1. Standard memberSoothfast
    0,1,1,2,3,5,8,13,21,
    Planet Rain
    Joined
    04 Mar '04
    Moves
    2441
    06 Apr '13 05:26
    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?
  2. Joined
    06 Mar '12
    Moves
    625
    06 Apr '13 07:543 edits
    according to it, most of the expanse of the universe is not observable. I didn't know that!
  3. Germany
    Joined
    27 Oct '08
    Moves
    3088
    06 Apr '13 08:14
    Originally posted by Soothfast
    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?
    "Lengths shorter than this are not confirmed"
  4. Cape Town
    Joined
    14 Apr '05
    Moves
    52945
    06 Apr '13 11:37
    Originally posted by Soothfast
    And the top quark is so much smaller than the other quarks?
    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.
  5. Standard memberSoothfast
    0,1,1,2,3,5,8,13,21,
    Planet Rain
    Joined
    04 Mar '04
    Moves
    2441
    06 Apr '13 22:14
    Originally posted by twhitehead
    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.
    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).
  6. Standard memberwolfgang59
    invigorated
    Dunedin
    Joined
    09 Jun '07
    Moves
    45641
    07 Apr '13 21:58
    Originally posted by Soothfast
    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?
    saved to favourites!
    thanks for that.
    (the biggest bacteria compared to biggest virus surprised me!)
  7. Subscribersonhouse
    Fast and Curious
    slatington, pa, usa
    Joined
    28 Dec '04
    Moves
    52619
    07 Apr '13 22:22
    Originally posted by humy
    according to it, most of the expanse of the universe is not observable. I didn't know that!
    It 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🙂
  8. Standard memberSoothfast
    0,1,1,2,3,5,8,13,21,
    Planet Rain
    Joined
    04 Mar '04
    Moves
    2441
    08 Apr '13 03:44
    Originally posted by wolfgang59
    saved to favourites!
    thanks for that.
    (the biggest bacteria compared to biggest virus surprised me!)
    I forget how I ran across the site. A links page on some science geek's website, probably.
  9. Standard memberSoothfast
    0,1,1,2,3,5,8,13,21,
    Planet Rain
    Joined
    04 Mar '04
    Moves
    2441
    08 Apr '13 03:48
    Originally posted by Soothfast
    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).
    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.*




    Reveal Hidden Content
    * Plato once said "The ludicrous state of solid geometry made me pass over this branch."
  10. Cape Town
    Joined
    14 Apr '05
    Moves
    52945
    09 Apr '13 08:14
    Originally posted by Soothfast
    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]
    I suspect it has to do with the uncertainty principle and the fact that neutrinos travel very fast.
Back to Top