Okay, so here's Earth in proportion to Venus, Mars, Mercury and Pluto here (http://i127.photobucket.com/albums/p151/clixby/wearesmall_1.jpg) .

Then, we've those planets in proportion to Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus and Neptune here (http://i127.photobucket.com/albums/p151/clixby/wearesmall_2.jpg).

Now here's all of those planets in proportion to the Sun (http://i127.photobucket.com/albums/p151/clixby/wearesmall_3.jpg) .

However, we're not stopping there. No, sir. Here's the Sun compared to Sirius, pollux and Arcturus (http://i127.photobucket.com/albums/p151/clixby/wearesmall_4.jpg).

Now, just to top it off, here's all of that compared to Rigel, Aldeberan, betelgeuse and Antares (http://i127.photobucket.com/albums/p151/clixby/wearesmall_5.jpg).

feel small yet?

What are you on about?

Sorry, I screwed up the image links there for a moment-I kind of hoped no-one would notice the thread until I'd fixed them :bad: . They're up for seriously now.

That's pretty cool.

Ah, I thought you must have missed something off dude.

Very interesting stuff!

I've only seen the scale upto the Sun before and I thought that was huge!

Another perspective.... (written by Eric Idle)

Whenever life gets you down, Mrs. Brown,
And things seem hard or tough,
And people are stupid, obnoxious or daft,
And you feel that you've had quite eno-o-o-o-o-ough,

Just remember that you're standing on a planet that's evolving
And revolving at nine hundred miles an hour.
That's orbiting at nineteen miles a second, so it's reckoned,
'Round the sun that is the source of all our power.
The sun, and you and me, and all the stars that we can see,
Are moving at a million miles a day,
In an outer spiral arm, at fourteen thousand miles an hour,
Of a galaxy we call the Milky Way.

Our galaxy itself contains a hundred billion stars;
It's a hundred thousand light-years side to side;
It bulges in the middle sixteen thousand light-years thick,
But out by us it's just three thousand light-years wide.
We're thirty thousand light-years from Galactic Central Point,
We go 'round every two hundred million years;
And our galaxy itself is only one of millions of billions
In this amazing and expanding universe.

The universe itself keeps on expanding and expanding,
In all of the directions it can whiz;
As fast as it can go, the speed of light, you know,
Twelve million miles a minute and that's the fastest speed there is.
So remember, when you're feeling very small and insecure,
How amazingly unlikely is your birth;
And pray that there's intelligent life somewhere up in space,
'Cause there's bugger all down here on Earth!

Reminds me of that Blur song "Far Out".

Very neat. The sort of thing you already know but have never visualized.

Saw a documentary on the Science Channel this week, which I've seen before, in which Vera Rubin's (sp?) graphs of rotational speed of galaxies were shown - first indication that something was amiss with assumptions about mass of universe. One of the other scientists interviewed commented on how stunning those simple graphs were when first published.

Never underestimate the power of an image!

To walk among giants...

It boggles the mind. We dont even qualify as stardust.

I feel soooo small.

Ooh, yay, we're insignificant!

I have a completely different take. The fact that a bunch of overdeveloped apes on a ball of dirt know enough of the cosmos to put these pictures on computers that we all have so we can marvel at the universe makes me feel rather pround and significant.

They're only models.

Neat. AoDA material, I think.

Models they may be, but they are accurate models of nearby stars and their size in proportion to our own Sun, which is nothing more than a yellow pixel compared to the basketball that is Antares.

It's quite likely that there's something next to which Antares looks like a pixel, no?

Yep, looks like we have quite some room to populate. :shake:

I've always thought that the universe is such a waste of space...

Models they may be, but they are accurate models of nearby stars and their size in proportion to our own Sun, which is nothing more than a yellow pixel compared to the basketball that is Antares.If they were truly accurate, they'd be much bigger. :p

Our Sun may seem insignificant compared to Antares, Betelgeuze or Rigel - but it will last much longer, and it is known to have at least one habitable planet orbiting it. :p

Yep, looks like we have quite some room to populate.Well, to do that we need to travel to another system and we haven't even managed to put a person on another planet as of yet. So I'd say we're a long way off from that.

