h a l f b a k e r yOutside the bag the box came in.
add, search, annotate, link, view, overview, recent, by name, random
news, help, about, links, report a problem
browse anonymously,
or get an account
and write.
register,
|
|
|
The idea is a chart that shows how long the chain of molecules making up various animals would be if they' were laid end to end. It's hard to comprehend how small a molecule is and this chart would give a new perspective on the very building blocks of the universe.
Uses the question: how long can
something stretch when broken into smaller parts? Take a 1 foot ruler, cut it in half and lay the 2 parts end to end. It's 2 feet now. Repeat that and it's 4 feet. Cut them all in half and lay them end to end yet again and it's 8 feet. By repeating this enough time you take an object on your desk and extend it millions of miles. Now use this to see how many times you can cut it (and what resultant length you get) by the time you get to a molecule and stop cutting it.
A clarified perspective of subatomic scale.
Molecules Stretched End-to-End: From Flea to Galaxy
Animal__Mass___Molecular Stretch___Cosmic Scale Equivalent
Flea___~2 mg___0.006 ly____________Beyond the solar system
Mouse__~20 g___0.63 ly_____________Near the Oort Cloud
Dog____~30 kg__95 ly_______________1/1,000 the Milky Way
Human_~70 kg__222 ly______________1/450 Milky Way
Horse__~500 kg_1,585 ly_____________1/63 of the Milky Way
Elephant_~6,000 kg_9,000 ly_________~1/5 of the Milky Way
Whale___~150,000 kg_______________-475,700 5× across the Milky Way
(see link)
"Small Enough To Stretch To The Stars." might be an article about the subject.
Atomic scale chart.
https://www.dropbox...0x&st=dp3lb51g&dl=0
[doctorremulac3, May 10 2025]
Another scale chart.
https://www.dropbox...ak&st=xvjgnfif&dl=0
[doctorremulac3, May 10 2025]
[link]
|
| |
I'm not sure this really helps - most people don't really have any comprehension of how big space is.
As in, they don't even really understand how far it is to the moon, and are surprised to hear humans haven't been there since the early 70s. |
|
| |
So, you're comparing something people don't know with something else they don't know. |
|
| |
I think giving things in terms of iterated manageable scale is a better approach: |
|
| |
For example:
most humans are between one to two metres tall.
Ants are maybe 2 millimetres tall, so about one thousandth of the height, give or take.
A typical bacterium (like E. coli) is 1-2 micrometres long. So it's about a thousandth of that. (Yes, we're talking length rather than width. Don't sweat it.)
A double-stranded molecule of DNA is about 2.5 nanometres across the double helix, so about a thousandth of that.
The smallest type of atom, hydrogen, is about 1 Angstrom, or 0.1 nanometres diameter, so about 1/250th of that. |
|
| |
Well, that's sort of it. Numbers with names don't click, at least with me. Using this scaling model using the ruler thing shows just how small small is by, ironically, showing how long it can be stretched. |
|
| |
I didn't realize that what makes up our physical being could be stretched out light years because it's so small. I've been told most biological molecules (like water, proteins, fats) are between: 0.1 to 10 nanometers in diameter, but okay, how big it that? Well a nanometer is 1 billionth of a meter. Using this method of clarification, asking "How small is a billionth?" the answer would just be: "A billionth" |
|
| |
Those are numbers and names but still don't really clarify anything. Nanometers and microns are just words, this gives you a perspective. The idea is to have a way to intuitively visualize size. |
|
| |
Put it another way, I was surprised by realizing molecules from something as small as a flew stretched end to end could extend billions of miles. Before realizing that my perspective was just numbers and names. Micrometers, microns, nanometers angstroms but okay, can I visualize that clearly like I can a mile or a meter? |
|
| |
//Using this scaling model using the ruler thing shows just how small small is by, ironically, showing how long it can be stretched.// |
|
| |
But how can you understand one if you don't understand the other?
So I suspect that most of the surprise there is really just the standard human failure to appreciate volume. |
|
| |
How are you even 'stretching out' those atoms, anyway? That is - what metric determines the distance between them? You'll get very different lengths depending on your assumption there. |
|
| |
Anyay, my point is- children (or whoever) know how big a person is, and also how big an ant is. And you then tell them that a bacterium is to an ant -as- an ant is to a human. And so on. You can show it in one diagram using a series of magnifying glasses. |
|
| |
//How are you even 'stretching out' those atoms, anyway?// Didn't mention atoms, just molecules and set them side by side touching each other. |
|
| |
//You can show it in one diagram using a series of magnifying glasses.// |
|
| |
Well, that's a good point and charts are one way to do it, but at some point you've got thousands of magnifying glasses on tens of thousands of pages being compared to one dot. |
|
| |
I think we understand basically how big the Earth is. So scale down this model and say for instance, the molecules in a grain of sand stretched end to end would reach around the Earth's equator 12 times. |
|
| |
I don't know if anybody else would find that surprising and eye opening, but I do and with THAT model I get some intuitive understanding of scale. |
|
| |
So to clarify, this isn't the only way to get an idea of scale across, but it's a new approach. |
|
| |