General Category > General Discussion
How Big is Big?
Drusilla lives!:
--- Quote from: JVJ on June 09, 2011, 03:12:39 PM ---... With over 100 pages of artist biographies to reformat, it's taking seemingly forever. I have little time for "play".
--- End quote ---
Well, good thing it's a labor of love. :)
That "how big is big" thing reminds me of a book from several years ago by Philip Morrison... I think it was entitled "Powers of Ten" or something. Anyway, in it they also considered the relative size of things, from the extremely small to the extremely large, in steps of powers of ten.
Although I agree it's humbling, what's really amazing is that we're able to encapsulate and consider such concepts with our minds eye, regardless... an infinity within I suppose.
JVJ (RIP):
I'm beginning to think it's a labor of insanity. dl.
I'm up to Frank Frazetta (#40 of 105). Sigh...
Never saw "Powers of Ten" but I can immediately grasp the concept. That's pretty much what the "scale" Flash things does. The one aspect of it that completely boggles my mind is the smallest "quantum foam" concept of Einstein. It's about 20 orders of magnitude (powers of ten) smaller than the next larger subatomic idea. How in the hell did ANYONE ever conceive of such a thing?
Peace, Jim (|:{>
Drusilla lives!:
--- Quote from: JVJ on June 11, 2011, 05:53:31 PM ---... The one aspect of it that completely boggles my mind is the smallest "quantum foam" concept of Einstein. It's about 20 orders of magnitude (powers of ten) smaller than the next larger subatomic idea. How in the hell did ANYONE ever conceive of such a thing?
--- End quote ---
With informed imagination Jim... IMO the line (if there ever was one) between the arts and sciences becomes blurred once one reaches a certain level of proficiency.
Physicists IMO are really frustrated sculptors. :)
Personally, I always thought all that quantum stuff was developed just to put chemistry on a "solid" theoretical foundation, which it somewhat did... but I'm not an authority on either physics or chemistry... or sculpture either for that matter. :)
JonTheScanner:
--- Quote from: Drusilla lives! on June 14, 2011, 06:44:25 PM ---Personally, I always thought all that quantum stuff was developed just to put chemistry on a "solid" theoretical foundation, which it somewhat did... but I'm not an authority on either physics or chemistry... or sculpture either for that matter. :)
--- End quote ---
No quantum stuff was "invented" (I'd say "discovered") because classical theory simply did not work. I didn't explain the two slit experiment, it didn't explain black body radiation, it didn't explain the photo-electric effect and none of those were chemistry. It coudln't even explain how an electron (which had been discovered) could orbit around a nucleus (which also had been discovered), because by classical theory orbiting electrons would have had to emit electromagnetic radiation all the time and they didn't.
Drusilla lives!:
So sorry, I should have put it this way... IMO all that "quantum stuff" had it's greatest applicability to putting chemistry on a solid theoretical foundation... it's a much overlooked/understated intellectual triumph in that regard.
Heh, heh... I was just making casual conversation with Jim here... sorry Jim, I tend to forget that we're speaking in a public forum and this stuff is akin to scripture to some.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version