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?
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?
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.
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).
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!)
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🙂
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.*
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.
06 Apr '13 11:37
Reveal Hidden Content
The Scale of the Universe
Back to Top