bound, i.e., smallness tends to infinity.
It seems to me that there is an ultimate limit to smallness (say, a point particle) just as there is an ultimate limit to coldness (absolute zero).
If this is the case, then contrary to your statement, "we’re medium and perhaps on the large side," it would seem we are quite small, just as we are quite cold, compared to the upper bound, whatever that may be.
CC
That's not exactly what I was thinking CC. The confusion set in because we started this problem by comparing three different sizes or measures. It's normal in this circumstance to scale the smallest measure into the larger one and compare the third measure. As an example, it's often said that "if an atom was the size of a football stadium then the nucleus would be the size of a golf gall in the middle" That's the approach I was taking with Reason's original question. It ended up as so:
A human looking at the visible universe sees something a billion times smaller than a plank length looking at a human body. That's a comparison between three things that I think helps put into context the size difference between the plank length and a person.
When the subject changed to temperature, there were no three things to compare in this way. There is no longer a 'smallest size' but just absolute zero. There's no more largest size, just infinite temperature. The answer to the temp question is going to be different then just because it is a different question. This doesn't illuminate anything significant about the two scales of measure - just the two different questions and their context. That was the trickery I was referring to.
Like I said in my last post: If we are to treat the length scale like the temperature scale then we would just count in absolute centimeters rather than comparing different sizes. We would conclude that we are very small compared to the visible universe. We only have a couple hundred centimeters that we could shrink while having many orders of magnitude more that we could grow.
)
