Go Back   Science Forums > Physical Sciences Forums > Astronomy and Cosmology
Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
Old 07-05-2008   #1 (permalink)
REASON's Avatar
Transparent Reflection


Location:
Blue Springs, MO - USA
 
REASON has a reputation beyond reputeREASON has a reputation beyond reputeREASON has a reputation beyond reputeREASON has a reputation beyond reputeREASON has a reputation beyond reputeREASON has a reputation beyond reputeREASON has a reputation beyond reputeREASON has a reputation beyond reputeREASON has a reputation beyond reputeREASON has a reputation beyond repute
 



Not Ranked  0 score     
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  


----------------
It seems to me that people tend to prefer to believe what they want to be real or true, despite evidence to the contrary.

When what you believe is refuted by evidence, you are faced with a choice.
Reply With Quote
Old 07-05-2008   #2 (permalink)
InfiniteNow's Avatar
Suspended


Location:
Austin, TX
 
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
 



Not Ranked  0 score     
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: 138
Size:  98.6 KB

Last edited by InfiniteNow; 07-05-2008 at 09:29 PM..
Reply With Quote
Old 07-05-2008   #3 (permalink)
coldcreation's Avatar
Resident Bright


Location:
Barcelona and CT
 
coldcreation has much to be proud ofcoldcreation has much to be proud ofcoldcreation has much to be proud ofcoldcreation has much to be proud ofcoldcreation has much to be proud ofcoldcreation has much to be proud ofcoldcreation has much to be proud of
Send a message via AIM to coldcreation Send a message via Skype™ to coldcreation
 



Not Ranked  0 score     
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
Old 07-05-2008   #4 (permalink)
REASON's Avatar
Transparent Reflection


Location:
Blue Springs, MO - USA
 
REASON has a reputation beyond reputeREASON has a reputation beyond reputeREASON has a reputation beyond reputeREASON has a reputation beyond reputeREASON has a reputation beyond reputeREASON has a reputation beyond reputeREASON has a reputation beyond reputeREASON has a reputation beyond reputeREASON has a reputation beyond reputeREASON has a reputation beyond repute
 



Not Ranked  0 score     
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. )


----------------
It seems to me that people tend to prefer to believe what they want to be real or true, despite evidence to the contrary.

When what you believe is refuted by evidence, you are faced with a choice.
Reply With Quote
Old 07-05-2008   #5 (permalink)
REASON's Avatar
Transparent Reflection


Location:
Blue Springs, MO - USA
 
REASON has a reputation beyond reputeREASON has a reputation beyond reputeREASON has a reputation beyond reputeREASON has a reputation beyond reputeREASON has a reputation beyond reputeREASON has a reputation beyond reputeREASON has a reputation beyond reputeREASON has a reputation beyond reputeREASON has a reputation beyond reputeREASON has a reputation beyond repute
 



Not Ranked  0 score     
Re: Universal Scale

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


----------------
It seems to me that people tend to prefer to believe what they want to be real or true, despite evidence to the contrary.

When what you believe is refuted by evidence, you are faced with a choice.
Reply With Quote
Old 07-06-2008   #6 (permalink)
coldcreation's Avatar
Resident Bright


Location:
Barcelona and CT
 
coldcreation has much to be proud ofcoldcreation has much to be proud ofcoldcreation has much to be proud ofcoldcreation has much to be proud ofcoldcreation has much to be proud ofcoldcreation has much to be proud ofcoldcreation has much to be proud of
Send a message via AIM to coldcreation Send a message via Skype™ to coldcreation
 



Not Ranked  0 score     
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; 07-06-2008 at 12:07 AM.. Reason: italics added
Reply With Quote
Old 07-06-2008   #7 (permalink)
modest's Avatar
Creating

Moderator

Location:
U.S. Midwest
 
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
 



Not Ranked  0 score     
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
Old 07-06-2008   #8 (permalink)
REASON's Avatar
Transparent Reflection


Location:
Blue Springs, MO - USA
 
REASON has a reputation beyond reputeREASON has a reputation beyond reputeREASON has a reputation beyond reputeREASON has a reputation beyond reputeREASON has a reputation beyond reputeREASON has a reputation beyond reputeREASON has a reputation beyond reputeREASON has a reputation beyond reputeREASON has a reputation beyond reputeREASON has a reputation beyond repute
 



Not Ranked  0 score     
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.


----------------
It seems to me that people tend to prefer to believe what they want to be real or true, despite evidence to the contrary.

When what you believe is refuted by evidence, you are faced with a choice.
Reply With Quote
Old 07-06-2008   #9 (permalink)
InfiniteNow's Avatar
Suspended


Location:
Austin, TX
 
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
 



Not Ranked  0 score     
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)?


Reply With Quote
Old 07-06-2008   #10 (permalink)
modest's Avatar
Creating

Moderator

Location:
U.S. Midwest
 
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
 



Not Ranked  0 score     
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


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


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Universal time constant Moontanman Physics and Mathematics 37 07-29-2008 08:17 PM
Universal things to find TheBigDog Political sciences 3 05-30-2007 06:29 PM
The Blueprints for the creation of Universal Harmony clapstyx Philosophy Forums 2 05-01-2007 10:25 PM
Parapsychology, Universal Mind, Psionics and Pseudoscience Tarantism Philosophy Forums 22 05-29-2006 01:26 AM
Universal ethics? Southtown Theology forum 8 07-04-2005 02:44 PM

» Advertisement
» Current Poll
Who's the sexiest man alive? Johnny Depp or Robert Pattinson?
Johnny Depp - 27.27%
3 Votes
Robert Pattinson - 0%
0 Votes
Someone else (please specify) - 45.45%
5 Votes
I'm too macho to think a guy is sexy - 27.27%
3 Votes
Total Votes: 11
You may not vote on this poll.


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 05:28 AM.

Hypography?

Hypography [n.]: A combination of "hyperlink" and "bibliography" - ie, a list of links to electronic documents. Comparable to discography and bibliography, but not cartography.

We have been online since May 2000, and aim to be the best place to find and share science-related content of all kinds.

Share the love!

Please add more science to your life. Use our RSS feeds on your blog, your portal, or your favorite feedreader!


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.3
Copyright ©2000 - 2009, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Search Engine Optimization by vBSEO 3.3.2
Copyright © 2000-2009 Hypography
Part of the Hypography - Science for Everyone Network