A really stupid question I don't have an answer for.

[Awesome McManly]

So I was outside working in the yard when I was struck with a really stupid question.

If someone built a functioning shrink ray, and shrunk a human being down to the size of an insect. Would their intelligence shrink relative to the size of their new bodies? Would they only be as smart as a bug, or would they maintain the same I.Q.?

I.... I don't know. But I figured I would ask you guys, because I really have nothing better to do anyways.

[t3]

I don't think so. What I'd be more worried about, though, is whether or not a person shrinking would explode due to the amount of waste currently sitting in their bodies. Or, like, if the person had just eaten a sandwhich, and got shrunk down to 2 inches tall or something, would the sandwich remain the same size and come exploding out of them, or would it shrink too? 'Cause, in movies, clothes and the like always remain the same size, and just the person shrinks. Does something have to be IN you in order to shrink with you, or what?

[Awesome McManly]

damn.

I think we need to ask Jeeves.

[strawberry kiss]

I don't think IQ would drop. Same person, just smaller.

You're silly.

[Meat Load]

thought is supposedly processed by electrical pulses in the brain. since your entire system would shrink down, it probably wouldn't change.

of course, since shrink rays are purely a product of science fiction, it's impossible to say for sure anyway.

[HappySilly4Doom]

I don't think IQ would drop. Same person, just smaller.

You're silly.

I think so 2.

*smilie smiles* :D

[Awesome McManly]

thought is supposedly processed by electrical pulses in the brain. since your entire system would shrink down, it probably wouldn't change.

of course, since shrink rays are purely a product of science fiction, it's impossible to say for sure anyway.


Well, I thought about that too, but isn't there at least some correlation between intelligence and size of a brain?

Like aren't insects brains so small that they can't feel pain? Or is that just due to an underdeveloped nervous system?

[mcrandmuffins]

I would like to see someone explode from all that waste but from far away. :D

[Forever Finite]

the real question is whether or not all of your molecules will shrink as well.

if you shrink on a molecular scale, then that means everything remains the same, just smaller relative to the outside world. in other words, even your brain and all of its functioning cells would still be there because they would be qually miniturized and therefore still function the same way.

but that means you would probably instantly die because the air molecules you'd need to breathe in to stay alive would be larger than the molecules that your body is made up of, and therefore your cells would be unable to absorb the oxygen particles. you would probably also interfere with some kind of quantum physics law that protected you from being sucked into the ground or imploding something equally bizarre.

[Awesome McManly]

so shrinking results in instant death.

huh.

I should keep that mind.

[KLEIN]

Well, I will work through this, using the "Honey I shrunk the kids" movie as a reference.

"shrink rays" must work by decreasing intermolecular spaces. The molecules themselves do not change in size, just the space inbetween. You're the same person, just much smaller and denser.

The movie ignores this, and decreases the mass of the shrunken people, which is clearly ridiculous. A normal person shrunk to the size of an inch would be like the hulk, with their normal mass behind all their actions. They'd be able to jump many times their height, and actually use that mass. The little shrunken people could punch holes clear through those dangerous insects.

presumably, decreasing the surface area of the lungs does not result in not having enough to breathe. That's the concern, that your lungs would not be able to get enough air, since the volume of air taken in on every breath would be much much less.

Unless the shrink ray creates a field that automatically shrinks everything that enters you, in which case you're good to go.


Insects don't really have brains, just nerve clusters. Everyting they do is either automatic or instinct. They can't think.

[steffi]

you guys are so smart.

[mcrandmuffins]

I'm not gonna even bother reading what ya'll have to say cause ya'll are smart. :steff:

[Forever Finite]

klein, how would reducing the space between your molecules work? where did you hear that nonsense! you'd surely perish because you'd be so dense that your body temperature would sky rocket and you'd fry your brain.

[t3]

the real question is whether or not all of your molecules will shrink as well.

Can molecules themselves shrink? Since they're just fused together atoms, wouldn't cramming them closer together cause them to change the type of molecules they are?

Well, I will work through this, using the "Honey I shrunk the kids" movie as a reference.

"shrink rays" must work by decreasing intermolecular spaces. The molecules themselves do not change in size, just the space inbetween. You're the same person, just much smaller and denser.

The movie ignores this, and decreases the mass of the shrunken people, which is clearly ridiculous. A normal person shrunk to the size of an inch would be like the hulk, with their normal mass behind all their actions. They'd be able to jump many times their height, and actually use that mass. The little shrunken people could punch holes clear through those dangerous insects.


But is there any actual empty spaces between molecules? I know there's "space" between molecules, the amount of which differintiates matter between solid, liquid and gas stages, but isn't it usually full of energy and all kinds of electromagnetic bric-a-brak? And, if all the matter of a person were condensed into such a small space, wouldn't that just leave them like an immobile brick of mashed-together stuff? Or, maybe shrinking goes by some kind of Animorphs physics, and it spits all your excess mass out into empty space on the B side of the universe or whatever.

[Davey Rootbeer]

insect's brains are geared toward primary sustinince tasks: if they were enlarged, would they be smarter? I think not.

it's not the size of the brain at all, really, it's the wrinkles, i think, and the speed that electricity passes through it.

[KLEIN]

Can molecules themselves shrink? Since they're just fused together atoms, wouldn't cramming them closer together cause them to change the type of molecules they are?


