Quantum Physics and Size limitations

[ameris_cyning]

If you are interested in the world of Quantum Science, you already know how {censored}ed up our universe really is in regards to being illogical and contradictory. I mean, Observer Effect, WTF is up with that?

 

Anyways, is there an actual limit on how small something could actually be? The smallest that we know of right now are called Quarks, and that is subatomic. With the way our universe is, could size be infinite on scale of big or small?

 

And, on the other side, we have a limitation on what we can see. When something becomes too small we can longer observe it with our eyes. Could the converse be true (objects too big that we cannot process them)?

 

Edit: observer effect has nothing to do with the second question of observing small or large objects. Making this clear.

Edited February 17, 2013 by q64ceo

[3.14r2]

Universe is endless and has no boundaries. So is the amount of things we don't know (and will probably never know). IMO small things are too big for us to see.

 

I'm not a scientist and had a quite limited understanding of physics in the school.

[Alessandro17]

Physics can't explain everything, at least not physics as we know it today.

We need ancient Spirituality as well.

But one day we will realize that science and Spirituality were the same thing.

[Mr.D.]

I always liked the endings of the Men in Black movies because they put this kinda stuff in perspective... galaxies as we know them being marble games for giant aliens, our world being inside some cosmic train depot locker.

 

I like Ale's idea... there are just things we cant explain - and it seems the more we understand, the more questions we have. I think that is a good thing. Existence would be kinda boring if everyone knew everything.

 

There is always 42 however.

[WhatTheTech]

In response to the original question:

And, on the other side, we have a limitation on what we can see. When something becomes too small we can longer observe it with our eyes. Could the converse be true (objects too big that we cannot process them)?

 

I can't help wanting to answer this philosophically, but I'll refrain. From the strict perspective of physics, however, the term "see" is a little too loose to be totally applicable. I mean, the limitations of the eye organ will come in to play here, as you mentioned. Is something small, or are we just too far away and have a low capacity for micro-observation? Conversely, is the Universe too big for us to see and we have merely assigned it physical properties for our own need to understand it, or do we simply not have a wide enough field of vision? Is the earth to big for us to "see"? If I look down, I only see something that is a few square feet wide, so distance from an object is highly applicable.

 

 

Physics can't explain everything, at least not physics as we know it today.

We need ancient Spirituality as well.

But one day we will realize that science and Spirituality were the same thing.

 

I really like this response. Small background on me - my father is a physicist for the E.U. and I study theology in the U.S.

I have yet to find any real incompatibility between the two. There are misunderstandings, and miscommunications, but at the most basic level they are two branches of the same fundamentally human quest for enlightenment, purpose and fulfillment.

 

I really like astrophysics. I'm an hobbyist astronomer, and can't believe it when I see Jupiter up close, let alone imagine the sheer amount of other galaxies existing "nearby"...