jump to last post 1-17 of 17 discussions (31 posts)

the science of size.

  1. profile image0
    sandra rinckposted 9 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.

    1. Mark Knowles profile image59
      Mark Knowlesposted 9 years ago in reply to this

      It's called an atom bomb big_smile

      1. profile image0
        sandra rinckposted 9 years ago in 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.

    2. buckywildcat profile image59
      buckywildcatposted 9 years ago in 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.

  2. About-The-Home profile image59
    About-The-Homeposted 9 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.

  3. About-The-Home profile image59
    About-The-Homeposted 9 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.

    1. buckywildcat profile image59
      buckywildcatposted 9 years ago in 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.

  4. About-The-Home profile image59
    About-The-Homeposted 9 years ago

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

    1. profile image0
      sandra rinckposted 9 years ago in 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?

  5. About-The-Home profile image59
    About-The-Homeposted 9 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)

    1. profile image0
      sandra rinckposted 9 years ago in reply to this

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

  6. Misha profile image76
    Mishaposted 9 years ago

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

    1. buckywildcat profile image59
      buckywildcatposted 9 years ago in reply to this

      Nice.  smile

      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.

  7. profile image0
    sandra rinckposted 9 years ago

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

    1. helenathegreat profile image87
      helenathegreatposted 9 years ago in 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.

  8. Misha profile image76
    Mishaposted 9 years ago

    Nope, I'm not talking about creating a total man made element smile

    I'm trying to make a point that you can create an extra atom, and still obey conservation laws

  9. StefanMDP profile image68
    StefanMDPposted 9 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.

  10. profile image0
    sandra rinckposted 9 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?

  11. StefanMDP profile image68
    StefanMDPposted 9 years ago

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

    1. profile image0
      sandra rinckposted 9 years ago in reply to this

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

      1. Paraglider profile image89
        Paragliderposted 9 years ago in 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.

        1. profile image0
          sandra rinckposted 9 years ago in reply to this

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

  12. gamergirl profile image60
    gamergirlposted 9 years ago

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

    A theoretical something else happened.

    1. profile image0
      sandra rinckposted 9 years ago in reply to this

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

  13. Paraglider profile image89
    Paragliderposted 9 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 wink

    1. profile image0
      sandra rinckposted 9 years ago in 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.

  14. profile image0
    sandra rinckposted 9 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?

  15. solarshingles profile image59
    solarshinglesposted 9 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...

    1. profile image0
      sandra rinckposted 9 years ago in reply to this

      thanks solar, I am going to check it out.  smile

  16. xrated profile image61
    xratedposted 8 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.

  17. profile image0
    Zarm Nefilinposted 8 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.

 
working