But is there any actual empty spaces between molecules? I know there's "space" between molecules, the amount of which differintiates matter between solid, liquid and gas stages, but isn't it usually full of energy and all kinds of electromagnetic bric-a-brak? And, if all the matter of a person were condensed into such a small space, wouldn't that just leave them like an immobile brick of mashed-together stuff? Or, maybe shrinking goes by some kind of Animorphs physics, and it spits all your excess mass out into empty space on the B side of the universe or whatever.

The molecules themselves couldn't really shrink, unless the shrink ray also shrunk the atomic empty space. But that wouldn't cause the molecules to change, you'd need some sort of nuclear or chemical reaction for that.

Yes there is space (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gold_foil_experiment). but since compressing the space would probably force everything to be a dense amorphous solid, and this does not happen in "Honey I shrunk the kids", since their little hearts still pump their blood around their little arteries (and not getting their brains fried, <i>rachel</i>), we are assuming that shrink ray technology deals with the intermolecular forces in such a way as to NOT render things as dense immoble lumps.

And KEITH. What you are saying is ridiculous. The animorphs are science fiction. Z-space has no basis in reality. Besides, to put mass in Z-space, you need the energy of "a sun", or crazy andalite morphing technology. Shrink rays have none of these things.

[t3]

Well, KLEIN, we'd also have to assume that HiStK's logic is sound in assuming that if the kids were of the exact same mass at a smaller size, their weight would not alos remain the same. How could 400 pounds of condensed child cling to a bee or whatever bug they flew away on? (Hell, I don't remember, it's been eons since I saw that stupid movie.) Besides, Klein. It's a DISNEY movie. Disney also claims that there are rivers in Africa that flow uphill. I'd invest more faith in Scholastic knowing what they're talking about when it comes to this kinda science shit, OKAY??

[Dr. Badman]

This is the second time this week that Klein has said "THAT'S FICTIONAL" to defend another fictional piece.

Assuming they have the technology to manipulate or shrink molecules, they should be able to equip the kidstheyshrink with some sort of re-breather that converts the air molecules into something breathable.

[KLEIN]

They rode ants, and it was not possible according to rick moranis's scientific explaination of his machine. According to the description of how the machine worked, the kids should not have lost any mass.

The kids were able to breathe just fine, badman. Your logic is clearly faulty.

Honey I shrunk the kids is <i><b>real</i></b>

[Dr. Badman]

I'm not talking about Disney movies. I'm talking to the people who mentioned the shrunken body being unable to absorb air molecules.

Hulk-like strength from having your molecules shrunk down, and you're saying MY logic is faulty? HiStK isnt scientific fact. "IT'S FICTIONAL".

Edit: Hah. Nice edit.

[Linzoy]

Brain size relative to body size is what is important. Midgets can talk and everything.

Brain size is important though. I read in some magazine that all humans have a mutated jaw gene that makes the jaw smaller, and this makes the forhead thinner because the a big forehead is needed to support a big jaw, and the big jaw doesn't exist any more. When that mutation happened the human brain grew to fit the empty space in the forehead.

[Young Jeff Bridges]

so, look, here's my idea. if you and your body gets shrunken down, its bodily wastes and functions go down with it. your lungs will need the same amount of oxygen they needed before, but only relative to size. so speaking from big people mode, you will need a smaller amount when in tiny mode. and all that molecule stuff is too complex--we're talking about shrink rays. come on.

and no your IQ won't get smaller, because you'll be the same person. it's like you stay the same while the world becomes GIANT.

[t3]

But wouldn't you be made dense to the point of being about as mobile as an obese black man named francis??

[Young Jeff Bridges]

nah, man. it's a shrink ray. whatever, you know?

also, t3 wasn't that bad. and t2 wasn't as perfectas everyone makes it. linda hamilton and edward furlong kinda suck.

[HappySilly4Doom]

I really think that if small animals can coexist on earth's oxygen, then if a person shrunk I think they'd be okay!

*smiles and shrugs*

[Dr. Badman]

Hey JT: You finally got a really stupid answer for your supposed really stupid question.

[Awesome McManly]

yeah. yeah.

Poonchy's answer WAS pretty dumb. =P

[HappySilly4Doom]

^__^

Good topic!

*smiles*

[t3]

nah, man. it's a shrink ray. whatever, you know?

also, t3 wasn't that bad. and t2 wasn't as perfectas everyone makes it. linda hamilton and edward furlong kinda suck.

But it was kinda a special-effects fest. T2 had bitchin' fight/chase scenes. T1 had a claymation skeleton. They all rock my face, but mainly the quote is entertaining because people call me T3 all the time online.

[Meat Load]

t1 was alright
t2 was the greatest action movie ever made
t3 i never finished but it seemed decent

[BreadObama69]

t2 was the greatest action movie ever made

I agree with this, if only for the fact that T2 has lots of Robert Patrick, who I think is a woefully under-rated/under-used actor that rocks my socks.

[Meat Load]

i'll even go as far as to say that t2 was better than robocop, my favorite movie ever

[BreadObama69]

so.....that would mean...

T2 is your favorite movie ever.

[implode]

no. i think the vandals are better than NOFX, but i like NOFX more. more is considered when determining a favorite than just overall quality.

[BreadObama69]

Yeah, ok.

I guess that's true.