| Topic: |
Science > Physics |
| User: |
"Nicci" |
| Date: |
20 Apr 2007 05:40:40 PM |
| Object: |
nano-macro scales |
I was trying to find a list of scales from quantum (planck?) to macro
and wondering where general human perception, eg our unaided
eye sight was in that scale? Has anyone any ideas please?
Thanks,
Nick
.
|
|
| User: "Sam Wormley" |
|
| Title: Re: nano-macro scales |
20 Apr 2007 06:05:48 PM |
|
|
Nicci wrote:
I was trying to find a list of scales from quantum (planck?) to macro
and wondering where general human perception, eg our unaided
eye sight was in that scale? Has anyone any ideas please?
Thanks,
Nick
Ever felt or seen a human hair on a flat surface. Finest is
about 17 microns (0.000017 m). Planck length is 1.6 × 10^−35 m.
.
|
|
|
| User: "boson boss" |
|
| Title: Re: nano-macro scales |
21 Apr 2007 09:59:02 AM |
|
|
about 17 microns (0.000017 m). Planck length is 1.6 =C3=97 10^=E2=88=
=9235 m.
I don't believe it.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Sam Wormley" |
|
| Title: Re: nano-macro scales |
20 Apr 2007 06:06:40 PM |
|
|
Sam Wormley wrote:
Nicci wrote:
I was trying to find a list of scales from quantum (planck?) to macro
and wondering where general human perception, eg our unaided
eye sight was in that scale? Has anyone any ideas please?
Thanks,
Nick
Ever felt or seen a human hair on a flat surface. Finest is
about 17 microns (0.000017 m). Planck length is 1.6 x 10^-35 m.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: nano-macro scales |
20 Apr 2007 06:28:39 PM |
|
|
In article <4IbWh.67346$_c5.50402@attbi_s22>, Sam Wormley <swormley1@mchsi.com> writes:
Sam Wormley wrote:
Nicci wrote:
I was trying to find a list of scales from quantum (planck?) to macro
and wondering where general human perception, eg our unaided
eye sight was in that scale? Has anyone any ideas please?
Thanks,
Nick
Ever felt or seen a human hair on a flat surface. Finest is
about 17 microns (0.000017 m). Planck length is 1.6 x 10^-35 m.
While the word Planck is mentioned above, it appears to me that the OP
inquires not about Planck length but about scales where quantum
effects are becoming significant.
Mati Meron | "When you argue with a fool,
meron@cars.uchicago.edu | chances are he is doing just the same"
.
|
|
|
| User: "Huang Xien Chen" |
|
| Title: Re: nano-macro scales |
20 Apr 2007 06:42:39 PM |
|
|
Nicci wrote:
I was trying to find a list of scales from quantum (planck?) to macro
and wondering where general human perception, eg our unaided
eye sight was in that scale? Has anyone any ideas please?
Thanks,
Such a list would have cardinality of the continuum. Heh, and maybe also
Aleph Null, but that's another story.
Scale, per se, should be continuous, at least one would expect, which gives
me an interesting idea.....but I digress.
There used to be a film short called "powers of ten" which was really quite
amazing, I dont know if it is still available, ah yes, .....here it is....
http://www.powersof10.com/
.
|
|
|
| User: "Nicci" |
|
| Title: Re: nano-macro scales |
21 Apr 2007 05:57:58 AM |
|
|
Mati Meron wrote:-
While the word Planck is mentioned above, it appears to me that the OP
inquires not about Planck length but about scales where quantum
effects are becoming significant.
Huang Xien Chen wrote:-
Such a list would have cardinality of the continuum. Heh, and maybe also
Aleph Null, but that's another story.
Scale, per se, should be continuous, at least one would expect, which gives
me an interesting idea.....but I digress.
There used to be a film short called "powers of ten" which was really quite
amazing, I dont know if it is still available, ah yes, .....here it is....http://www.powersof10.com/
Thank-You, I was thinking along the lines of visible mass,
maybe someone in psychology or opthalmics have written
down a table, if/when I find something I'll post a
follow-up,
Regards
n.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Nicci" |
|
| Title: Re: nano-macro scales |
20 Apr 2007 06:14:18 PM |
|
|
On 21 Apr, 00:06, Sam Wormley <sworml...@mchsi.com> wrote:
Ever felt or seen a human hair on a flat surface. Finest is
about 17 microns (0.000017 m). Planck length is 1.6 x 10^-35 m
Ah! but, we can't see the atom! although there are scales for
wavelengths,
I guess theres a handy scale around, but I havnt located it just yet
:)
n.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sam Wormley" |
|
| Title: Re: nano-macro scales |
20 Apr 2007 06:22:20 PM |
|
|
Nicci wrote:
On 21 Apr, 00:06, Sam Wormley <sworml...@mchsi.com> wrote:
Ever felt or seen a human hair on a flat surface. Finest is
about 17 microns (0.000017 m). Planck length is 1.6 x 10^-35 m
Ah! but, we can't see the atom! although there are scales for
wavelengths,
I guess theres a handy scale around, but I havnt located it just yet
:)
n.
Try: http://www.calacademy.org/exhibits/powers_of_ten/
.
|
|
|
| User: "Nicci" |
|
| Title: Re: nano-macro scales |
20 Apr 2007 06:29:04 PM |
|
|
On 21 Apr, 00:22, Sam Wormley <sworml...@mchsi.com> wrote:
Nicci wrote:
On 21 Apr, 00:06, Sam Wormley <sworml...@mchsi.com> wrote:
Ever felt or seen a human hair on a flat surface. Finest is
about 17 microns (0.000017 m). Planck length is 1.6 x 10^-35 m
Ah! but, we can't see the atom! although there are scales for
wavelengths,
I guess theres a handy scale around, but I havnt located it just yet
:)
n.
Try:http://www.calacademy.org/exhibits/powers_of_ten/
Aw! Thats excellent, I'll begin there, Thank-You :)
n.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Ben Rudiak-Gould" |
|
| Title: Re: nano-macro scales |
21 Apr 2007 09:11:36 AM |
|
|
Nicci wrote:
I was trying to find a list of scales from quantum (planck?) to macro
and wondering where general human perception, eg our unaided
eye sight was in that scale? Has anyone any ideas please?
A web search on "fovea angular resolution" turns up a page claiming that
it's about one arc minute (1/60 of a degree or pi/(180*60) radians). I don't
know if that's right, but let's suppose it is. At a reading distance of,
say, half a meter, that's a separation of about (0.5 m)(pi/(180*60)) ~ 150
microns.
The diameter of a hydrogen atom is about 10^-4 microns, so you could pack
about 1.5 million of them linearly into that space. Of course you couldn't
see that line because it would be too narrow. If we had a sphere of some
solid element with that diameter, how many atoms would be in there? Let's
pick gold, because I like gold. Its density is about 19300 kg/m^3. The
atomic mass of gold is about 197 amu, or 3.3 x 10^-25 kg. So the total
number of gold atoms in our sphere is about (4/3 pi (75 microns)^3)(19300
kg/m^3)/(197 amu/atom), or about 10^16 atoms. So a mote of gold just at the
threshold of visibility at 0.5 m has around 10,000,000,000,000,000 atoms in
it. Hope this helps.
-- Ben
.
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
