Astronomy and Cosmology From before the Big Bang to the Multiverse...and everything in between.


Advertisement (please log in or register to remove this ad)
Notices

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
  #1 (permalink)  
Old 07-05-2008, 07:39 PM
REASON's Avatar
Reasonably Reasonable
Points: 68,243, Level: 100 Points: 68,243, Level: 100 Points: 68,243, Level: 100
Activity: 15% Activity: 15% Activity: 15%
 
247 Mini Golf Champion!
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Blue Springs, MO - USA
Posts: 1,149
REASON has a brilliant futureREASON has a brilliant futureREASON has a brilliant futureREASON has a brilliant futureREASON has a brilliant futureREASON has a brilliant futureREASON has a brilliant futureREASON has a brilliant futureREASON has a brilliant futureREASON has a brilliant future
Universal Scale

I was curious -

Consider the attached line graph below:

At one end of the scale is a Quark, at the other end is the expanse of the Known Universe.

Where would human beings likely fall on this scale relative to size?

Is there a way to calculate such a thing?

Does anyone know if it has been done?
Attached Thumbnails
universal-scale-universal-scale.jpg  
__________________
When what you believe is refuted by evidence, you are faced with a choice.
Reply With Quote
Award winner, Topic Of The Week 30, July, 2008  
Nominated This Post Won The Nomination Contest  
Nominated   It can re-enter the nomination contest only after Wednesday 22, July, 2009
Advertisement
  #2 (permalink)  
Old 07-05-2008, 08:26 PM
InfiniteNow's Avatar
-
Points: 125,535, Level: 100 Points: 125,535, Level: 100 Points: 125,535, Level: 100
Activity: 0% Activity: 0% Activity: 0%
 

Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Austin, TX
Posts: 8,334
InfiniteNow has a reputation beyond reputeInfiniteNow has a reputation beyond reputeInfiniteNow has a reputation beyond reputeInfiniteNow has a reputation beyond reputeInfiniteNow has a reputation beyond reputeInfiniteNow has a reputation beyond reputeInfiniteNow has a reputation beyond reputeInfiniteNow has a reputation beyond reputeInfiniteNow has a reputation beyond reputeInfiniteNow has a reputation beyond reputeInfiniteNow has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Universal Scale

Okay. Here's my back of the napkin calculation. Remember to give or take an "ish" or two on this.


Average human = 1.5 meters

Quark = 1 \times 10^{-18} meters

Universe = 1.48 \times 10^{27} meters



That would put us closer to the left, since the midpoint between the size of the universe and the size of the quark (according to the above) is 1 \times 10^4 meters (or 10km / 6.2miles)...


So, it seems like it should be something like the below:



Name:  Universal Scale - iNow.bmp
Views: 84
Size:  98.6 KB
__________________
Remember, we cannot see everything even when it is there right in front of us.
"We succeeded in taking that picture [from deep space], and, if you look at it, you see a dot. That's here. That's home. That's us." - YouTube: Pale Blue Dot
(Photo of Earth, February 1990 - Voyager 1: Distance of Pluto)

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
InfiniteNow

Last edited by InfiniteNow; 07-05-2008 at 08:29 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #3 (permalink)  
Old 07-05-2008, 08:59 PM
coldcreation's Avatar
Resident Bright
Points: 26,750, Level: 71 Points: 26,750, Level: 71 Points: 26,750, Level: 71
Activity: 1% Activity: 1% Activity: 1%
 

Join Date: May 2005
Location: Barcelona and CT
Posts: 1,040
coldcreation is a name known to allcoldcreation is a name known to allcoldcreation is a name known to allcoldcreation is a name known to allcoldcreation is a name known to allcoldcreation is a name known to allcoldcreation is a name known to allcoldcreation is a name known to all
Send a message via AIM to coldcreation Send a message via Skype™ to coldcreation
Re: Universal Scale

Quote:
Originally Posted by REASON View Post
I was curious -

Consider the attached line graph below:

At one end of the scale is a Quark, at the other end is the expanse of the Known Universe.