The size of the universe matters little when you can't even get of the single rock you were cursed to scurry around on.

I know a few people whose ego's are at least as big as Antares...

That does it, I'm moving to Antares.

There is better version of this. And it takes into consideration that Pluto is no longer a planet! :D

Here's the linkage (http://www.sorcerers2.net/kitrax/pictures/biguniverse2.gif). The slide with change after a few seconds.

They're only models. Shhh! :p :rolling:

I am frequently consciously aware of our insignificance in compared to the rest of the universe and its infinite probabilities. It makes going about my daily routine all that more humorus as I watch us primates pretending we have some sort of advanced civilization, when we have only been in existence as a species for about 100, 000 years. Just imagine another 100, 000 years into the future, assuming we dont kill ourselves before then, we will even then after all that time still only have been in existence for a small insignificant fraction of the entirety of the universe. I like to think of the possibilities that will be common place in our descendants futures, and how we effect them with what we do and think and believe concerning ourselves as a species, and our place in the 'entirety' of the universe.

Hmm. I can't remember who wrote it (was a scifi guy), but...

"Man is not the measure of all things, but the measurer of all things."

If I take an object and begin to subdivide it into smaller and smaller pieces, how small can I subdivide the object? At no time may I subdivide the object into such small pieces that they no longer have any effect upon their surroundings, because if I did so, then the object would not exist (as its constituent divisions would themselves not exist). Remember, to exist is to effect; an object which exerts absolutely no effect is in actually not an object, and does not in actuality exist. So how far can I subdivide? For an object to exist, it would seem that I must be able to subdivide it infinitely. What does that mean? What are the consequences of that infinite divisibilty? Does that mean there can be no fundamental unit of substance?

How about if we go in the other direction...can there be an object so large that it has no surrounding to effect (i.e. the universe)? Does that mean for the universe to exist (and it does, I've seen it), it is necessary for it to be infinite in at least one dimension? Or all dimensions?

Do they sell straight-jackets in medium size?

[ January 12, 2007, 00:02: Message edited by: Late-Night Thinker ]

Isn't the Planck length the smallest you can measure without breaking down space-time?

Would hate to see what would happen if Antares collapsed.

Cool.

But what's so controversial about this that it should be in the Alley? :hmm:

At no time may I subdivide the object into such small pieces that they no longer have any effect upon their surroundings, because if I did so, then the object would not exist (as its constituent divisions would themselves not exist).Matter is constent. It is never destroyed, it mealy changes form. I don't know how small an object could be, but it would probably be clasifide as a gas at some point during the change.

On the subject of the infinite:
If the Universe is infinite, done that meen there are an infinite number of earths that are exacly like ours? Is it posable that somewhere on some world there is another you doing exacly the same thing you are doing now?

If the Universe is infinite, that would mean it would be imposable for anything not to exist.

Edit: Splunge@ Can you see this sort of post in whatnots?

Edit: Splunge@ Can you see this sort of post in whatnots? Absolutely!

I know the forum description just mentions "serious subject matter", but I always thought the Alleys were supposed to deal with contentious issues - basically, topics where one could choose sides. I can't see that here.

But I guess that's only the way they were back in the good ol' days, when things made sense, everything was in its proper place, and Tal was still somewhat sane. Ahh, the memories... :geezer: :p

It's also supost to deal with philosophy, and I think this is a very philosophical topic.

The Alleys are not for contentious issues; merely ones in which you want a serious discussion.

It just so happens that a lot of topics for serious discussion turn contentious. :)

Matter is constent. It is never destroyed, it mealy changes form. I don't know how small an object could be, but it would probably be clasifide as a gas at some point during the change.
true, the smallest particle known currently is an elektron, along with the larger proton and neutron, these make up atoms.
from what we can observe currently, these three objects never stop excisting, they made change from one atom to another, but the amopunt of eletrons and protons are allways the same in any process.

[ January 14, 2007, 14:21: Message edited by: Equester ]

@Nataraja
Just for consider how and were we will be in a distant future, we are acomplished with te dream of one of my favorite sci-fi writers:Sir Issac Asimov.
He, along with many other, forseen a humanity that spread along the solar system first, and the whole galaxy later.
But like you said, he also claims "if we can´t conquer ourselves, how we can consider conquer the galaxy?"

