There are several movies over the years that have explored the premise of changing the size of things because "most of matter is empty space.... lets just put the atoms closer together"

Even IF that was possible, there would be some odd effects that are never really utilised in these films that would actually make them more interesting.

Under such an experiment, mass is constant, so pressure applied by a miniature "ant-man" would be huge. This is hinted on in the first film when he falls and cracks a floor tile. Punches etc would deliver incredible shock, yet also in the movie, Ant man runs across a villains gun. If mass is the same, the villain should have dropped the gun due to the mass on an entire man on top of it, and whilst the idea of storing a functioning tank on a key chain might sound handy, a 60 ton tank in your pocket would prove quite cumbersome.

Transversely, when items are "grown" their density would decrease, to at some size, Ant Man would float away in the breeze.

So whilst it is entertaining to explore the idea, physics would not allow it and even if it did, the consequences could be more problematic than shown on screen, assuming some degree of continuity was maintained.

Sorry, but no.

You can not modify the size of an object, because the size is decided by the associated wave of the electrons, within the atoms. This cannot be changed, besides by the expansion of the Universe.

Hi Yakubo

I think the principle of infinity it's unreal in the life, because there are no sample example in our life, I am study , and build mathematical system without infinity, this is a new orient in modern mathematics.

thank you

Salah

There are several movies over the years that have explored the premise of changing the size of things because "most of matter is empty space.... lets just put the atoms closer together"

Even IF that was possible, there would be some odd effects that are never really utilised in these films that would actually make them more interesting.

Under such an experiment, mass is constant, so pressure applied by a miniature "ant-man" would be huge. This is hinted on in the first film when he falls and cracks a floor tile. Punches etc would deliver incredible shock, yet also in the movie, Ant man runs across a villains gun. If mass is the same, the villain should have dropped the gun due to the mass on an entire man on top of it, and whilst the idea of storing a functioning tank on a key chain might sound handy, a 60 ton tank in your pocket would prove quite cumbersome.

Transversely, when items are "grown" their density would decrease, to at some size, Ant Man would float away in the breeze.

So whilst it is entertaining to explore the idea, physics would not allow it and even if it did, the consequences could be more problematic than shown on screen, assuming some degree of continuity was maintained.

Yacubu,

What is the extension and intension of your question?

Thanks for your answer! Marc.

Greetings Dr Carvallo,

It seems to me that no matter how small an object gets, it can get smaller. And no matter how big it gets, it can get bigger.

I understand that in reality, reducing the size of an object like in the 'Ant-Man' movies is not possible, as Dr Gustafsson, Dr Albermany and Dr Malm have explained. Physics won't allow it.

If it was possible, I know density will increase as the amount of particles that make up the object will be compressed to fit a smaller space (density = m/v). Imagine the Empire State Building in New York shrunk to the size of a tennis ball.

It was interesting to know about other perspectives on the idea. Neglecting the Laws of Physics, is the process either way (big or small) infinite?

What will I experience if I was the size of a proton or quark? Can I get even smaller?

Regards,

Yakubu

Dear dr. Yakubu,

Also the smallest particle is not limited and has extension, but not intension!

Thanks for your answer. Marc.

The reason for my question is to get other perspectives on the idea. I have learnt from previous answers.

What I had in mind are solid objects like cars or houses or even a person. I do not have a specific characteristics of the objects, as long as they are solid.

Kind regards, Yakubu.

• If you scale up in size by keeping the amount of material the same, ultimately you will tear the atoms apart
• If you scale up in size and supply the neccesary material, this will ultimately result in gravitational collapse
• if you scale down in size, you're limited by the atomic nature of materials

Here's something pretty small:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oSCX78-8-q0

Scaling up and down has happen many times during the evolution of spicies, but it often creates problems. For instance in Carboniferous insects grew in size and there were dragon flies with a wing span at 75 cm. The reason this was possible was the higher oxygen content in the air, but there was still a limit to the size because insects use a breething system based on diffision, and with the present day oxygen content an insect cannot have any part of their surface more than about 3 cm from the surface.