Where would human beings likely fall on this scale relative to size?

Is there a way to calculate such a thing?

Does anyone know if it has been done?
What about a scale of complexity?
__________________
Coldcreation
Reply With Quote
  #4 (permalink)  
Old 07-05-2008, 09:04 PM
REASON's Avatar
Reasonably Reasonable
Points: 68,243, Level: 100 Points: 68,243, Level: 100 Points: 68,243, Level: 100
Activity: 15% Activity: 15% Activity: 15%
 
247 Mini Golf Champion!
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Blue Springs, MO - USA
Posts: 1,149
REASON has a brilliant futureREASON has a brilliant futureREASON has a brilliant futureREASON has a brilliant futureREASON has a brilliant futureREASON has a brilliant futureREASON has a brilliant futureREASON has a brilliant futureREASON has a brilliant futureREASON has a brilliant future
Re: Universal Scale

Yes, assuming your numbers are correct, your plot on the graph would be fairly close.

I find it interesting to consider how close we are to the center. Considering how vast the universe is, it's also amazing to consider how small a quark must be.

Good job I Now. I guess that was just too easy.

(Of course, next time it would be helpful if you would show your work. )
__________________
When what you believe is refuted by evidence, you are faced with a choice.
Reply With Quote
  #5 (permalink)  
Old 07-05-2008, 09:05 PM
REASON's Avatar
Reasonably Reasonable
Points: 68,243, Level: 100 Points: 68,243, Level: 100 Points: 68,243, Level: 100
Activity: 15% Activity: 15% Activity: 15%
 
247 Mini Golf Champion!
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Blue Springs, MO - USA
Posts: 1,149
REASON has a brilliant futureREASON has a brilliant futureREASON has a brilliant futureREASON has a brilliant futureREASON has a brilliant futureREASON has a brilliant futureREASON has a brilliant futureREASON has a brilliant futureREASON has a brilliant futureREASON has a brilliant future
Re: Universal Scale

Quote:
Originally Posted by coldcreation View Post
What about a scale of complexity?
What do you have in mind?
__________________
When what you believe is refuted by evidence, you are faced with a choice.
Reply With Quote
  #6 (permalink)  
Old 07-05-2008, 11:01 PM
coldcreation's Avatar
Resident Bright
Points: 26,750, Level: 71 Points: 26,750, Level: 71 Points: 26,750, Level: 71
Activity: 1% Activity: 1% Activity: 1%
 

Join Date: May 2005
Location: Barcelona and CT
Posts: 1,040
coldcreation is a name known to allcoldcreation is a name known to allcoldcreation is a name known to allcoldcreation is a name known to allcoldcreation is a name known to allcoldcreation is a name known to allcoldcreation is a name known to allcoldcreation is a name known to all
Send a message via AIM to coldcreation Send a message via Skype™ to coldcreation
Re: Universal Scale

Quote:
Originally Posted by REASON View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by Coldcreation
What about a scale of complexity?
What do you have in mind?

We, along with other life-forms, are incontrovertibly deep within the heart of nature’s most complex creations (at least as far as we have observed): ordered yet far from equilibrium systems, capable of regenerating themselves.

Complexity wins the game over scale. And the prize for winning is astounding.

Yet even in the sequence in which the web of minimalist interactions unfold, there is evidence of the gradual dawning of complexity, even order, or organization, a propensity toward group unity, a unity that reaches its apogee in living things.

Complex life forms of the type we are familiar (or not) could subsist else where. It’s difficult to imagine other life forms, more complex, that would feed on heavy elements living on some metallic planet rotating around a compact white dwarf (or other Sun-like star), though the possibility shouldn’t yet be discounted.

If we don’t want to reduce ourselves to a composite bundle of atoms, complexity subject to the laws of irreversible thermodynamic processes rather than scale seems the way to go.

Certainly it is easier to deduce the natural laws when the systems studied are simple. Then, we must extrapolate and adapt them to systems far-from-equilibrium, to the workings of the most complex organized systems we know of, to life, to ourselves, to consciousness, and to the universe as a whole.