I sometimes try to realize how much God must love me when he cares for such a small being on a tiny planet somewhere there... in the galaxy.

Man, do I feel religious today. :pope:

these try objects never stop excisting, they made change from one atom to another, but the amopunt of eletrons and protons are allways the smae in any process.Um... no. One of the transformations of matter is into energy. Which is the whole process behind nuclear fusion and fission - turning some matter into energy.

What is nuclear waste then?

Blackthorne, that is just eletrons traveling for one mater to another., the nuclear waste as The magister mention are the leftovers which now lack some of there elektrons.

energy isn't some mystic force that exist with no mather. its movement of elektrons, weather you talk elecktricity or physical movement, or heat for that mather. its all do to movement of elektrons.

radioactivity in for instance uranium, works by the way of uraniums outet elecktron-claudes are unstable, uranium over time turns into another atom by giving these elektrons away, this proces generates heat (which is a form of energy) this heat is what a neclear powerplant uses.

[ January 14, 2007, 14:35: Message edited by: Equester ]

As far as I recall, nuclear power generators have a number of rods of radoactive matter submerged in water. The heat generated by the rods evaporates the water, whic is used to power turbines, which generate power. Nuclear waste is the irradiated water that is left over and the depleted rods( although the rods do find some use by the military, who can make ammunition from depleted uranium).

Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.

that sounds about right clixby. the water is heated, by the heat generated from does elecktrons that moves away from the radioactive matter (to join with other atoms which will get ionified).

So as you can see blackthorne (hopefully anyhows) no elecktrons or any other matter sieze to excist in this process.

on a sidenote, the process to get electrons back on the waste materials while still gaining energy is a process that many scientist hope to solve, because if that was possible, we would have a near unlimited powersource in fusion/fission.

May the translation isn´t accurate at all, but from what I know about the fission nuclear reaction, the particle that start the whole chain reaction is not the elektron(tiny little negative charge one orbitating the core particle,around 1:10000 smaller) but the proton(one of the bigs liying in the center, possitive electric charge).
The core is "bombed" with "low speed neutrons" wich is the other (non-electrical charged) particle involved in the reaction.
The procces boils the heavy water and that water boils regular water that turns into steam and moves the vapor turbines.
The "waste" of all this reaction are in fact, the elements that "fission" breaks into smaller pieces, such as Cs or Ba (radioactive ones) and the "depleted" uranium.
The waste is still radioactive(loosing core particles) for a period of time known as "average live" wich, in the case of the avobe elements, exeeds the 800 years or more. :2c:

So as you can see blackthorne (hopefully anyhows) no elecktrons or any other matter sieze to excist in this process.Wow. I am shocked at the basic ignorance of nuclear processes here. Well, maybe you are too young to have learned about it in school yet.

The fact remains that under nuclear fusion (of light elements) and nuclear fission (of heavy elements) you are making new elements from the original elements, and in the process converting some of the mass directly into energy (kinetic and electromagnetic). Where do you think all that energy is coming from and why nuclear energy is so powerful? You must have seen the famous equation E=mc2 (where the c is squared, not multiplied by two) which relates energy and matter.

Nuclear waste consists of the radioactive elements created by the nuclear fission reactions as well as the equipment that has been irradiated by these elements.

[ January 15, 2007, 18:06: Message edited by: Blackthorne TA ]

This is off-topic, but I'm with Blackthorn here. Equester, you should look up fission, fusion and particle physics on the web to get a better handle on the scientific issues. Wikipedea is a good place to start, although there are several better sites out there on these topics.

First of all, radioactive materials do not lack electrons -- it is not charged and radioacivity is not about electron movement. Movement of electrons occurs over time, but the mass remains uncharged. The process of fission or fusion does not eliminate electrons from substances. There is no research to 'get electrons back on waste materials' because the electrons are already there.

The movement of electrons occurs in electricity and chemical reactions. Nuclear energy involves the movement of photons and neutrons. Different decay types give off charged particles (beta minus decay, alpha decay), but these types of decay are related and radioactive piles that decay give off both over time (and the charge is thus maintained at neutral).

