Starship Asterisk*

Video: Powers of Ten

Explanation: How different does the universe look on very small scales? On very large scales? The most famous short science film of its generation gives breathtaking comparisons. That film, Powers of Ten, originally created in the 1960s, has been officially posted to YouTube and embedded here. From a picnic blanket near Chicago out past the Virgo Cluster of Galaxies, every ten seconds the film zooms out to show a square a factor of ten times larger on each side. The 9-minute video then reverses, zooming back in a factor of ten every two seconds and ends up inside a single proton. The Powers of Ten sequence is actually based on the book Cosmic View by Kees Boeke in 1957, as is a similar but mostly animated film Cosmic Zoom that was also created in the late 1960s. The changing perspectives are so enthralling and educational that sections have been recreated using more modern computerized techniques, including the first few minutes of the movie Contact. Ray and husband Charles Eames, the film's creators, were known as quite visionary spirits and even invented their own popular chair.

<< Previous APOD

This Day in APOD

Next APOD >>

This video is an oldie but goodie. (I remember being absolutely mesmerized by it way back when.)

But the video is old, 45 years old. Let's provide a few updates and start with the shape of the Milky Way, which is of course a barred galaxy:



I like Kevin Jardine's portrait, where the Milky Way doesn't look so perfectly regular is shape, as if someone had drawn the arms of our galaxy with a compass drawing tool. Galaxies are not shaped like that!


As for the distribution of galaxies on a large scale in the Universe, they are arranged in a cosmic web with filaments and voids and nodes with high concentrations of galaxies.


If we zoom out as far back as we can go in the history of the Universe, we will eventually encounter the cosmic microwave background, the CMB:


The CMB is the earliest possible picture of our Universe.


Finally, zooming in again, we will encounter the quantum world of atoms (and other stuff). I like this short video:


So there you have it, Powers of Ten with a few updates!

Ann

I don't see that you mentioned Cary and Michael Huang's app The Scale of the Universe 2. You can go through the sizes at your own pace, dwell on any location as long as you like, and read about each object encountered. Please check it out.

As I approach the end of a rewarding and productive career in science and technology, with great privileges like working for more than two decades in Bell Labs Research, I still remember, as if it were yesterday, seeing this movie as a youngster. It was a significant influence toward my career choice. Thank you for featuring it in APOD!

Ya! I remember this video from the past; and I have to agree with Ann that it is an oldie nut a goody! Loved it a lot then; and I played again to day!

DennisJ wrote: ↑Sun Dec 04, 2022 3:05 pm I don't see that you mentioned Cary and Michael Huang's app The Scale of the Universe 2. You can go through the sizes at your own pace, dwell on any location as long as you like, and read about each object encountered. Please check it out.

But the text did link to that on the phrase "more modern"! And yes, I thought it was very well done.

That "inside a single proton" link to the Quanta Magazine article is quite enlightening about the complexity present in every single proton (and neutron I presume). Who says things become simpler the smaller you look?!

One small mistake: the field isn't "near" Chicago. It's in Chicago, on the lakefront. For more info on the surroundings as they exist today, search for "Soldier Field" on Google Maps. The approximate starting point has a place marker.

I remember seeing the film at the time. Today people can see aerial photos of many cities just by bringing them up on a handheld device. It's almost impossible to believe how impressive and unusual that was when the film was made, just like the concept and scope of the film.

The Eames Brothers also designed and built this exhibit: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathemati ... and_Beyond

The exhibit included 4 short Eames animated films. A YouTube playlist: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=P ... Ua2oAsKyzK

johnnydeep wrote: ↑Sun Dec 04, 2022 9:39 pm That "inside a single proton" link to the Quanta Magazine article is quite enlightening about the complexity present in every single proton (and neutron I presume). Who says things become simpler the smaller you look?!

Absolutely fascinating, Johnny.

Ann

Ann wrote: ↑Mon Dec 05, 2022 4:47 am

johnnydeep wrote: ↑Sun Dec 04, 2022 9:39 pm That "inside a single proton" link to the Quanta Magazine article is quite enlightening about the complexity present in every single proton (and neutron I presume). Who says things become simpler the smaller you look?!

Absolutely fascinating, Johnny.

