Please turn on javascript in your browser to play chess.
Science Forum

Science Forum

  1. Standard member Soothfast
    0,1,1,2,3,5,8,13,21,
    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. 06 Apr '13 07:54 / 3 edits
    according to it, most of the expanse of the universe is not observable. I didn't know that!
  3. 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. 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 member Soothfast
    0,1,1,2,3,5,8,13,21,
    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 member wolfgang59
    Infidel
    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. Standard member sonhouse
    Fast and Curious
    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 member Soothfast
    0,1,1,2,3,5,8,13,21,
    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 member Soothfast
    0,1,1,2,3,5,8,13,21,
    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.*




    * Plato once said "The ludicrous state of solid geometry made me pass over this branch."
  10. 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.