Perspective...

Discussion in 'Physics & Math' started by Seattle, Jun 21, 2018.

  1. Seattle Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,079
    I was watching a few videos tonight on large and small scale perspectives. It's interesting that we are roughly in the middle of large and small scale perspectives.

    A medium size tree is about 10 meters. 10 ^ - 2 is a child. 10 ^ -3 is the distance between your eyebrows. 10 ^ -4 is the size of your iris. 10^ -5 is a mite. 10 ^-6 is the diameter of a hair and about the smallest thing you could see with the naked eye.

    You have to get down to 10 ^-10 before you are the size of an atom and you have to get to 10 ^ -15 before you are at the size of the nucleus of an atom. 10 ^ -24 is about the smallest size we get to and that would be a neutrino.

    Going the other way 10 ^26 is the size of the observable Universe. 10 ^15 is about a light year and 10^10 is about the size of our Sun.

    It's interesting that we are roughly in the middle and I always find it surprising how far down the scale goes. I know that the Universe is really big but I always find it not as intuitive that "small" goes down just as far.
     
    Last edited: Jun 21, 2018
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. exchemist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,226
    Careful. You run the risk of Nebel arriving, with more of his ballocksy numerology.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
    sideshowbob likes this.
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Seattle Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,079
    I have no hopes for this forum or for any of my posts/threads so there's that...

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    I try to post something every now and then that isn't nuts and that I find interesting. Anything I post will still be overwhelmed by the preponderance of woo on this site but I'm doing my part at least.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    Paddoboy tried in his own way but he didn't comment (usually) on his own threads and mainly just reposted a multitude of articles without comment. I don't have that kind of agenda.

    If I view an interesting video, read an interesting book or have (oh no) an interesing thought, that's when I decide to post. If it goes no where...that's expected but at least it involves something I actually found interesting in the first place.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,922
    IMO, I find it quite intuitive that at some fundamental level the size of physical constituents should border on metaphysical properties from which physical properties emerged.

    Can't very well start at the atomic size, without begging the question of it constituent parts, such as;
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrogen_atom#Wavefunction

    But from what did these two massive particles emerge? The Higgs field?
     
  8. sideshowbob Sorry, wrong number. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,564
    Well, from our perspective we're in the middle.
     
  9. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,922
    You may have something there.

    Maybe there is a range where mammals can achieve intelligence and the ability to consciously experience the physical world, right in the middle of the entire universal spectrum.

    The range in the universal spectrum in which insects experience the world seems to be different than that for humans and seems proportional to their size.

    Penrose believes that "experience" by quanta (information packets) starts at Planck range of the entire spectrum.
     
    Last edited: Jun 21, 2018
  10. sideshowbob Sorry, wrong number. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,564
    I had a random thought and you're adding to it.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    We wouldn't expect a photon or a galaxy to have its own perspective.
     
  11. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,922
    I love random thoughts. They often allow one to see things from a different perspective...

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
    sideshowbob likes this.
  12. Seattle Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,079
    From any perspective we are in the middle.
     
  13. sideshowbob Sorry, wrong number. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,564
    What if there was life-form the size of a galaxy? From its perspective, it would be in the middle and we would be as tiny as a mite is from our perspective.
     
  14. Seattle Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,079
    I'm not sure what this has to do with this thread but those two "massive" particles are not fundamental. They are made up of quarks. Most of the mass is due to the strong force due to the energy bound up. A small amount of the mass (around 2% comes from the Higgs).
     
  15. Seattle Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,079
    No, it wouldn't be in the middle if you have followed the point of my thread. 10^-24 is a neutrino, 10^ 26 is the observable Universe. In the middle are 10 meter objects which is basically us.

    I wouldn't have started a thread about a subjective scenario where anything is in the middle from it's perspective.
     
  16. sideshowbob Sorry, wrong number. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,564
    So you are channeling Nebel.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  17. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,922
    I was not saying that hydrogen is the smallest particle, just that it is the smallest element, consisting of even smaller particles, which in turn may even consist of virtual particles.
    http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/Particles/quark.html

    and
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virtual_particle

    At least that's how I understand it.
     
    Last edited: Jun 21, 2018
  18. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,922
    Blue Whales exist in our reality and are a lot bigger than 10 feet, which would increase the relative size range by a small amount.
     
  19. Seattle Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,079
    I think you are (apparently) missing the point. I started with 10 meters (roughly 33 feet) as that includes most life familiar to us. It's also a convenient scaling point if we are going to use scientific notation...10^2, 10 ^26, etc.

    I started with a tree. How does a Blue Whale change the point of this discussion at all?
     
  20. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,922
    Well, if one discusses size of a living single organism, it seems reasonable to select the largest animal that ever lived. I did qualify that relatively the difference is insignificant, considering the sizes of greater and lesser objects in and of the universe.
    https://www.treehugger.com/animals/11-facts-about-blue-whales-largest-animals-ever-known-earth.html
     
  21. Seattle Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,079
    OK, substitute "Blue Whale 24 meters" for "tree 10 meters". It's doesn't change any of the other figures.

    Why is it important, in the context of this thread, to pick the largest animal that ever lived? Do you identify more with a Blue Whale than a tree?
     
    Last edited: Jun 21, 2018
  22. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,922
    I never disputed that but you are now talking about almost 2.5 times the original statement.

    Please understand that I agree with your original posit that regardless of everything we can relate to, including even the size of our sun or solar system, our perception of size is still wholly insignificant as compared to the extremes found throughout the universe.
     
  23. Seattle Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,079
    The part that you say that you understand and agree with is all I have posted.

    You interjected the subject of the Blue Whale and the fact that it is larger than a 10 meter tree. However, that's a difference without a distinction since the point of this thread was never about the largest animal.

    All my figures were based on 10 meters to some power. I could convert everything to 25 meters to some power, it would be awkward and would change nothing since there is no particular reason to frame this topic of perspective around the Blue Whale.

    A child is still 10^-1, an atom is still 10^-10, etc.
     

Share This Page