It's not the size that counts.




CC
__________________
Coldcreation

Last edited by coldcreation; 07-05-2008 at 11:07 PM. Reason: italics added
Reply With Quote
  #7 (permalink)  
Old 07-05-2008, 11:22 PM
modest's Avatar
Creating
Points: 84,837, Level: 100 Points: 84,837, Level: 100 Points: 84,837, Level: 100
Activity: 100% Activity: 100% Activity: 100%
Hypography Staff Member
Moderator
 

Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: U.S. Midwest
Posts: 1,689
modest has a reputation beyond reputemodest has a reputation beyond reputemodest has a reputation beyond reputemodest has a reputation beyond reputemodest has a reputation beyond reputemodest has a reputation beyond reputemodest has a reputation beyond reputemodest has a reputation beyond reputemodest has a reputation beyond reputemodest has a reputation beyond reputemodest has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Universal Scale

INow,

I disagree with your source. I believe a quark is considered a point particle in QM(1) that has an upper limit of 10E-18 m(2). I haven't researched this in depth, but this is what I remember and a quick google search agrees. I'm not sure we can give a quark a definite size.

~modest
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #8 (permalink)  
Old 07-05-2008, 11:31 PM
REASON's Avatar
Reasonably Reasonable
Points: 68,243, Level: 100 Points: 68,243, Level: 100 Points: 68,243, Level: 100
Activity: 15% Activity: 15% Activity: 15%
 
247 Mini Golf Champion!
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Blue Springs, MO - USA
Posts: 1,149
REASON has a brilliant futureREASON has a brilliant futureREASON has a brilliant futureREASON has a brilliant futureREASON has a brilliant futureREASON has a brilliant futureREASON has a brilliant futureREASON has a brilliant futureREASON has a brilliant futureREASON has a brilliant future
Re: Universal Scale

Quote:
Originally Posted by coldcreation View Post
It's not the size that counts.


CC
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.

I do think your statements are profound and worthy of consideration.
__________________
When what you believe is refuted by evidence, you are faced with a choice.
Reply With Quote
  #9 (permalink)  
Old 07-06-2008, 02:42 AM
InfiniteNow's Avatar
-
Points: 125,535, Level: 100 Points: 125,535, Level: 100 Points: 125,535, Level: 100
Activity: 0% Activity: 0% Activity: 0%
 

Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Austin, TX
Posts: 8,334
InfiniteNow has a reputation beyond reputeInfiniteNow has a reputation beyond reputeInfiniteNow has a reputation beyond reputeInfiniteNow has a reputation beyond reputeInfiniteNow has a reputation beyond reputeInfiniteNow has a reputation beyond reputeInfiniteNow has a reputation beyond reputeInfiniteNow has a reputation beyond reputeInfiniteNow has a reputation beyond reputeInfiniteNow has a reputation beyond reputeInfiniteNow has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Universal Scale

Quote:
Originally Posted by modest View Post
INow,

I disagree with your source. I believe a quark is considered a point particle in QM(1) that has an upper limit of 10E-18 m(2). I haven't researched this in depth, but this is what I remember and a quick google search agrees. I'm not sure we can give a quark a definite size.
That could prove to be an interesting point, and it's something I thought about before posting. IIRC, then even electrons are pointlike, and it makes no sense to give them physical dimensions. Clearly, quarks being smaller would suffer from a similar limitation.

All we really need, though, is an order of magnitude estimate.

You mentioned that 10^-18 is an "upper limit." Does that mean it suffices as a ballpark figure? Does anyone have a better estimate to work from? Or is the question itself meaningless (like what came before the big bang)?