Small animals like lizards tend to have thin legs to the sides while large animals like elefants (and dinosaurs) have legs that are more like pillars right below their body. The reason is that body weight scale like size cubed while stregth scale like size squared.

Engineers also know that often it is not possible to scale a construction up or down without significant modifications. The reason is, again, that different physical laws may scale differently.

I haven't seen this movie, but arbitrary scaling is possible. Think about square, the well known mathematical object. However, the infinite reduction of size of its physical (material) model is not possible: a single atom is no longer a square.

Let me first focus on the question "How small can an object/something get?"

There is this equation: Planck length, Lp = (h G/c^3)^0.5 where h is the planck's constant, G is the Newton's constant and c is the speed of light. This equation is spectacular in that it connects quantum mechanics and general relativity and gravity. Three seemingly unrelated theories. And Lp is about 10^(-33) cm. Very small, but not zero. So there is a limit to the divisibility of space. Hence it suggests that no infinitely small point exists. The rules of quantum mechanics place a constraint to the size of any point that can exist in this universe.

The core attribute of quantum mechanics is that any object/ or that "something" you mentioned cannot stay still at one point. In the QM world, there is ceaseless vibration, nothing stays still. That "something" is best modelled by covariant quantum fields. And it would be interesting to see if there is an equally neat and tidy equation which places a upper limit on the size of objects.

Alagu Thilagam's answer is excellent. Planck's constant is the smallest constant in physics. Planck referred to the energy of an oscillator as a discrete quantity composed of integral finite equal parts. However, there is nothing to deny or imply that the oscillating elements do or or do not have undiscovered substructure or smaller elements. On the bottom side of infinity the mathematician Alfred Whitehead had to introduce the concept of infinitesimals for some calculations to work. On the upper side some mathematical disciplines such as set theory have to assume the upper limit of infinity as being a real but unknown value.

My own heretical and biased inclination is that all measurements such as size, motion, time, etc., are illusions of human perception. If any one is interested in one possible way in which universal, ambient elements, void of any of these properties, could bring about the illusion of these properties, I have a brainstorming type posting on Research Gate, "Astrophysical Speculations", which might stimulate some out of the box thinking.

In everyday applied physics arithmetic increases in loading can sometimes cause exponential increases in stress.

Dear Barry,

(i) By which Alfred Whitehead do you mean? I assume the Alfred Whitehead of the Principia Mathematica (with Bertrand Russel), not the Alfred Whitehead of Process and Reality (by himself and more philosophical).

(ii) Your biased inclination to measurement and illusions of human perception seems to stem from a Buddhistic worldview. (Please correct me if I am not correct).

Thanks for your added answer. Marc.

Yes, Alfred Whitehead the mathematician. No, I was not influenced by Buddhism. If I were asked which of the ancients had similar ideas it would be the Greek philosophers, Zeno and Parmenides; but, I was not influenced by the ancient Greeks either. I think I was influenced by the manner in which Einstein, Bohr, and others seem to treat reality as a mathematical abstraction and the many theories that try to describe the elements of the fabric of space that break down with the unnecessary incorporation of motion, dimension, and time. More importantly my own quest to find common ground in seemingly different theories, such as string, quantum, relativity, etc., seemed to point to a very simple common element. My experiments into the nature of photons also greatly contributed to this view. I have posted some experiments on Research Gate which seem to indicate that photons are composed of simplified sub-elements although I didn't make that claim when posting the experiment results.

One more comment on the Planck Constant that you may find interesting: In Super Relativity the Planck Constant in one gravitational filed is different relative to that in another.

The response from Barry is is interesting and thought provoking. A couple of comments.

1) About the statement "nothing to deny or imply that the oscillating elements do or or do not have undiscovered substructure or smaller elements". The view based on quantum gravity is that space is granular, that the quanta of gravity makes up space itself. The interactions of individual quantum bits of gravity creates space. So what makes up this quanta of gravity? One approach is to consider that there are spin networks with nodes that represent elementary components with links connecting to other nodes that evolve with respect to their number and proximity to each other ( loop quantum gravity). There are other theories based on string theory, group field theory, noncommutative geometry and so on. Can we go beyond these models or unify them as there is no experimental basis from which to test these models, even though cosmology seem to be the best bet. Currently We seem to resort to consistent schemes based on concepts and mathematical frameworks.

