If we were smaller.

[Galabab]

If we were smaller.

I just realized if scientist could make people much smaller, like in some fiction it would be way different than this fiction sugests.
Say we would become 10 times smaller. So if im 1,90m now i would become only 19cm tall.

The pros:
We would be 10 times stronger according bone strenght and muscles/weight becouse our bones and muscle diameter would be 1/10 but our weight would be 1/100. So it would mean a relative tenfold increase in overall taughness!
We could jump several times our own height and carry our own weight around easily.
We could easily survive a fall from relative "20 meters" (~6th floor)!

The cons:
1.We would need small-oxygen gas masks becouse surrounding air molecules would be 10 times bigger and our body couldnt use them
2.The same with food.
We would need to bring our own food becouse we hardly could degest that big-molecule food we would find in "big"-world.
3.We would most likely need extra vision gogles. Becouse the light wave lenght of normal daylight would be 10 times bigger for us! Im not really sure WHAT we could see with naked eye.
Anyone knows?

 

[Tanooki]

Re: If we were smaller.

So you're suggesting our very molecules would become tiny. Why not just "tinyize" an entire biodome?

 

[Johnny]

Re: If we were smaller.

We would need to build fortresses around all our settlements to keep cats and dogs away. If a bear came around we would just say "**** it" that settlement is lost. Everyone would walk around with a shotgun in case of predatory insects and ants would wipe out whole cities every now and then.

 

[Garbad_the_Weak]

Re: If we were smaller.

Why do we even need our meat bodies at all? TBH I am still hoping they will invent the Matrix so we can all just plug in. =/

 

[lAmebAdger]

Re: If we were smaller.

dude, i think our molecules will stay the same, just get reduced to being less complex, then we could eat normal stuff as if it was normal and breathe normally, also, the matter of light and wavelength AFAIK is too small to even bother about....

 

[Galabab]

Re: If we were smaller.

We would need to build fortresses around all our settlements to keep cats and dogs away. If a bear came around we would just say "**** it" that settlement is lost. Everyone would walk around with a shotgun in case of predatory insects and ants would wipe out whole cities every now and then.

If we were 1/10 of our size insects, rats and maybe even cats wouldnt be a problem as we would be 10 times stronger for our size. We could kick a rat a meter away. And our bones may even be too solid for them to chew on. They would be 10 times more dense than normal bones.

dude, i think our molecules will stay the same, just get reduced to being less complex, then we could eat normal stuff as if it was normal and breathe normally, also, the matter of light and wavelength AFAIK is too small to even bother about....

no man you dont understand.
Every cell can only function becouse it has the right molecules here and there. So if we are to micro-size people we need to micro-size every molecule in their bodies.
And according light.
You see red light has a wavelenght slightly different to violet. So if we are only 1/10 of our size, our eyes will percieve light that is 10 times "longer" so it would be completly invisible for us. We would become totally blind to normal light.

BUT maybe the infra red radiation which is always there would just fit for us to function as normal light so maybe we could see day and night. MAYBE even through walls. Thats why i asked for somebody to clear this up. Somebody with physics degree?

 

[Mizantrop]

Re: If we were smaller.

Why do we even need our meat bodies at all? TBH I am still hoping they will invent the Matrix so we can all just plug in. =/

Wait 50 years.

 

[Bathmat]

Re: If we were smaller.

I think the real question would be what the hell scientists are doing turning people into smurfs.

 

[LorveN]

Re: If we were smaller.

I think the real question would be what the hell scientists are doing turning people into smurfs.

How about solving the starvation problem? 1/100 of the size means plenty of food.

 

[krischan]

Re: If we were smaller.

Our sight would be worse because the smaller the pupils, the greater the effect of diffraction will be. Things will become more blurred and glasses won't help at that.

I'm not going to speculate on what happens with tinier molecules. There's probably a lot of quantum mechanics to be considered. I guess it needs different fundamental constants and a lot of other things will be completely different then as well.

 

[HegemonKhan]

Re: If we were smaller.

hmm, basically u are asking:

what if humans were insects (or smaller like bacteria or viruses) ?

