A question about size

[Engell79]

Ive been reading some books about universe size and the size of matter in general.. and theres some aspects i really dont understand...
Im putting my question here in fringe section cuz in my ears it sounds rather far fetched...

Quote from danish book the size of things & the universe
Its possible for an entire universe to exist with in the space we consive the size of an atom

This concept my head just can not grasp... =/
Is this like our universe could exist inside what "something" else consider the size of an atom?
this is like were they belive little universes exists with in atoms?

is there something im missing with my limited intelligence or is my gut feeling of this being "Crack pot sicence" true?


Anyone ANTI-Fringe sicence (someone who actually knows and understands all the things i dont and will base their answer on real sicence thats aproved by the general world.) abel to give me a lowdown on this?

 

[Neverfly]

Ive been reading some books about universe size and the size of matter in general.. and theres some aspects i really dont understand...
Im putting my question here in fringe section cuz in my ears it sounds rather far fetched...

Quote from danish book the size of things & the universe
Its possible for an entire universe to exist with in the space we consive the size of an atom

Without knowing the context of the quote, it's difficult to say what it was the author intended.

In Big Bang Cosmology, the Universe did, for a very brief time, occupy about the space of an atom. But that was over 13 billion years ago... and it's come a long way since then.

Whether or not some other universe can exist at a relative size to us about the same size as an atom- Unknown.
That would be something outside of the known Universe and physics and to be honest, I wouldn't put a lot of thought into it, if I were you.

That's a bit like speculating about the time before the Big Bang and while that may seem fun, it's more likely to addle your mind and will never be productive in any way.

 

[seagypsy]

You mean like this?

[video=youtube_share;K3ydq213W6U]http://youtu.be/K3ydq213W6U[/video]

Not that star trek has proven to be scientifically viable.

 

[arauca]

Without knowing the context of the quote, it's difficult to say what it was the author intended.

In Big Bang Cosmology, the Universe did, for a very brief time, occupy about the space of an atom. But that was over 13 billion years ago... and it's come a long way since then.
.
.

I ask again Was the heavy element Thorium during the Big Bang sense thorium half life is 14 billion years . To my understanding heavy elements are made through several cycles of supernova

 

[Neverfly]

I ask again Was the heavy element Thorium during the Big Bang sense thorium half life is 14 billion years . To my understanding heavy elements are made through several cycles of supernova

If you're asking if thorium was present during the Big Bang, the BBT says, "no."

Nuclear fusion in stars - yes, what you said. I'm curious, though- what are you driving at?

 

[arauca]

If you're asking if thorium was present during the Big Bang, the BBT says, "no."

Nuclear fusion in stars - yes, what you said. I'm curious, though- what are you driving at?

Do we understand what half life of an active element is ?

Based on Thorium half life thorium must have existed , but to make heavy elements you need stars ,and at the bib bang there were no star yet , so in my view don't use Big bang to support your argument, In other hand don't wave your hands

 

[origin]

Do we understand what half life of an active element is ?

Yes

Based on Thorium half life thorium must have existed , but to make heavy elements you need stars ,and at the bib bang there were no star yet , so in my view don't use Big bang to support your argument, In other hand don't wave your hands

You seem to have some misunderstanding of half-life.

Why would you think a long half-life would means that the element should have existed at the time of the big bang, it makes no sense at all.

 

[Aqueous Id]

Do we understand what half life of an active element is ?

Based on Thorium half life thorium must have existed , but to make heavy elements you need stars ,and at the bib bang there were no star yet , so in my view don't use Big bang to support your argument, In other hand don't wave your hands

Will a picture help?

 

[Engell79]

Do we understand what half life of an active element is ?

Based on Thorium half life thorium must have existed , but to make heavy elements you need stars ,and at the bib bang there were no star yet , so in my view don't use Big bang to support your argument, In other hand don't wave your hands

Ehm i think i know whats gotten u confused...

Thorium is not just Thorium to begin with... there are alot of diffrent kinds of that material... your reffering to 232Th wich have a half-time of 14.05 billion years...
Just becourse something has a half-time wich is longer than the current age of the universe dosn't mean it existed before the BB.

Thorium correctly got created in the starts, and from there became the element we know today...wich has a half-time (232TH) of 14.05 billion years.

Another explanation:
Im 34 years old, how ever i can create a pice of art that exist the next 1000 years.....
the universe is some 13+ billion years old, and has created matter that has a half-time of 14.05 billion years.

i hope this makes sence to ya.

 

[seagypsy]

Ehm i think i know whats gotten u confused...

Thorium is not just Thorium to begin with... there are alot of diffrent kinds of that material... your reffering to 232Th wich have a half-time of 14.05 billion years...
Just becourse something has a half-time wich is longer than the current age of the universe dosn't mean it existed before the BB.

Thorium correctly got created in the starts, and from there became the element we know today...wich has a half-time (232TH) of 14.05 billion years.

Another explanation:
Im 34 years old, how ever i can create a pice of art that exist the next 1000 years.....
the universe is some 13+ billion years old, and has created matter that has a half-time of 14.05 billion years.

i hope this makes sence to ya.

Well I know nothing about physics and I don't know of anything that hasn't been mentioned on the TV show called Big Bang Theory, but what you stated above makes perfect sense to me even in light of your less than perfect English. I'm only left wondering what the term half life actually means.

 

[Aqueous Id]

Well I know nothing about physics and I don't know of anything that hasn't been mentioned on the TV show called Big Bang Theory, but what you stated above makes perfect sense to me even in light of your less than perfect English. I'm only left wondering what the term half life actually means.

Well for one thing it can't mean that all isotopes of the same unstable species have the same born-on date, which Arauca apparently was thinking. Origin nailed what's bugging Arauca. It actually went over my head. Wait, lemme turn the TV down. It's an old B&W set, vacuum tubes and manual tuning. A huge distraction from what I'm reading, though I keep it tuned to a channel that alternates between The Three Stooges and Outer Limits 24/7 which does tend to sync pretty well with the issue at hand.

As I see it, if every unstable species had its particular born-on date, it wouldn't be a wonderful world after all, and Louis Armstrong would have changed his tune. Literally:

When thorium goes radium
We'll all grow dumb
We'll all be chum
And I say to myself
What a Bungled Up World
What a Bungled Up World

...And every other line on Big Bang Theory would be the truth is stranger than fission. (Also a homonym for the album by Trout Fishing in America.) Am I dating myself? Don't tell my GF. She'll get jealous.

Worst of all, every star (the burning kind, not the Hollywood kind) would have simultaneously had only one incident of fusion, a brief burst of energy, and then lights out, no TV, no nuthin. No Hollywood. All the world might be a stage, but in this case there would be neither. Not even one measly venue for the Scarecrow to cite the Pythagorean Theorem to the tune of If I Only Had A Brain, although It's A Small World After All might be more apt, as suggested in the OP.

And the reason for this brief flicker before lights out would be that once any unstable isotope were formed, reality would have to freeze-frame, to prevent any subsequent isotope of the same kind from being formed, since, under arauca's premise, they can't have two different born-on dates.

Then, exactly two half lives later, all of the unstable isotopes would instantly decay, leaving maybe a third species, with the extra neutron all dressed up and nowhere to go, but no geniuses to show up, discover it, and christen it deuterium which is way too sophisticated for such a simpleton of an atom anyway.

Which explains why Star Trek and Big Bang Theory still offer us such a great respite from the storm of ideas that burst forth from the mixing of cold and warm air masses in this occluded front we call The Twilight Zone SciForums.

[video=youtube;-b5aW08ivHU]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-b5aW08ivHU[/video]

 

[Engell79]

Well I know nothing about physics and I don't know of anything that hasn't been mentioned on the TV show called Big Bang Theory, but what you stated above makes perfect sense to me even in light of your less than perfect English. I'm only left wondering what the term half life actually means.

Half-time:
It's a term of how long it takes for an active material to expire half it's current mass.
If u have 6 thorium now, then in 14 billion years there will only be 3. So half of what you had.
Different active materials become different other materials as they expire.