Ann

Forgot to add: and yet for all its apparent complexity, the proton is incredibly stable, having a half-life in excess of 10³⁴ years! -

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proton_decay wrote:In particle physics, proton decay is a hypothetical form of particle decay in which the proton decays into lighter subatomic particles, such as a neutral pion and a positron. The proton decay hypothesis was first formulated by Andrei Sakharov in 1967. Despite significant experimental effort, proton decay has never been observed. If it does decay via a positron, the proton's half-life is constrained to be at least 1.67×10³⁴ years.^[2]

johnnydeep wrote: ↑Mon Dec 05, 2022 3:53 pm

Ann wrote: ↑Mon Dec 05, 2022 4:47 am

johnnydeep wrote: ↑Sun Dec 04, 2022 9:39 pm That "inside a single proton" link to the Quanta Magazine article is quite enlightening about the complexity present in every single proton (and neutron I presume). Who says things become simpler the smaller you look?!

Absolutely fascinating, Johnny.

Ann

Forgot to add: and yet for all its apparent complexity, the proton is incredibly stable, having a half-life in excess of 10³⁴ years! -

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proton_decay wrote:In particle physics, proton decay is a hypothetical form of particle decay in which the proton decays into lighter subatomic particles, such as a neutral pion and a positron. The proton decay hypothesis was first formulated by Andrei Sakharov in 1967. Despite significant experimental effort, proton decay has never been observed. If it does decay via a positron, the proton's half-life is constrained to be at least 1.67×10³⁴ years.^[2]

What is complex about a proton (or neutron)? They are each just a combination of three elementary particles.

Chris Peterson wrote: ↑Mon Dec 05, 2022 4:05 pm

johnnydeep wrote: ↑Mon Dec 05, 2022 3:53 pm

Ann wrote: ↑Mon Dec 05, 2022 4:47 am

Absolutely fascinating, Johnny.

Ann

Forgot to add: and yet for all its apparent complexity, the proton is incredibly stable, having a half-life in excess of 10³⁴ years! -

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proton_decay wrote:In particle physics, proton decay is a hypothetical form of particle decay in which the proton decays into lighter subatomic particles, such as a neutral pion and a positron. The proton decay hypothesis was first formulated by Andrei Sakharov in 1967. Despite significant experimental effort, proton decay has never been observed. If it does decay via a positron, the proton's half-life is constrained to be at least 1.67×10³⁴ years.^[2]

What is complex about a proton (or neutron)? They are each just a combination of three elementary particles.

No, they are full of a "soup" of (often virtual, but sometimes more permanent) quarks and antiquarks.

Check out Johnny's link.

Ann

Ann wrote: ↑Mon Dec 05, 2022 4:46 pm

Chris Peterson wrote: ↑Mon Dec 05, 2022 4:05 pm

johnnydeep wrote: ↑Mon Dec 05, 2022 3:53 pm

Forgot to add: and yet for all its apparent complexity, the proton is incredibly stable, having a half-life in excess of 10³⁴ years! -

What is complex about a proton (or neutron)? They are each just a combination of three elementary particles.

No, they are full of a "soup" of (often virtual, but sometimes more permanent) quarks and antiquarks.

Check out Johnny's link.

Ann

An actual, physical proton is just three elementary particles. Don't be confused by what virtual particles do.

Chris Peterson wrote: ↑Mon Dec 05, 2022 5:05 pm

Ann wrote: ↑Mon Dec 05, 2022 4:46 pm

Chris Peterson wrote: ↑Mon Dec 05, 2022 4:05 pm
What is complex about a proton (or neutron)? They are each just a combination of three elementary particles.

No, they are full of a "soup" of (often virtual, but sometimes more permanent) quarks and antiquarks.

Check out Johnny's link.

Ann

An actual, physical proton is just three elementary particles. Don't be confused by what virtual particles do.

I suspect that all the particle physicists currently studying the proton by bombarding it with other particles to try to get it to reveal its internal structure would disagree with you.

johnnydeep wrote: ↑Sun Dec 04, 2022 9:39 pm That "inside a single proton" link to the Quanta Magazine article is quite enlightening about the complexity present in every single proton (and neutron I presume). Who says things become simpler the smaller you look?!

Having driven over SLAC’s accelerator while our family was visiting Stanford’s campus, I wondered at the physics being done there. I found that article fascinating but it drove me down another road. Another linked article noted the absence of detected right-handed neutrinos.

It got me looking for missing links and massive ideas. Thanks for posting it.