Grapes, Atoms & Humans: A Macro-Micro Perspective

  • Context: High School 
  • Thread starter Thread starter Dezepar
  • Start date Start date
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion explores the conceptualization of human beings and their atomic structure when magnified to a macro scale, particularly focusing on the implications of viewing atoms as larger entities. Participants reflect on the nature of perception, the limitations of human senses, and the potential for new scientific insights through imaginative scenarios involving altered scales of observation.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant suggests that if a basketball were magnified to the size of Earth, its atoms would be the size of grapes, prompting curiosity about the visualization of human tasks at such a scale.
  • Another participant argues that regardless of the size of atoms, humans would still function normally, but the method of scaling (shrinking vs. growing atoms) would affect visibility of photons and perception.
  • A later reply discusses the limitations of human perception and tools in understanding the subatomic universe, suggesting that even if atoms were larger, our observational capabilities might still be inadequate.
  • One participant raises philosophical questions about the nature of light and the concept of infinity in physics, suggesting that our understanding of reality might shift if we could observe at different scales.
  • Another participant proposes that exploring simpler molecules or bulk materials at a larger scale could yield new insights, though they acknowledge the utopian nature of such ideas.
  • One participant reflects on the historical context of scientific advancements, suggesting that what seems utopian today may become possible in the future, particularly in observing complex biological processes in real time.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express a mix of imaginative speculation and philosophical inquiry, with no clear consensus on the implications of scaling atomic sizes or the nature of perception in relation to scientific observation. Multiple competing views remain regarding the feasibility and significance of such explorations.

Contextual Notes

Participants acknowledge limitations in current scientific tools and understanding, particularly regarding the observation of subatomic phenomena and the nature of infinity, without resolving these issues.

Dezepar
Messages
23
Reaction score
0
I once read that if we were to "magnify" a basketball to the size of the earth, that one of its atoms would be approximately the size of a grape. With that thought in mind, and begging the mercy of the gurus here :), Try this:
What fascinates me is the thought of a human being, for instance, being fundamentally a conglomerate of several hundred billion atoms, in a soup of potentially infinite atoms. (Or Quarks, or whatever if you're picky)I'm just curious to see what other people can conceptualize about what a human being might look like carrying out normal every day tasks, if its atoms were the size of say, a B-B in relation to us, and we, by some miracle could see it real time.

Apologies in advance if this is in the wrong place.



Sorry. I'm new!
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Intaresting thought.

Because you would still be big enough not to be affected by fundamental particle physics, I would think that everything would still be quite normal.

Now depending upon wether you shrunk or the atoms grew would matter, because if you shrunk than photons (or the wave if you want to get technical) would be to large for you to see anything.
 
(Again, advanced apologies, for length of this post and possible incorrect placement, as its probably more imaginative than scientific. I will not be offended if this post is moved, and I'm berated for it. Lol.)
Thank you Stryker for the prompt reply. You hit on part of what I expected in a reply to this.
Now depending upon wether you shrunk or the atoms grew would matter, because if you shrunk than photons (or the wave if you want to get technical) would be to large for you to see anything.
Obviously, 'Humans' have very limited perceptual abilitys, and we can liken our tools to stone knives in comparison to the grand scale of investigatable data. But even though our tools can't truthfully describe or define the subatomic universe, it still exists. That we have definitive proof of. There really are billions of conglomerates of grape sized atoms carrying on through everyday life. Humans, with our strictly governed senses, are living in a drastically altered reality. Which brings me to my next point. Light is thought of as a constant, c. No matter the relative position, or speed of the observing party. We study the behaviour of quantum universes stubbornly thinking that we will find an indivisible 'God Particle' that can be no smaller. We believe that we will find the 'absolute' in nature while the laws we obey to study and observe it are contradictary. For instance, "nothing can travel the speed of light or faster, except light." Because at the speed of light or near it, mass would be infinite. And infinite mass is impossible. "Nothing can be absolute zero." For this would mean particles would be at rest. Impossible. These ideas are by definition, infinitive. Now to tie in a part of Stryker's reply, that the photons would be 'too big' to 'see', just as it may be we are 'too big' to properly observe the subatomic universe, imagine that we could shrink ourselves to the point where atoms were the size of grapes. Wouldn't 'nature' simply adjust your relative perception of reality, and in turn, the 'grape sized' atoms would no longer be observable by the standards and tools that would be available to you in your shrunken state, nor would the subatomic universe that would be relative to your mass. In this state, you could build new laboratories, and particle accelerators, and all the tools your unshrunken colleagues would be using. But not really studying anything new. Same particle physics, different reality. In this light, the idea of matter, (and the lack of it) having the potential of being infinitely small or large, seems obvious. Modern science seems to shy away from things that are infinite, and expend great energy to disprove the infinitive. But from where I stand, it seems 'impossible' for infinity, amongst other modern day 'impossibilities' to NOT exist, thus making 'possibility' an absolute.
Preparing for immediate ejection from this forum...
 
I think this would be a great idea, not just for the human body, maybe just for simpler molecules, or just to explore the surface of bulk materials, see phase transformations on real time. Maybe we will see something completely different of what we imagine right now. My "perception" of the behaivour of matter is strongly based on models that are created to "view" o simplify reality.

Utopic, but again, very interesting.
 
Utopic, but again, very interesting.
Utopic, yes. And no. 'Seeing' cellular mitosis (I'm guessing of course that the idea came before the discovery) at one time must have been thought of as utopic. I seem to view it as a 'possible' point of view that has yet to be realized. What weight would it have on science? Not sure. But to observe a complex being, or even just a molecule as you mention AHolico, in its atomic/subatomic state of existence real time, would be at minimum, astronomically helpful, if not scientifically weighty.

I have to actually berate myself here. This should probably be in philosophy.
 

Similar threads

High School Question about the size of atoms as time progressed
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
2K
Exploring Physics & Fiction: Is Consciousness Possible?
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
5K
Undergrad What are electrons? (Is why a duck?)
  • · Replies 49 ·
2
Replies
49
Views
12K
Belief and Epistemological Criteria of Being
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K