Answer: we would BE insects (or smaller like bacteria or viruses) !!!!

lol

okay, i'll be serious and scientific now:

first, the range of human size is PERFECT for being human. any change and we would probably not even be able to be alive. if we would/could still be alive, we'd be inferior as it is a LESS THAN optimal size for a human.

as to eating food:

insects, bacteria, viruses have NO problems with "big" food.

ants and bacteria are quite capable of eating human sized food they simply take proportional (smaller) "bites". humans don't eat entire cows in one bite. we bite small pieces of cow called hamburgers
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
i'm not sure how O2 or CO2 works, maybe it works the same way as food.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
now if u meant to make humans smaller than the molecules or atoms, than that could cause serious problems probably for any organism.

as far as i know, there is NO organism that is smaller than molecules or atoms or particles....
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
however, humans are trying to make machines to be that small.

nanotechnology and nanomachines.

than there's the...

"glass world" DOOMSDAY theory:

nanomachines + nuclear or abundant energy source that allows nanomachines to replicate uncontrollably (like cancer) and cover/fill the earth itself and all life on the earth in nanomachines resulting in the destruction of the natural inorganic earth as we know it and the extinction of life on earth (including us humans).

there's an old disney tv series that has a or a few shows-episodes that depicts this really well. pm me if interested.

 

[Galabab]

Re: If we were smaller.

@Hagemon Khan:
no mate
you completly misunderstand the food part.
And i only spoke about 1/10 size did you read my post?

@Krischan:
Yeah your right thats what i thought aswell.
Probably the "small-atoms" would undergo REALLY weird reactions with normal ones. We may even explode or somethin.
Imagine all the molecule connection would be totally ****ed up.

 

[stillman]

Re: If we were smaller.

Well, this is pretty complex. In very dense bodies under tremendous pressure (like the core of a star), a tablespoon of material weighs as much as Mount Everst. Picture our view of an atom but with very little space separating the particles. The neutrons and protons would weigh a lot. I believe the implications would disallow life to exist even if the space were reduced by a small amount.

For instance, atoms might fly apart (nuclear fission) so we would all be radioactive! We would decay as soon as we are made to exist that way. Or, valence electrons would surely behave differently. So when water and oxygen are mixed, the product is gold or something ridiculous! Life cannot exist as we know it even if a single enzyme fails to function. If a single enzymatic reaction occurs more slowly of faster than what we have now, we would die as toxins accumulate. Sure, we would weigh 10 times more or w/e (we would weigh the same but be 10 times smaller), but we would only be alive for a tiny fraction of a second.

I think it's best to scrap that whole concept (because it alters all of reality, not just the human body) and go with the more plausible one: Our molecules stay the same size.

So with this thought, we would have to consider the following: If a mouse were the size of an elephant, it's little legs would collapse under its weight. There would be implications for humans too, so we would suffer badly unless our appendages became vastly disproportionate to what we have now. Perhaps we would be far too slow unless we suddenly gain the little legs a mouse has. An ant would race past us and take our food supply as we watch in awe.

So we would have to look like mice, or bugs, is what I'm saying.

 

[Andy2702]

Re: If we were smaller.

My iPod would only hold ~half a song then... x(.

I'd fry you under a magnifying glass anyways.

 

[HegemonKhan]

Re: If we were smaller.

"...And i only spoke about 1/10 size did you read my post?" -Galabab

i'm not good with math! i saw numbers and i immediately ignored/disregarded them!
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
stillman:

your science isn't quite right, but your point in general is.

hmm, for example:

if u change the size of a proton it would mess it up, just as if u changed the size of a human.

in fact, it doesn't even have to be drastic or extreme. did u ever have a growth spurt and remember it? i do, my arms got longer and "heavier" (more muscular) and it took me so long to re-learn how to throw a baseball (or any small "hand held" size ball) !!!!

anyways...back to the proton.. a proton is actually a very "big" particle. electrons on the other hand are very very small particles. so "smaller size" particles are possible...they already exist. there's even "smaller" particles then electrons too. and, if u want me to really take it far...there's quarks too...humans have no idea jsut how small a quark is, let alone an atom. we are talking about super micro-scopic scale here.

as to pressure, pressure certainly effects living organisms and inorganic materials like carbon (carbon=coal+pressure+heat=diamonds). i'm not sure if pressure has any effect on particles. with the exception of the extreme pressure of a black hole or other like massive-pressure "thing".

as to the proportions of an atom, the proportions would always stay the same. see avogadro's (forgot how to spell/say it and too lazy to look up) number. it's somewhat similiar and kinda explains in an indirect way.

atoms are "flying" all over the place. so are electrons "flying-whizing" around the atom-necleus.

