Universal Scale

[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 = [math]1 \times 10^{-18}[/math] meters

 

Universe = [math]1.48 \times 10^{27}[/math] 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 [math]1 \times 10^4[/math] meters (or 10km / 6.2miles)...

 

 

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

 

 

 

[coldcreation]

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. :D

 

(Of course, next time it would be helpful if you would show your work. :doh:)

[REASON]

What about a scale of complexity?

 

What do you have in mind?

[coldcreation]

 

What about a scale of complexity?

 

What do you have in mind? :eek_big:

 

 

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]

It's not the size that counts.

:eek_big:

 

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]

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)?

 

 

:eek_big:

[modest]

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).

 

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 [imath]1.616 \times 10^{-35}[/imath] 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

[InfiniteNow]

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 [imath]1.616 times 10^{-35}[/imath] 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]

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

 

(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)

 

[imath]1.616 \times 10^{-35}[/imath]

 

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

 

http://hypography.com/forums/tutorials-how-s/6457-how-use-latex-equations-2.html#post216498

 

~modest

[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. :eek_big:

[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 :thumbs_up

 

~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]

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]

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. :eek: