the science of size.

1. 0

   sandra rinckposted 16 years ago

   Yeah, I think I just made it up cause I am bored.  Someone could have coined it, but since I have never heard of it it is mine. 
   
   What is the science of size. 
   
   It's the largest thing you could ever image being the smallest thing you ever imagined, and then all the stuff inbetween. 
   
   So, like in space and stuff...the smallest star is the largest star eventually.  And on Earth, the smallest thing, is the largest. 
   
   So what does that make the things we cant see yet? 
   
   Can we make new atoms, ( i am just making stuff up here, I am not a science efficionoto, shute I can't even spell)  can we just make up some random thing that comes from no where? besides thoughts that is, and even those came from somewhere.
   
   What if someone found the smallest thing ever and smashed it, would it be like the big bang?
   
   Yeah,  I just need some food for thought cause my mind is bored with things already know to man.  I need something else to think about.

   replyreport
   1. 59

      Mark Knowlesposted 16 years agoin reply to this

      It's called an atom bomb

      replyreport
      1. 0

         sandra rinckposted 16 years agoin reply to this

         I know, but what if we found an "atom" or nano something smaller than that.  If we popped it would it create a new universe?  I mean something sooooo small, that we haven't even began to fathom, that would unleash a hole new demention without distroying this one even.

         replyreport
   2. 60

      buckywildcatposted 16 years agoin reply to this

      Nope you can't make new atoms - that's the first law of thermodynamics:  energy can be changed from one state to another, but it cannot be created or destroyed.  Energy and matter always remain constant.

      replyreport
2. 60

   About-The-Homeposted 16 years ago

   I was watching a programme about Professor Steven Hawkings last night and he has shown that the whole of the universe expanded from a singularity, which is a point of no size. So that's the largest from the smallest.

   replyreport
3. 60

   About-The-Homeposted 16 years ago

   I disagree, we can make new atoms.
   
   An atom is the smallest part of an element. e.g. hydrogen,helium,and so on up the periodic table. It isn't however the smallest particle by a long way.
   Fusion pushes atoms together to create new heavier atoms of different elements.
   Fission splits atoms into lighter atoms of different elements.
   
   Matter can be created. It was created in the big bang.
   
   You're probably right about energy/matter being constant but that wasn't the question.

   replyreport
   1. 60

      buckywildcatposted 16 years agoin reply to this

      You're still not creating the atom though....technically, you're changing the atom and the components that make it up into something else.

      replyreport
4. 60

   About-The-Homeposted 16 years ago

   There are lots of particles smaller than atoms. The atom is a whole world in itself.

   replyreport
   1. 0

      sandra rinckposted 16 years agoin reply to this

      Well I was actually thinking of a quirk.
      
      -Hey aren't you that vase from the hottest hubbers contest?  I had to join the competition so that I could break you.  DId you see the results?

      replyreport
5. 60

   About-The-Homeposted 16 years ago

   Yes I saw.
   
   No I'm not the vase I'm the periodic table.
   
   The vase went out and got smashed but I shall keep its picture always.
   (Until I find something better)

   replyreport
   1. 0

      sandra rinckposted 16 years agoin reply to this

      You are definatly an element.  plus you show the most leg.  You shoulda entered as yourself.

      replyreport
6. 63

   Mishaposted 16 years ago

   If you took a big atom and splitted it in two, you just created a new one

   replyreport
   1. 60

      buckywildcatposted 16 years agoin reply to this

      Nice. 
      
      I'm usually not a fan of wikipedia, but this is actually a great entry on the atom:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atom
      
      
      Ok, let's think about the big atom.  The big atom is made up of a bunch of subatomic particles:  electrons, protons and neutrons.  For the sake of argument, lets say you have 10 electrons, 10 protons and 10 neutrons in the big atom.  When you split this atom in half, you now have two smaller atoms, each having 5 electrons, 5 protons and 5 neutrons.  The subatomic particles that comprised the inital atom are still constant - you haven't magically created anything new.
      
      
      Yup - you can make man made elements.  I think someone else pointed out its been done pretty routinely.  My point is just that you're not creating matter to do it.

      replyreport
7. 0

   sandra rinckposted 16 years ago

   a total man made element? anything you find already exist, so it is probably impossible to make a new element. 
   hmmm.

   replyreport
   1. 0

      helenathegreatposted 16 years agoin reply to this

      No, it's totally possible and has been done.  When we force more atoms together, it creates very unstable but very real elements. See the end of the Periodic Table of Elements?  I don't remember when it changes from natural to man-made, but all those elements at the end we totally created.

      replyreport
8. 63

   Mishaposted 16 years ago

   Nope, I'm not talking about creating a total man made element
   
   I'm trying to make a point that you can create an extra atom, and still obey conservation laws

   replyreport
9. 77

   StefanMDPposted 16 years ago

   Until today, the Periodic Table contains 117 chemical elements. The elements are ordered by their atomic number (the quantity of protons in the nucleus).
   