2) Still related to quantum gravity - time does not exist in the minute world of Planck's scale. There is no need for time unlike its superficial use a convenient tool in the macroscopic world where experiments can be conducted with ease. Processes in the very minute world change with respect to each other, and not with respect to time. Time is not needed here. This is unlike the Newtonian scheme where processes are "perceived" to change with respect to time. It is convenient to use space and time in the world we live in, they can be discarded at the Planck's scale. When you get rid of time and space, there is openness and creativity, a radical shift in thinking.

3) As to the mathematician Alfred Whitehead "who had to introduce the concept of infinitesimals for some calculations to work", I wonder how his ideas can be reconciled with the models mentioned in (1).

Dear Alagu,

I am a propounder of a you mention in 2). But how to I don't know. Please explain it to me! Marc.

Dear Alagu:

I may have this wrong because I am relying on memory and not notes. But I believe Alfred Whitehead's infinitesimal was the smallest finite unit. I was trying to show that there are some mathematical arguments for limits to size. However, they are not really the best arguments. Your references to quantum theory and physics are better. As for how this relates to Lee Smolin's loop gravity and granular space I don't know.

Dear Barry,

All quantum physicists are influenced by Buddhistic worldview (there is practically no quantum physicist without a -hidden- Buddhistic adviser), and Einstein was influenced by Spinoza. What then are you influenced? Marc.

Greetings Marc:

It may not be the case, but it certainly appears that you are searching for scientific conformation for your previous philosophical and religious beliefs. Due to the narrow compartmentalization of modern education I doubt if many Western physicist even know what the Buddhist World View is. Quantum Mechanics and Quantum Theory was developed to explain experimental results and observations that indicated that energy and mass can only occur in specific units or quanta.

I find it incredulous to think that Heisenberg, Born, Jordan, Schrodinger, and their colleges consulted Buddhist Advisers. If you are not bending science to meet your beliefs I apologize; but that is how you come across.

Hi Marc, your statement that "ALL quantum physicists are influenced by Buddhistic worldview" does great injustice to the systematic and rigorous approaches that employ the abstract Hilbert space to calculate the spectrum of a variable, and to compute the amplitude of transitions which have over time correctly agreed with experimental findings. Dirac's quantum mechanics has provided techniques for predicting valuable properties of material systems. It does not give information as to what the electron or photon does when you don't observe it.

As to your earlier query as to how to get rid of time, one scenario is the 100m race, and to ask yourself whether you need time to pick the fastest runner. Here the competitors are being judged with respect to how fast they run relative to each other. You express the relations between the runners X, Y, Z etc like X(Y), Y(Z) and so on instead of X(t), Y(t) and you just abandon time.

A more difficult case is the space-time. Suppose you combine Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle and Einstein's curved space classical gravitational theory. When you try to make observations of a spot, a very minute space, the troublesome singularities appear where the gravitational field becomes too strong due to uncertainty in the momemtum. How do you define spacetime at these spots (size below Planck's length) with intense gravitational field? We have to abandon the operational meaning to spacetime., and seek other ways such as defining discrete elements which change with respect to each other and the relations between these elements setting up space and time. These elements are more fundamental than space and time.

Dear:

[1] Barry: (a) thank you for mentioning ; as far as refers to science, what else does it need to fill in that ? (b) please read (more carefully) how quantum physicists are hiddenly advised by Buddhistic consulters; let me mention only one: was David Bohm not (hiddenly) advised by Jiddu Krishnamurti?

[2] Alagu: (a) your is identical ,according to the general opinion, to metaphysics; please show me how (and which) metaphysics is not systematic and rigorous; (b) see [1] sub (b).

Thanks for your answers! Marc.