__________________
Remember, we cannot see everything even when it is there right in front of us.
"We succeeded in taking that picture [from deep space], and, if you look at it, you see a dot. That's here. That's home. That's us." - YouTube: Pale Blue Dot
(Photo of Earth, February 1990 - Voyager 1: Distance of Pluto)

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
InfiniteNow
Reply With Quote
  #10 (permalink)  
Old 07-06-2008, 06:12 AM
modest's Avatar
Creating
Points: 84,837, Level: 100 Points: 84,837, Level: 100 Points: 84,837, Level: 100
Activity: 100% Activity: 100% Activity: 100%
Hypography Staff Member
Moderator
 

Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: U.S. Midwest
Posts: 1,689
modest has a reputation beyond reputemodest has a reputation beyond reputemodest has a reputation beyond reputemodest has a reputation beyond reputemodest has a reputation beyond reputemodest has a reputation beyond reputemodest has a reputation beyond reputemodest has a reputation beyond reputemodest has a reputation beyond reputemodest has a reputation beyond reputemodest has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Universal Scale

Quote:
Originally Posted by InfiniteNow View Post
That could prove to be an interesting point, and it's something I thought about before posting. IIRC, then even electrons are pointlike, and it makes no sense to give them physical dimensions. Clearly, quarks being smaller would suffer from a similar limitation.
Yes, you are correct. Fundamental particles such as electrons, quarks, photons, and neutrinos do not have (as I've now verified) any discernible size. I think saying they are infinitely small or point like is as correct as some other figure (such as string theory would propose).

Quote:
Originally Posted by InfiniteNow View Post
All we really need, though, is an order of magnitude estimate.

You mentioned that 10^-18 is an "upper limit." Does that mean it suffices as a ballpark figure? Does anyone have a better estimate to work from? Or is the question itself meaningless (like what came before the big bang)?


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 1.616 \times 10^{-35} meters which has the added advantage of being close to the proposed size of a string.

Quote:
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.

from the link above
~modest
__________________
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Tags
scale, universe
Advertisement


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Universal time constant Moontanman Alternative theories 37 07-29-2008
Universal things to find TheBigDog Social sciences 3 05-30-2007
The Blueprints for the creation of Universal Harmony clapstyx Philosophy and Humanities 2 05-01-2007
Parapsychology, Universal Mind, Psionics and Pseudoscience Tarantism Philosophy and Humanities 22 05-29-2006
Universal ethics? Southtown Theology forum 8 07-04-2005

» Advertisement
» Latest Science News
A Fine-Tooth Comb To Measure The Accelerating Universe
imageAstronomical instruments needed to answer crucial questions, such as the search for Earth-like planets or the way the Universe expands, have come a step closer with the first demonstration at the telescope of a new calibration system for precise spectrographs. The method uses a Nobel Prize-winning technology called a 'laser frequency comb', and is published in this week's issue of Science.
Read » | 0 comments

Fermilab physicists discover "doubly strange" particle
imagePhysicists of the DZero experiment at the U.S. Department of Energy's Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory have discovered a new particle made of three quarks, the Omega-sub-b (Ωb). The particle contains two strange quarks and a bottom quark (s-s-b). It is an exotic relative of the much more common proton and weighs about six times the proton mass.
Read » | 0 comments

Stanford's 'autonomous' helicopters teach themselves to fly
imageStanford computer scientists have developed an artificial intelligence system that enables robotic helicopters to teach themselves to fly difficult stunts by watching other helicopters perform the same maneuvers. The result is an autonomous helicopter than can perform a complete airshow of complex tricks on its own.
Read » | 0 comments
» Current Poll
Do U text?
No - 35.29%
12 Votes
Yes; < 6 messages/day - 41.18%
14 Votes
Yes; 6-15 messages/day - 11.76%
4 Votes
Yes; 16 to 43 messages/day - 5.88%
2 Votes
Yes; > 43 messages/day - 2.94%
1 Vote
What? - 2.94%
1 Vote
Total Votes: 34
You may not vote on this poll.
» Random Social Groups
Terra Preta
14 members | 1 pictures
Aquarium Keeping
4 members | 13 pictures
Hackers
8 members | 0 pictures
ESP
5 members | 10 pictures
Google Lunar X-Prize: Team Hypography
3 members | 0 pictures
» View All Groups