Fission basics: A neutron is absorbed by an atom (Uranium-235 is most common). If the neutron has sufficient energy, the atom splits into two main fragments and two or three neutrons. The resultant particles have less mass than the original neutron and atom -- this loss of mass follows relativistic physics and an incredible amount of energy is generated. Note, the amount of protons and electrons stays the same.

Fusion: Basically the opposite. Two smaller particles come together, but the final product has less mass than the original particles -- once again, that change in mass results in a lot of energy. The primary fusion reaction we can produce comes from combining tritium and deuterium (hydrogen with neutrons) to form helium and expelling a neutron. The overall charge of the reaction is again zero.

My head threatens to explode whenever you guys start talking about deep physics like this. All of that neutron stuff just boggles the mind. I'm sure it's right, but none of it makes any sort of sense.

Harbourboy@: You were sleeping is science class in secondry school were you? This is easy to understand once you get past the formula.

It might be easy to remember the formula but it still doesn't make any logical sense to me that:
a) you can somehow shoot a neutron at something. It's unbelievably small. You can't even see it. How can you shoot it?
b) when the atom gets hit, it blows up in a mind boggling spectacular way. If I stick some balls together with glue and then shoot them, they don't blow up and wreck half the city - why should an atom do so then?

Again, I know these things must be right, but that doesn't make it any easier for my head to understand.

And, yes, I did read A Brief History of Time all the way through but I still didn't understand any of it.

If the Universe is infinately large, does that meen we are infinately small?

a) you can somehow shoot a neutron at something. It's unbelievably small. You can't even see it. How can you shoot it?You can't. What you can do is put a neutron source nearby. Free neutrons are produced in various ways, typically with certain radioisotopes or mixtures of different radioisotopes that spontaneously undergo radioactive decay.

b) when the atom gets hit, it blows up in a mind boggling spectacular way. If I stick some balls together with glue and then shoot them, they don't blow up and wreck half the city - why should an atom do so then?Because when you shoot at your glued-up balls, if you take all the broken pieces, they will add up to the original mass. If you take all the matter products from a nuclear fission reaction of heavy elements or a nuclear fusion reaction of light elements, you will find some of the mass is gone - it went into the kinetic and electromagnetic energy released by the reaction. Why that happens is not simple, and I've been away from nuclear physics too long to remember the details.

The protons are all positively charged. For an element such as uranium, there are 92 protons, all repelling one another with immense force, confined to the volume of the nucleus. It is a massively compressed spring.

is not simple You're telling me!

Making things even more complicated, some mass is lost or gained during standard chemical reactions as well; it is a very minute amount (relative to nuclear reactions), but it is there.

I had a chemistry professor who insisted that we were probably largely wrong in our mathematical models of nature, because, as he put it, "Nature is actually very simple, we just aren't looking at it the right way."

:hippy:

Did I mention he was a minister for a church which he himself founded? Cool guy actually, great sense of humor.

@Harby
"My head threatens to explode whenever you guys start talking about deep physics like this. All of that neutron stuff just boggles the mind. I'm sure it's right, but none of it makes any sort of sense"

Why not? Deep space effects and atomic forces are ruled by the same "laws"(or we can say how us poorly understand the universe)

"It might be easy to remember the formula but it still doesn't make any logical sense to me that:
a) you can somehow shoot a neutron at something. It's unbelievably small. You can't even see it. How can you shoot it?
b) when the atom gets hit, it blows up in a mind boggling spectacular way. If I stick some balls together with glue and then shoot them, they don't blow up and wreck half the city - why should an atom do so then?"

A) There´s no "shoot" effect, you just give the enough amount of energy(acceleration) and when it pass near by an atom core, it will be "absorbed" by atomic atraction.It will hit(luckily) the core and blast the "heavy" Uranium atom into 2 or 3 ligther elements and some protons (or neutrons) that escapes the atraction and will hit nearby atom cores,and so,and so...The exceed mass transforms it self in energy(in the heat fashion)...
Voilá! You have a chain reaction.Controlled (nuclear power plant) or uncontrolled(atomic bomb)

b) The catch is the amount of these "reactions" that occurs in a diminute period of time(around the milisecond)The total energy is the summatory of each given amount of energy,the mass of a proton(very smaller than a gram), mutiplied by the square of the ligth velocity(gives a important amount) multiplied by the total reactions in that period of time.
Once the reaction started, it will be more difficult to control the exact amount of chain reactions in the mass of uranium.This is why power plant have control bars (usually some Boro alloy)that stop or deflect the excesive amount of these "core-hit-addicts" super accelerated protons.

