06 Apr 13
Originally posted by SoothfastIt says size of quarks is based on mass. The top quark is significantly more massive than the others. The Higgs should be much heavier, and should therefore be even smaller although its a boson so maybe different rules apply.
And the top quark is so much smaller than the other quarks?
06 Apr 13
Originally posted by twhiteheadAh, so, the more massive the particle, the smaller its "probability cloud"? I believe it is true in quantum mechanics that the uncertainty associated with the location of a particle is inversely proportional to its mass in some fashion (all other factors being equal).
It says size of quarks is based on mass. The top quark is significantly more massive than the others. The Higgs should be much heavier, and should therefore be even smaller although its a boson so maybe different rules apply.
07 Apr 13
Originally posted by Soothfastsaved to favourites!
http://htwins.net/scale2/
One thing in particular that impresses me is that there are stars bigger than the orbit of Saturn. And the top quark is so much smaller than the other quarks?
thanks for that.
(the biggest bacteria compared to biggest virus surprised me!)
07 Apr 13
Originally posted by humyIt can't be seen because of the big bang, when it started out it was expanding at a rate of something like 22 magnitude of orders faster than the speed of light (space can do little tricks like that but matter, no such luck) and the universe is expanding several times the speed of light overall as we speak so there are places we can't see simply because light has not had a chance to get here and never will since space is being pumped in so to speak, faster than a beam of light can get here so there is a limit as to how deep into the universe we can see, about 14 billion LY, no more. The estimated size of the whole universe clocks in something like 50 odd billion LY across, if you could get across something going away from you faster than light can come back🙂
according to it, most of the expanse of the universe is not observable. I didn't know that!
08 Apr 13
Originally posted by SoothfastOn the other hand neutrinos are supposed to have very, very little mass, and they're depicted as being also very, very small. Doubtless there's a reason, but the ludicrous state of particle physics made me pass over that branch.*
Ah, so, the more massive the particle, the smaller its "probability cloud"? I believe it is true in quantum mechanics that the uncertainty associated with the location of a particle is inversely proportional to its mass in some fashion (all other factors being equal).
* Plato once said "The ludicrous state of solid geometry made me pass over this branch."
09 Apr 13
Originally posted by SoothfastI suspect it has to do with the uncertainty principle and the fact that neutrinos travel very fast.
On the other hand neutrinos are supposed to have very, very little mass, and they're depicted as being also very, very small. Doubtless there's a reason, but the ludicrous state of particle physics made me pass over that branch.*
[hidden]* Plato once said "The ludicrous state of solid geometry made me pass over this branch."[/hidden]