Is Size Limitless?

[Thrand]

Size; the physical extent or dimensions of anything.

 

Is size simply a strict subjective comparison to property (energy or matter) haveing no absolute or limit? Is size limitless?

 

I welcome Ideas, Hypotheses, and Thery.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

Personally I think the only limit to size is how much matter there is available to make the object.

[Thrand]

Personally I think the only limit to size is how much matter there is available to make the object.

 

 

The general idea is that you can increase the physical dimension of a given object by adding to its total mass. If too much mass is added then its own gravitational force crushes it reduceing the size. Total mass remains the same but now you just lost your size.

 

However my original deffinition of size is "the physical extent or dimensions of anything", hat being said, size is not limited to just mass and energy but anything that can be observed as haveing a dimension.

 

As always I welcome ideas, hypotheses, and theorys.

[Severian]

It all comes down to semantics, just like the question of whether the universe is infinite or not.

 

If you are willing to accept that the space-time is infinite (I would fall into this camp) then there can be no limitation on size because the universe itself is of infinite 'size'.

[JHAQ]

Unless there is a theory defining how much mass is in the universe , then the answer is no . Above a certain mass in one location , a singularity , namely a black hole forms .

[eighth man]

You can imagine a universe that is constantly

getting smaller in all directions by any degree

(or larger) all proportionally so that you could never

notice. Size is then infinite (although you can't demonstrate it).

I developed a theory where we all live in 2 dimensions

and the third is just a contraction in space (like video games

show). Distance is just space getting smaller within 2

dimensions. TOBOR MAN 8

[Guest shabo]

i would say that size could be limitless, but we can't know that for sure yet....

i have read in the book of s.hawking (the universe in the nutshell) that there is a length known as a Planks length and that it'a a smallest possible lenght that we can achieve without causing a creation of a black hole (energies that would have been used to create more smaller distances would've been so high that they would actually must be in the black hole), they say that Planck's length is likely to be 1.1616*10on34, or something like that, but it's extremely small.

is it possible that we can have some smaller distances? ofcourse we can but we need objects that could be so close to eachother.... do we have them? i don't know but maybe anything can get so close to eachother that it goes to the eternity....? but how do i mean to the eternity? i don't know, help me!

[nameta9]

In reference to the ape's 2 dimensional world:

 

So if an object is far away it is because it is small and when it gets close it means it is increasing in size (or the observer is decreasing in size).

So the third dimension doesn't exist but only a "simulation" of a third dimension which in reality is 2 dimensional space continuously stretching or compressing to simulate movement in the third dimension. Well in this theory space is definitely infinite because all 3 dimensional movements stretch or squeeze 2 dimensional space. Maybe you mean always stretching or always compressing.

 

Interesting theory ....

[Manifold]

Size; the physical extent or dimensions of anything.

 

Is size simply a strict subjective comparison to property (energy or matter) haveing no absolute or limit? Is size limitless?

 

I welcome Ideas, Hypotheses, and Thery.

 

This reminds me of an article in the August issue of Scientific American "Time Before the Big Bang"...if you adopt the string theory as the theory which describes the world best, there is a limit for size (or length), the so called "Length-Quantum", and it's 10^-34 metres...but it's one of special consequences of String Theory...not more...

[MolecularMan14]

it depends. does the universe have a size? If so, then it could have limits. If not, then i dont think there could be any limit.

[JaKiri]

There is no theoretical limit to 'size', just practical ones.

 

With respect to the mention of black holes, it's the density that matters for them, not the absolute mass.

[YT2095]

doesn`t "size" have to be a 3 pint triangulationat minimum?

 

if it`s between 2 or items its only distance, if it involves 3 items then Area "Size" between points may apply only.

[granDODyssey]

according to string theory , it does...

nothing(energy/particle) can have zero size in any of it's dimensions.

this is where the general relativity failed to describe the big-bang or the center of a black-hole, where enomous gravity force crushes anything to a zero size point.

but the Quantum mechanics state that ..if you are looking into such a small size, things get un-certain....like the position and velocity....the un-certainty applys "the existence" also ....that implies "thing"(or energy of course) can become-exist ...OR ...become-non-exist...in really really short time.

 

But, if you are talking about the minimum average size (any-thing) can have ,will be about that of "planck's length" (per string theory). smaller than that will be un-probable (even in theory). So...those smaller size may apply only in Maths.....not in physics...i think..

[ed84c]

Does a plank length describe the length light travels in a plank time, or is a plank time how long it takes light to travel a plank length, or neither?!

[Ophiolite]

You ask a valid question ed. I'm not well versed in this area, but I believe it has to do with futons. As you are aware these are a form of Japanese matress, with potentially lethal properties. (Consider the futon torpedoes on StarTrek.)

 

These futons were introduced to the west in general and the UK in particular by the stylist Mary Quant in the swinging sixties. (I think the swinging had something to do with Galileo and pendulums, but that's another story.) Because the economy was still depressed at that time Mary could only make these futons in specific sizes. Plank came along and noticed this and said that futons were Quantized.

 

The rest as they say is history.

[ed84c]

what the hell?!

 

are you joking? or have you in some screwed up way msunderstood black bdy radiation?

[Severian]

Black body radiation? You mean the effect where futons get warmer when black people sit on them?

[ed84c]

careful you know how touchy people get about these things (i am most certainly NOT one of them)

[Ophiolite]

Let's see Severian, black body radiation: doesn't that involve Maxwell and Bolsterman - back to the futons again. (Is that an admin I see lurking, about to urge us to get back on topic?)

[ed84c]

i dont even know why we started talking about futons, can somebdy answer my query plz?

[Severian]

Sorry ed - I didn't realise your question was serious.

 

Does a plank length describe the length light travels in a plank time, or is a plank time how long it takes light to travel a plank length, or neither?!

 

Both. Is it not clear that they are the same?

[Ophiolite]

i dont even know why we started talking about futons, can somebdy answer my query plz?

Sorry ed. Since you spelt it plank, not Planck, I assumed it was intended as humour, which set me off thinking about alternative spellings of other sub-atomic items.

Planck length is 'the scale at which classical ideas about gravity and space-time cease to be valid, and quantum effects dominate'.

That was extracted from here, which you may find useful.

http://www.physlink.com/Education/AskExperts/ae281.cfm

[CPL.Luke]

I have also heard it described as the most accurate area in which you can define the position of an electron. in other words the wavelength of very very high energy light.

 

that was a horrible way of explainning it but anyway it explains the stephen hawking statement about the energies to probe deeper would only be found in a blackhole.

 

for the theory about the world only having two dimensions well taht doesn't seem to work cause the way it was described sounds more like a giant computer running the universe rather than reality, also how would you factor in field potentials? into a universe where distance doesn't exist

[nameta9]

If all space is continually compressing (or expanding) in all directions by any rate even trillions of miles a second, then size and space is infinite in extent (small or big doesn't matter). Of course the continuous compression or expansion CANNOT be revealed because it is perfectly equivalent in all directions (this has nothing to do with the universe expanding-red shift thing). This is one of those concepts which could exist but we can never know.

 

A possibility is that space is only 2 dimensional and the 3rd dimension is only things getting smaller or bigger in 2 dimensions giving us the sensation that they are in 3 (like video games).

[ed84c]

Sorry ed - I didn't realise your question was serious.

 

 

 

Both. Is it not clear that they are the same?

 

No.

 

For example if a plank lenght is distance of c in one second

 

Planck length= c * Planck time

 

For example if a plank time is time for plank length at c

 

Plank time= plank length/ c

 

There there is a HUGE difference