[REASON]

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?

[InfiniteNow]

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 = meters

Universe = 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 meters (or 10km / 6.2miles)...


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

[coldcreation]

Originally Posted by REASON

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?

[REASON]

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. )

[REASON]

Originally Posted by coldcreation

What about a scale of complexity?

What do you have in mind?

[coldcreation]

Originally Posted by REASON

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

[modest]

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

[REASON]

Originally Posted by coldcreation

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.

[InfiniteNow]

Originally Posted by modest

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)?

[modest]

Originally Posted by InfiniteNow

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).

Originally Posted by InfiniteNow

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 meters which has the added advantage of being close to the proposed size of a string.

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