   The periodic Table was sketched in 1869 by Dmitri Mendeleev, by means of observations and deductions (a genius).
   He was able to predict the existence of elements not known these days.
   
   Create a new atom is not something unthinkable, it is only necessary add to an to already existent atom, an electron in the orbits, a proton in the nucleus and optionally a neutron in the nucleus. Simple, uh?.
   
   The inconvenience is the enormous energy necessary to achieve it. This energy is only available in the stars.
   
   However in these ovens only light elements can be cooked, till the Iron (atomic number=26)
   
   Heavier elements are formed when a star explodes (Supernova) till the Uranium (atomic number=92)
   
   The rest of the elements are synthetic, created in particles accelerators.
   
   The "Transmutation of Metals" that the Alchemists proposed, is basically change the atomic number of common metals to obtain Gold.
   
   According to the alchemy, when transmuting metals the "elixir of the immortality" is obtained.The legend says that an alchemist known as Fulcanelli, was the only one that got it.

   replyreport
10. 0

    sandra rinckposted 16 years ago

    With all this going on, how come we can not make cold fusion possible?  If the Big Band was caused by nuclear fussion, then the other side of the bang, would have to have been cold fussion right?

    replyreport
11. 77

    StefanMDPposted 16 years ago

    The Big Bang is a model of the universe, a theoretical point of beginning.

    replyreport
    1. 0

       sandra rinckposted 16 years agoin reply to this

       Right, but I want to know what happened before that.  So if all things have thier equal opposite then...

       replyreport
       1. 87

          Paragliderposted 16 years agoin reply to this

          The trouble is, in this context, 'before' doesn't mean anything. You can't think linearly about singularity which is the ultimate nonlinearity.
          
          In the days before anyone had postulated curvature of space/time, the model was an eternal, infinite universe. Then, concepts like 'before' or 'beyond' could be discussed, but the answer was equally unsatisfying and more or less came down to 'un-ask the question!' Because there was no answer.

          replyreport
          1. 0

             sandra rinckposted 16 years agoin reply to this

             right on!  I love that- un-ask the question. 
             Still fun to ponder though right?

             replyreport
12. 87

    gamergirlposted 16 years ago

    You... want to know what happened before a theoretical situation?
    
    A theoretical something else happened.

    replyreport
    1. 0

       sandra rinckposted 16 years agoin reply to this

       Yeah, cause I am getting bored with the same things.  I need more stuff to think about.

       replyreport
13. 87

    Paragliderposted 16 years ago

    Of course - great fun to ponder. But unless you have the mathematical ability to ponder it analytically, you're really left with the options of pondering mystically or poetically. No harm in that of course, but you won't get a grant for it

    replyreport
    1. 0

       sandra rinckposted 16 years agoin reply to this

       your crackin me up.
       I like to think about the stars,  the smaller the star is the bigger it is, then I think about the smallest things and think it has to be the biggest.
       What is remarkable to me, is that those things, are the makeup of people.  Unfathomable!  LIke if there is life somewhere out there, way out there, so small we can''t see it, and they are looking right back at us, and all they can see it this light, a light so bright we cant even see it, and it makes us what we are. 
       I think, so far technology has taken us far, but when technology has gone as far as it can go, what else is there left? 
       
       It blows my mind that everything there is to life is in people, we do everything, we make things, we name things, we observe things, we see things, we do things.

       replyreport
14. 0

    sandra rinckposted 16 years ago

    Now I am wondering how we can tell if we have traveled so far into the Universe that we are going back in time?

    replyreport
15. 60

    solarshinglesposted 16 years ago

    Dear Sandra,
    this topic is so wide, challenging, yet fundamental and it really includes all human theoretical knowledge up to date. I also need to say, that nothing is finished or really firmly postulated on this field.
    I just want to post a link with some possible theories and explanations. Presentations are really very nice and well made.
    http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/elegant/program.html
    
    Keep in mind, that this is just a one 'possible truth' out of very many...

    replyreport
    1. 0

       sandra rinckposted 16 years agoin reply to this

       thanks solar, I am going to check it out. 

       replyreport
16. 58

    xratedposted 15 years ago

    Science is a vast subject. Anything and Everything that has its existence is only because of Science. Atoms, cells, rules, theories....all make it.

    replyreport
17. 0

    Zarm Nefilinposted 15 years ago

    To a certain extent things exist because we observe and measure them, and would cease to exist otherwise.  As bizarre and counter-intuitive as this sounds, quantum theory and the resultant experiments that have happened since Max Planck suggest this.

    replyreport