How do they know this?!?!?

Picard · May 30, 2011

http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-05-electron-surprisingly-scientists-year.html

Basically they say that the elctron is almost perfectly sperical (got no problem with that).

But they go on to say that if an electron was the size of our solar system, the imperfection would be the width of a human hair ... !!!

How the hell can they make that measurement???

I read what technique they use. My doubt is with the sensitivity of the instruments they have.

Geriatrix · May 30, 2011

Picard said:
http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-05-electron-surprisingly-scientists-year.html

Basically they say that the elctron is almost perfectly sperical (got no problem with that).

But they go on to say that if an electron was the size of our solar system, the imperfection would be the width of a human hair ... !!!

How the hell can they make that measurement???

I read what technique they use. My doubt is with the sensitivity of the instruments they have.

Be careful with media articles. They tend to want to jazz up what they are reporting. But then again, math is math so if you want to scale up the dimensions you could use that figure to calculate the accuracy yourself. You're a teacher right? Get those trig maths and calculator out. ;P

Picard · May 30, 2011

So they used calculations to measure and not instruments?

Nick_K · May 30, 2011

The article says that they used a laser to measure and then looked for a wobble. So they definately used instruments to measure and did not do calculations. It seems like a very simple way of measuring it but I suppose simpler is better for these types of things.

Picard · May 30, 2011

My problem is still the margin.

roLLz · May 30, 2011

Picard said:
So they used calculations to measure and not instruments?

With this type of experiment they would have to use instruments which would give you readings, which would then have to be calculated, verified and retested.
The instrument being used won't just throw up some text on their screen saying Wow, this thing is almost a perfect sphere, if you scaled it up the imperfection would be soooooo tiny

Slootvreter · May 30, 2011

Geriatrix said:
Be careful with media articles.

That is correct. Ben Goldacre is very outspoken about science and how the media reports on it.

Picard · May 30, 2011

Slootvreter said:
That is correct. Ben Goldacre is very outspoken about science and how the media reports on it.

So what you are saying is that his comparison with the solar system and a human hair is inacurate??

Slootvreter · May 30, 2011

Picard said:
So what you are saying is that his comparison with the solar system and a human hair is inacurate??

Not what I am saying, I was just commenting on Geriatrix's statement. If something scientific doesn't make sense, don't count on the media to make it clearer to you without compromising accuracy.

Picard · May 30, 2011

Okay, next question. Do you believe the margin of error being the width of a human hair if the electron is the size of the solar system?

Geriatrix · May 30, 2011

Picard said:
Okay, next question. Do you believe the margin of error being the width of a human hair if the electron is the size of the solar system?

We already established that the media tends to exaggerate.

Picard, if you're really interested go find the data from the research paper and calculate it yourself. Or do you just want to sit around and speculate?

grok · May 30, 2011

Picard said:
Okay, next question. Do you believe the margin of error being the width of a human hair if the electron is the size of the solar system?

No. Any negligible error in measurement on [-]microscopic[/-] atomic scale will be multiplied by infinity at the scale of the universe.

Messugga · May 30, 2011

evilstebunny said:
No. Any negligible error in measurement on microscopic/atomic scale will be multiplied by infinity at the scale of the universe.

Agreed. We simply aren't capable of measurements of an accuracy of that degree.

Picard · May 30, 2011

evilstebunny said:
No. Any negligible error in measurement on [-]microscopic[/-] atomic scale will be multiplied by infinity at the scale of the universe.

Messugga said:
Agreed. We simply aren't capable of measurements of an accuracy of that degree.

Thank you. All I wanted to know.

[/thread]

K3NS31 · May 30, 2011

Messugga said:
Agreed. We simply aren't capable of measurements of an accuracy of that degree.

Picard said:
Thank you. All I wanted to know.

[/thread]

Wait, he can't just say that!! How can you just say we aren't capable of measurements that accurate? Either you're an expert in the field, in which case, please provide credentials; or you've researched this, in which case, please provide links.