Wow. I am shocked at the basic ignorance of nuclear processes here. Well, maybe you are too young to have learned about it in school yet. way to patronize me after you nade a statement about matter seizing to excist :rolleyes: guess you havent laerned about that in school yet. but hey if it makes you feel big, be my guest

as for the nuclear fision/fusion yea i was totally of the track there, been almost 5 years since i passed A level physics in college, gee i forget stuff to...

Ummm... Equester... BTA is right.

There are three laws taught in the first week of chemistry courses:

The Law of Conservation of Matter: There is no observable change in the quantity of matter during an ordinary chemical reaction.

The Law of Conservation of Energy: Energy can neither be created nor destroyed; it may only be converted from one form to another.

The Law of Conservation of Energy and Matter: The combined amount of matter and energy in the universe is fixed.

Looking at these three laws there may initially appear to be conflict -- but there really is none. Fission, fusion, and radioactive decay are excluded from the definition of 'ordinary chemical reaction.' The third law came about as a result of Einstein's Theory of Relativity. Using the theory of relativity we can see that matter is, in essence, potential energy. Changing matter to energy in a nuclear reaction still falls within the realm of conservation of energy.

Matter CAN be converted to energy. It doesn't get destroyed, it just changes form.

Edit: typo.

[ January 18, 2007, 21:53: Message edited by: T2Bruno ]

...you nade a statement about matter seizing to excist guess you havent laerned about that in school yet.Err... what? Here is my statement:
Um... no. One of the transformations of matter is into energy. Which is the whole process behind nuclear fusion and fission - turning some matter into energy.Where did I say matter ceases to exist? Nowhere. I said matter can be transformed into energy. And it can.

way to patronize me...but hey if it makes you feel big, be my guestI was neither trying to patronize you, nor make myself look big. I corrected a misconception about matter and energy which you then proceeded to incorrectly refute. So, I was in fact shocked at the ignorance (and I don't mean stupidity or anything like that, merely the lack of knowledge) unless those making the false claims happened to be of an age where they would not have yet learned about nuclear processes.

It seems you are old enough, and have had the appropriate classes to know better, so again, I am shocked at you forgetting such a basic principle to the point of trying to refute the truth when it is pointed out; but so what? Maybe I am easily shocked... *shrug*

Isn't matter and anti-matter supposed to annihilate each other (when coming into contact) in such a way that nothing is left? Obviously that would contradict "The Law of Conservation of Energy", but if the law holds true, what remains when matter and anti-matter meets each other (if the amounts of both are exactly the same)?

@ Bahir the Red

The matter and anti-matter do annihilate one another---into a blaze of energy. That energy, due to E=MC^2, is the amount of mass lost (all in this case) turned directly into 'BOOM!'. Make sure you're wearing safety goggles if you're nearby.

The conservation of energy law applies to systems. If you make an arbitrary boundary around any part of the universe and certify that no energy enters or leaves that system, any additional energy you would find inside the system after having opened it would equal the amount of mass lost within the system by E=MC^2. The opposite could be true as well, with the system gaining mass.

The law is kind of impossible to prove universally true though as you would need to put a boundary around the "universe"...but, I think 'put a boundary around the universe' might be a non-sensical statement if thought about enough. If anyone does think about that long enough, let me know, as I'd be interested.

[ January 18, 2007, 23:41: Message edited by: Late-Night Thinker ]

OK - antimatter. You can't tell me that the concept of antimatter (even if it is true) makes any sense at all. Is there an AntiChevalier or an AntiParisHilton or an Antiwater. Does everything have an antithing that will make the both blow up?

If I hadn't turned in my chemistry book today I would quote it, but as I don't have it...

