Scale of physics from atom to universe.

[DevilSolution]

Okay just toying with a concept, basically id like to create a scale of one thing to another in a ladder type fashion. It doesnt have to be a size ratio necessarily but a basic rule applied to each scale. The basic rule being that the next in line is the accumulation of the aforementioned

 

So, for example: Sub atom < Atom < ??molecule?? < Organism < Animal < Planet < Solar system < Galaxy < Universe

 

Im not sure what would go from Atom through to Animal but i think you get the idea. Im not sure if molecule fits, or whether a macro-organism is separate entity to an organism.

Edited May 10, 2013 by DevilSolution

[krash661]

this is probably irrelevant but,

there's also this,
from a facebook page called,

from quarks to quasars.

Edited May 10, 2013 by krash661

[swansont]

Elementary particles are the smallest, and then you have the constituents of the nucleus like protons and neutrons.

 

Instead of (or before) organism you might put cell

[DevilSolution]

Elementary particles are the smallest, and then you have the constituents of the nucleus like protons and neutrons.

 

Instead of (or before) organism you might put cell

 

What number would you place on it from 1 being smallest?

 

Also if the first and last were recursive so 0 being smallest?

 

this is probably irrelevant but,

 

there's also this,

from a facebook page called,

 

from quarks to quasars.

 

 

I dont have facebook. Thx though.

[michel123456]

I don't think it would be a good idea to make the scale going through living organisms.

[Dekan]

Okay just toying with a concept, basically I'd like to create a scale of one thing to another in a ladder type fashion. It doesn't have to be a size ratio, but a basic rule applied to each scale. The basic rule being that the next in line is the accumulation of the aforementioned.

 

The rungs of the ladder could be:

 

1A. Quark

1B. Electron

2A. Proton

2B. Neutron.

3. Hydrogen Atom

4. Helium Atom

5. The rest of the atoms in the Periodic Table..... then we climb to sub-rung say, 5.99 then continue:

 

6. Molecule

7. Dust particle

8. Meteoroid

9. Dwarf planet, or plutoid

8. Major planet

9. Star

10. Interstellar nebula

11. Globular cluster

12. Magellanic Cloud-style dwarf galaxy

13. Milky Way/M31-style major galaxy

14. Local Group-style cluster of galaxies

15. Cluster of clusters

16. Clan (ack P. Anderson "Tau Zero")

17. Universe

 

This ladder is fairly easy to erect. It climbs up by following your basic rule: that each successive rung is an accumulation of the elements of the previous lower rung.

 

However, as michel123456 implies in his post, when the ladder is applied to living organisms, things get more complex.

[DevilSolution]

Digging up dirt but i found this link and its GREAT.

 

http://htwins.net/scale2/

[michel123456]

Digging up dirt but i found this link and its GREAT.

 

http://htwins.net/scale2/

Great.

But as much I think about it, that doesn't make sense.

[Strange]

Great.

But as much I think about it, that doesn't make sense.

 

What doesn't make sense to you?

 

How about this: Powers of Ten

[DevilSolution]

Thats trippy, got any more?

[michel123456]

 

What doesn't make sense to you?

 

How about this: Powers of Ten

Nothing makes sense.

To speak frankly, if tomorrow I wake up and someone tells me "Michel it was a dream, things are much simpler than that", it would be a relief.

Basically I don't understand why we never encounter the same kind of structure twice along the scale. I mean, an atom is not like a planet, and a solar system is not like a galaxy. A planet is not like a huge grain of sand.

 

Secondly I don't understand why it must begin from "fundamental particles" or even worse from "strings". Anyway, from "something" that is made up of nothing smaller. There is something absolute in this that does not go well with relativism.

 

What I would understand is a universe made up of russian dolls, where each doll observes the one above as bigger and the one beneath as smaller, and no end on both sides, only dolls and more dolls till infinite. That is not the case.

[Strange]

Basically I don't understand why we never encounter the same kind of structure twice along the scale.

<shrug> no reason why we should. But it make it more interesting this way!

 

 

What I would understand is a universe made up of russian dolls, where each doll observes the one above as bigger and the one beneath as smaller, and no end on both sides, only dolls and more dolls till infinite. That is not the case.

 

Nature is a bitch. She doesn't care about what you (or I) can understand.

Edited November 7, 2013 by Strange

[EdEarl]

And, when you look closely, nature has put things together in beautiful, often surprising, ways.

[michel123456]

As a side note to the powers of ten

 

The distance is 10 times larger in each sequence.

Which means that the surface as represented is multipled by hundred, and the volume by thousand.

The videos begins with the blanket (a 2D surface) that grows a hundred times in each step (and not 10 times), then the video shows the 3D universe and the spectator takes the impression that woaw the power of ten is very powerful, but as volume the image we take corresponds to an increase of thousand not of ten.

When you increase the side of a cube 10 times, the volume is increased by 1000.

[DevilSolution]

Its squared, not the power of 10, but the concept is the same regardless.

 

Im gona throw a spanner in the works; Were using base 10 (decimal) as the root system here and it doesnt recur, is there any base system where the scale would recur, duodecimal for example. Or is there any scientific data on this?? By the squared process.

 

Infact there must be, so what is it??

Edited November 9, 2013 by DevilSolution