Edit: Picard, that kind of blind acceptance is an insult to your nickname (assuming your nick refers to Jean Picard, the scientist, who the starship captain was later named after. Both of whom would never have simply accepted that statement, incidentally)

Messugga · May 30, 2011

K3NS31 said:
Wait, he can't just say that!! How can you just say we aren't capable of measurements that accurate? Either you're an expert in the field, in which case, please provide credentials; or you've researched this, in which case, please provide links.

Edit: Picard, that kind of blind acceptance is an insult to your nickname (assuming your nick refers to Jean Picard, the scientist, who the starship captain was later named after. Both of whom would never have simply accepted that statement, incidentally)

Because the size of the universe is ever expanding and thus, even if the value was correct yesterday, it certainly isn't today. Also, I do know a tad about the size of the universe (Which they're not certain about. Hell, they're not even certain about its shape) and physics in general, having had it as a major during university.
I agree that he shouldn't just blindly accept an answer, but seriously, common sense has to prevail as well.

And because I didn't want to leave it at that:

Estimated width of the universe: 156 billion light years
1 light year = 10^16 meters
Thus 156 000 000 000 x 10 000 000 000 000 000 meters
= 1 560 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 m

Now, the width of a human hair according to Wikipedia, is roughly 10−4 m. So in order for them to be able to make the above statement, they need to be able to detect a deviation of 1:15 600 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000

Now, I may be out by a decimal or two as I did this really quickly, but even then that's asking for a bit much.

dabean · May 30, 2011

Messugga said:
Because the size of the universe is ever expanding and thus, even if the value was correct yesterday, it certainly isn't today. Also, I do know a tad about the size of the universe (Which they're not certain about. Hell, they're not even certain about its shape) and physics in general, having had it as a major during university.
I agree that he shouldn't just blindly accept an answer, but seriously, common sense has to prevail as well.

Solar system, not universe.

Edit: Here's some more info: http://aquantumofknowledge.wordpres...how-do-you-measure-the-shape-of-the-electron/

Messugga · May 30, 2011

dabean said:
Solar system, not universe.

Edit: Here's some more info: http://aquantumofknowledge.wordpres...how-do-you-measure-the-shape-of-the-electron/

Whoops, my mistake and this will obviously remove quite a few zero's from my calculation above.

According to the article, which indeed has a somewhat sensationalistic title, they indeed have a certain degree of statistical error being taken into account. Quickly looking at it, this error seems to be significant enough to invalidate the statement that the nature of the sphere can be calculated to within the above-mentioned accuracy.

scotty777 · May 30, 2011

I thought you couldn't actually resolve/see an electron because it's natural wavelength while moving was longer than the particle itself... So in effect, it's more a quantum particle where it's just a little packed of waves that caries a very particular energy specifying it's mass, and properties???

Besides, how do you observe something that is so small? You can't use light, because unless you zapping the thing with Gamma rays, the light waves are waaaaaaaay to long to actually see it... (it's like putting a tooth pick in the ocean, and trying to see the effects the tooth pick has on the oceans waves). Meh, looks like a waste of 10 years to me... who actually cares about how round an electron is?

Messugga · May 30, 2011

scotty777 said:
I thought you couldn't actually resolve/see an electron because it's natural wavelength while moving was longer than the particle itself... So in effect, it's more a quantum particle where it's just a little packed of waves that caries a very particular energy specifying it's mass, and properties???

Besides, how do you observe something that is so small? You can't use light, because unless you zapping the thing with Gamma rays, the light waves are waaaaaaaay to long to actually see it... (it's like putting a tooth pick in the ocean, and trying to see the effects the tooth pick has on the oceans waves). Meh, looks like a waste of 10 years to me... who actually cares about how round an electron is?

The research is less about the roundness and more about the internal structure of an electron.

How do they know this?!?!?

Picard

Guest

Executive Member

Picard

Guest

Well-Known Member

Picard

Guest

Well-Known Member

Honorary Master

Picard

Guest

Honorary Master

Picard

Guest

Executive Member

Honorary Master

Honorary Master

Picard

Guest

Expert Member

Honorary Master

Expert Member

Honorary Master

...doesn't know

Honorary Master