what u ment to say was: "what if particles fly off from the atom?"

this happens all the time. it's easy to make an atom lose its electrons and become charged ("+" charged). this atom is now called an ion. And, the free electron is called electricity or lightning. chemistry-physics 101.

nuclear fission is when the bonds of helium are broken down and the two hygrogen atoms separate. they than fly into other helium atoms and break the helium apart and thus u get a chain reaction and if not "controlled" an explosion of energy..the fission nuclear bomb.

oh my bad stillman, i just re-read that part of yours that i responded to just above, i messed up.

if the atom is torn apart.....i'm not sure if pressure (unless extreme like black hole level pressure) or smaller scale would cause this since the scale is still the same. if u changed the proportions of an atom and particles that would definately mess things up. like if u made an electron bigger than a proton. or like if u made the brain bigger than the head in a human...or your upper arm bone (whatever it's called) longer than your femur (upper leg bone)...u'd be a gorrila or monkey instead...etc.. etc.. lol...

atom's can definately be torn apart and "anti-creation" happens. this is what happens when u cross a black hole's event horizon (at least from our perspective of "looking in"...if we could....from safety). everything is broken down. no human body. no protein. no amino acids. no molecules. no atoms. no particles. no quark particles. "no anything". "NOTHING", except "data". lol

if u want gold u simple need 79 protons in the nucleus of an atom. nanomachines possibly could do this (simply physically put/move 79 protons together. the question is, if it would make gold or if it's much more complicated).

 

[lAmebAdger]

Re: If we were smaller.

If we were 1/10 of our size insects, rats and maybe even cats wouldnt be a problem as we would be 10 times stronger for our size. We could kick a rat a meter away. And our bones may even be too solid for them to chew on. They would be 10 times more dense than normal bones.



no man you dont understand.
Every cell can only function becouse it has the right molecules here and there. So if we are to micro-size people we need to micro-size every molecule in their bodies.
And according light.
You see red light has a wavelenght slightly different to violet. So if we are only 1/10 of our size, our eyes will percieve light that is 10 times "longer" so it would be completly invisible for us. We would become totally blind to normal light.

BUT maybe the infra red radiation which is always there would just fit for us to function as normal light so maybe we could see day and night. MAYBE even through walls. Thats why i asked for somebody to clear this up. Somebody with physics degree?

well, i think the name of this topic then should be: "what if we were smaller without having our bodies morphed accordingly"

because otherwise people like me would always assume that we are allowed to change our body/cell structure to adapt, because then we'd at least have a chance of survival...

 

[Stoutwood]

Re: If we were smaller.

no man you dont understand.
Every cell can only function becouse it has the right molecules here and there. So if we are to micro-size people we need to micro-size every molecule in their bodies.
And according light.
You see red light has a wavelenght slightly different to violet. So if we are only 1/10 of our size, our eyes will percieve light that is 10 times "longer" so it would be completly invisible for us. We would become totally blind to normal light.

BUT maybe the infra red radiation which is always there would just fit for us to function as normal light so maybe we could see day and night. MAYBE even through walls. Thats why i asked for somebody to clear this up. Somebody with physics degree?

Okay. Cells vary quite a bit in size. An order of magnitude is not enough of a jump to change any chemical requirements. I can think of several different cells that are an order of magnitude or more apart. I don't think you realize just how small molecules or wavelengths of light are.

 

[lAmebAdger]

Re: If we were smaller.

totally, i think this sort of cell restructuring is still imaginable at a scale of 1 to 10 and i hope galabab knows that molecule and wave size doesn't really matter since they are so small

also, about the wavelength and sight shift that galabab talked about: i think it's imaginable that our eyes will keep those characteristics that are important for normal wavelength perception during the shrinking, so we will have our original sight back

 

[stillman]

Re: If we were smaller.

To summarize: I think the question is rather silly. Even a small change in atomic structure would ruin everything. Nothing would work; we would be dead the moment it happens. If anything happened to the size, diameter, structure, or components of the atom, it will instantly do something crazy, like attempt to restore its normal state. Who really knows what that crazy thing would be...maybe it would fly apart, or maybe it would combine with other messed up particles to form a different substance. In any case, life would not function.

 

[Dondrei]

Re: If we were smaller.

A cell has a lot of "empty" space but I wouldn't be surprised if it dies if you remove a lot of it.

Human beings are compressible though, you're measurably taller outside of the earth's gravitational pull.