Notices
Results 1 to 8 of 8
Like Tree2Likes
  • 2 Post By Dywyddyr

Thread: The Universe and a quark

  1. #1 The Universe and a quark 
    crazy sportlaan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Posts
    67
    Hello there,
    I was wondering what is actually the difference in between an universe and a sub-atomical particle.
    when you think of these particles as there own "tiny universes" doesn't this mean there is an expanation for the unpredictabilaty of the way they behave?

    I know this is just another brainfart as you could call it but I am wondering why this is an unlikely or what the phyical differences inbetween them are

    I am allways learning
    Sorry for my terrible sugestion on advance


    Why can’t atheists solve exponential equations? Because they don’t believe in higher powers.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    Genius Duck Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    12,030
    Quote Originally Posted by sportlaan View Post
    I was wondering what is actually the difference in between an universe and a sub-atomical particle.
    One's a universe, the other is sub-atomic particle.
    They're different. Completely.

    when you think of these particles as there own "tiny universes"
    Why on Earth would you think of a particle as a "tiny universe"? What similarities do they have?


    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    crazy sportlaan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Posts
    67
    Oh no I'm doing it again....
    euhm
    Sorry
    I'm an idiot
    Why can’t atheists solve exponential equations? Because they don’t believe in higher powers.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    Genius Duck Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    12,030
    One is a huge "construct" consisting of (possibly) an infinite number of objects, compounds and elements.
    The other is fundamental particle with (so far as we know) no constituent components. (And it's bloody small).
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    Bullshit Intolerant PhDemon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Newcastle-upon-Tyne, UK
    Posts
    5,598
    "bloody small" is that an engineering term? we had similar nomenclature doing atmospheric measurements, sub ppt = f***all, ppt levels = a bit, ppb levels = a shed load, ppm+ = f***loads...
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    193
    Bloody is just so amazing word said with english accent. Im gonna have to learn that.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    Genius Duck Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    12,030
    Quote Originally Posted by PhDemon View Post
    "bloody small" is that an engineering term?
    Absolutely.
    Generally we don't bother with things as small as quarks in engineering, but it's interesting that, having said that, while a quark is "bloody small" the typical salary for an engineer is "f*cking tiny".
    I've never compared the two but I suspect that the quark may be the larger.
    Markus Hanke and sportlaan like this.
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    exchemist
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    London
    Posts
    3,777
    Quote Originally Posted by Dywyddyr View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by PhDemon View Post
    "bloody small" is that an engineering term?
    Absolutely.
    Generally we don't bother with things as small as quarks in engineering, but it's interesting that, having said that, while a quark is "bloody small" the typical salary for an engineer is "f*cking tiny".
    I've never compared the two but I suspect that the quark may be the larger.
    During the earlier part of my time in the oil industry, tankers got larger and larger. We had LCCs (=Large Crude Carriers), then VLCCs (= Very Large Crude Carriers)and later, ULCCs (=Ultra Large Crude Carriers.

    Some wag then proposed the next step should be "BHCC"s (= Bloody Huge Crude Carriers). Another wag then suggested that, after BHCCs, the only possible terminology for something even bigger still would obviously have to be "FECC"s…………………..

    ….which I leave as an exercise for the reader……….
    Reply With Quote  
     

Similar Threads

  1. quark theory
    By ayush garg in forum Physics
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: November 4th, 2010, 10:01 AM
  2. (Quark) Soup's On!
    By easygenius in forum Physics
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: February 12th, 2010, 05:06 PM
  3. up-down quark values
    By Cold Fusion in forum Physics
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: July 27th, 2008, 01:24 PM
  4. Quark structure
    By Dream_Catcher in forum Physics
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: January 13th, 2008, 12:24 AM
  5. quark conversion
    By AlexP in forum Physics
    Replies: 12
    Last Post: September 3rd, 2007, 08:52 AM
Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •