wants to know
Registered Member
do you think it would be possable to shrink animals and humans to small sizes like in movies. I think its a great question. if there bio structure can be reconfigured to be ant sized is it possable?
is it possable to shrink a human to bug size?
- Thread starter wants to know
- Start date
- Status
I agree we can not 'shrink' the human body, we can't just pull out some molecules (the components biggles mentioned).
And we can't make them smaller (the 'components').
But where I thought about when i read this thread....
When we know exactly how our human body works.
And when we have the technology.
Is it possible to create a small human body, just by using less 'components'??????
I think theoratically it must be possible...
And we can't make them smaller (the 'components').
But where I thought about when i read this thread....
When we know exactly how our human body works.
And when we have the technology.
Is it possible to create a small human body, just by using less 'components'??????
I think theoratically it must be possible...
kmguru
Staff member
Everything is possible in absolute terms. But not likely as depicted in the movies. To shrink an adult human to one inch, the space need to be changed and independent of our space. Under a relative dimension matrix that is possible but such ideas are nonsense at our technology level - but not in fantasy level.
At the movies
Ah the movies.
Hollywood does come up with some doosies. You are required to suspend what you know is real to allow the story to be told. If you can buy the presumed line layed out then the movie makes sense. If not then it is just pure gooble-de-gook. Hollywood calls it poetic license (or some such). Don't get me wrong, I love a good scifi movie. That in itself tells you that I buy it just like everybody else. That doesn't make it so or possible. It's just makes it a story. If you examine the details then you no longer suspend belief and it all falls apart under scrunity.
Ah the movies.
Hollywood does come up with some doosies. You are required to suspend what you know is real to allow the story to be told. If you can buy the presumed line layed out then the movie makes sense. If not then it is just pure gooble-de-gook. Hollywood calls it poetic license (or some such). Don't get me wrong, I love a good scifi movie. That in itself tells you that I buy it just like everybody else. That doesn't make it so or possible. It's just makes it a story. If you examine the details then you no longer suspend belief and it all falls apart under scrunity.
I agree for the main part with KneD
(is that correct English? - in Dutch: grotendeels ben ik het met je eens KneD).
We could in theory make organisms smaller by rebuilding them with less 'components'.
Note however that the functionality of many organs is not just dictated by their molecules, but also by communication with other parts of the body or with the environment. This communication uses neural signals. And the neural network WILL be completely different in functionality if its size is altered.
Apart from not knowing what the effects will be on one's perceptions and thoughts, it is not clear altogether how one would function and act in such a small state.
On the other hand, maybe I, Merlijn, can create a spell that tackles all these problems.
Merlijn
(is that correct English? - in Dutch: grotendeels ben ik het met je eens KneD).
We could in theory make organisms smaller by rebuilding them with less 'components'.
Note however that the functionality of many organs is not just dictated by their molecules, but also by communication with other parts of the body or with the environment. This communication uses neural signals. And the neural network WILL be completely different in functionality if its size is altered.
Apart from not knowing what the effects will be on one's perceptions and thoughts, it is not clear altogether how one would function and act in such a small state.
On the other hand, maybe I, Merlijn, can create a spell that tackles all these problems.
Merlijn
Nix on the 'fewer' ...
Merlijn,
Considering that there are mammals that are quite small (the pigmy shrew comes to mind) and yet have most of the parts we have, I would imagine that it's just a matter of smaller parts rather than fewer parts.
If that were to be the case, communication within and without shouldn't be a problem but, and it's a big BUT, how would you grow such an organism? The growth process is a fantastic operation based on spatial distance as well as size. Not only does the liver have to know how big to be, it also has to know where it's supposed to be.
To the best of my knowledge, we still don't know how that is accomplished in a growing organism.
Merlijn,
Considering that there are mammals that are quite small (the pigmy shrew comes to mind) and yet have most of the parts we have, I would imagine that it's just a matter of smaller parts rather than fewer parts.
If that were to be the case, communication within and without shouldn't be a problem but, and it's a big BUT, how would you grow such an organism? The growth process is a fantastic operation based on spatial distance as well as size. Not only does the liver have to know how big to be, it also has to know where it's supposed to be.
To the best of my knowledge, we still don't know how that is accomplished in a growing organism.
Last edited:
Obviously, I'm late here as well, too many things to try to follow.
Thought that I would add my 2(where is the cents symbol) cents worth though.
You're talking about parts, molecules. What if you get down to atom level. If you look at them (electron microscope), even atoms are mostly empty space. You have a nucleus of protons and neutrons circled by a shell of electrons (all made of even smaller things). What if you could 'condense' them. Force the nucleus closer and the electron shell closer. Things could be smaller, though they may be unstable. Hmmm.
Shadow
Thought that I would add my 2(where is the cents symbol) cents worth though.
You're talking about parts, molecules. What if you get down to atom level. If you look at them (electron microscope), even atoms are mostly empty space. You have a nucleus of protons and neutrons circled by a shell of electrons (all made of even smaller things). What if you could 'condense' them. Force the nucleus closer and the electron shell closer. Things could be smaller, though they may be unstable. Hmmm.
Shadow
I'm afraid that is not an option (even though it was for "Honey, I shrunk the kids" ).
The nature of electrons only allows them in certain 'orbits', so to say (has something to do with the wave-characteristics of electrons).
However, my knowledge of these matters is not (by far) sufficient to say anything more than this.
Merlijn
).The nature of electrons only allows them in certain 'orbits', so to say (has something to do with the wave-characteristics of electrons).
However, my knowledge of these matters is not (by far) sufficient to say anything more than this.
Merlijn
Since the atoms are made up of mainly empty space, may be there is a way! Even though reducing the size of atoms seems to be impossible, as like charges repels each other, how can we reduce the space taken by the the electrons? If we can overcome this, the answer could be yes!
Great!!!
Then the world is no longer to small for al people,...=less stress=less war!!! and then get crushed by a foot,.....skwuuuush,spletsh !!!! ugh !!!! that hurt !!!!
Did you know that there existed a dwarf-horse about 30cm big in pre-historic times? just fasinating!!!
Then the world is no longer to small for al people,...=less stress=less war!!! and then get crushed by a foot,.....skwuuuush,spletsh !!!! ugh !!!! that hurt !!!!
Did you know that there existed a dwarf-horse about 30cm big in pre-historic times? just fasinating!!!
kmguru
Staff member
May be instead of going after 3 inch size, we could genetically alter humans to a maximum of 3 feet size. Then there will be less need for food. I think nature tried that in Japan many years ago...
But 3 inches? One good will be, the earth can sustain 600 billion of us. But your house cat might have you for a snack unless they are reduced first.
I wonder if there is a planet out there (among the infinite worlds) where everything is so small?
But 3 inches? One good will be, the earth can sustain 600 billion of us. But your house cat might have you for a snack unless they are reduced first.
I wonder if there is a planet out there (among the infinite worlds) where everything is so small?
kmguru
Staff member
Re: I think
I have been thinking about that for many years. I am glad, great minds think alike...
Today, we model and simulate nuclear explosion, economic models, weather forecasting and other complex systems. Someday, with a big enough computer, we should be able to model our solar system and speed up the evolution. Think of the possibilities...
Infinite possibilities in infinite worlds....
I have been thinking about that for many years. I am glad, great minds think alike...
Today, we model and simulate nuclear explosion, economic models, weather forecasting and other complex systems. Someday, with a big enough computer, we should be able to model our solar system and speed up the evolution. Think of the possibilities...
Infinite possibilities in infinite worlds....
paulsamuel
Registered Senior Member
bug size humans
the laws of physics would prevent the shrinkage of humans to bug size;
see Gould's, "The Panda's Thumb," Chapters 24 and 29 which speak specifically about size and form and function.
the laws of physics would prevent the shrinkage of humans to bug size;
see Gould's, "The Panda's Thumb," Chapters 24 and 29 which speak specifically about size and form and function.
- Status