Blackthorne is right, a slow moving neutron is shot into the nucleus of an atom with a heavy nucleus (for fission), then the nucleus splits and smaller atoms are formed with less total mass. The lost mass becomes energy in the process. In Fusion it is just the opposite. Smaller atoms band together to make a larger atom with less mass, once again energy filling up the rest.

The information is still fresh as I read it this morning.

OK - antimatter. You can't tell me that the concept of antimatter (even if it is true) makes any sense at all. Is there an AntiChevalier or an AntiParisHilton or an Antiwater. Does everything have an antithing that will make the both blow up? What do you mean "if it is true"? Antimatter is used all the time. The P in a PET scan stands for positron which is the antimatter equivalent of an electron. Positrons are also used in particle accelerators.

I'm not sure, but I think I remember reading about them creating anti-hydrogen (a positron with an anti-proton) in the lab.

And no, not everything has an antithing somewhere. There was no Anti-Harbourboy somehow created by his anti-parents at the same time Harbourboy was created by his parents.

And no, not everything has an antithing somewhere. There was no Anti-Harbourboy somehow created by his anti-parents at the same time Harbourboy was created by his parents.Uh, no, I'm sure it doesn't.

<.<

>.>

RUN!

We can make antiparticles in small quantities and even simple antimatter, so it should be possible, in theory, to create an antianything sometime in the distant future. An AntiChevalier (certainly a chaotic evil, fallen paladin) would blow up, in spectacular fashion, when he came in contact with Chevalier or anything made of ordinary matter.

What doesn't make sense is the abundance of matter and the apparent dearth of antimatter in the universe. As far as I know, nobody can explain why there is such a discrepency.

I wonder if an AntiParisHilton would release a celibacy tape.

They are apparantly going to use anti-matter to help remove cancer tumors. The principal is sound, but you need a lot of them (it took several months and a lot of money to make 3 positrons in a lab)

Eh? Positrons are "created" naturally through beta decay of certain radioactive isotopes, and those isotopes are readily created in cyclotrons. If positrons were so difficult to make as you describe, PET scans would be far too expensive.

Maby I'm wrong then, but how much do they use in PET scans?

I dont' know exactly, but it's a scan so it has to be a significant amount. Regardless, there're all kinds of people getting PET scans all the time, so it can't be that expensive.

EDIT - Oh, and it's the radioactive isotope that's manufactured for the PET scans because they want the positrons inside the body where they will annihilate with electrons and emit gamma rays that can be detected during the scan.

Maybe you meant anti-protons; they're much more massive and thus more difficult to "create".

What about dark matter? What effect would it cause if this theoretical matter came into touch with either matter or anti-matter?

IIRC, dark matter particles are passing through everything constantly. It has no effect on anything, apart for compensating for some problems in scientists' equations.

It seems you are old enough, and have had the appropriate classes to know better, so again, I am shocked at you forgetting such a basic principle to the point of trying to refute the truth when it is pointed out; but so what? Maybe I am easily shocked... Heh fair point. im just embarrased i had forgot so much.
and i think i misundestood your transformed as meening it stopped being mater of any kind. my bad once more.

"What doesn't make sense is the abundance of matter and the apparent dearth of antimatter in the universe. As far as I know, nobody can explain why there is such a discrepency"

As far as I know, the whole thing is the natural stat called "SPIN" of the particle.
Any anti-matter particle will "rotate" in an oppositte direction than a matter particle.
The spin of a matter particle is (in a universe of matter) stable, while an anti-matter particle is not.(I suppose this also will work reverse ways in an opposite universe of anti matter)
May be that explains why they are so difficult to create an handle them.

"I wonder if an AntiParisHilton would release a celibacy tape."

That wouldn´t be fun to watch,at least in this universe of matter.

BTA@: Anti-protons! that was it. Thanks.

I was under the impression that Dark Matter was a collective term for matter that scientests have no way of identifing.

Can someone answer this question for me:
Is there such a thing as an anti-neutron?

I only ask because it seems obvious there should be, but is sounds stupid. What charge do they have?

Magister, an anti-neutron is just made up of anti-quarks instead of quarks. I believe it's the same organization of quarks, two down and one up, though two anti-down quarks and one anti-up quark. Or something like that... it's been a while since I've had to take any classes on quatum physics or chemistry.