Difference between revisions of "Intuitively understanding the size of an atom"
m (→Related) |
(added relevant image) |
||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
+ | [[File:Atom hair soccer en 3.png|thumb|480px|Pluck yourself a Hair and look at it. Imagine a magnified model of the torn of end was built. Would be interesting – wouldn't it? This model was buried halfway such that it runs vertically into ground at the sidelines and that it reaches twenty-five meters of dome-height at the center of the play-field. When you stand on this soccer field in front of the fractured surface and you hold a real hair against tremendous model then you see: The model-atoms of the giant hair have the diameter of a real hair.]] | ||
If you build a humongous model of a human hair with a diameter equivalent to the width of a soccer field (~50m), <br> | If you build a humongous model of a human hair with a diameter equivalent to the width of a soccer field (~50m), <br> |
Revision as of 20:39, 20 April 2024
If you build a humongous model of a human hair with a diameter equivalent to the width of a soccer field (~50m),
then the model carbon atoms in that humongous model of a human are pretty exactly the size of a human hair (~0.1mm).
The carbon atoms in the real hair (and everywhere else) are about ~0.2nm in diameter.
It's the same ratio!
- 50m / 0.1mm = 500 000
- 0.1mm / 0.2nm = 500 000
See?
Why this works
Unlike other comparisons this for once works because
the size of a hair and the size of a soccerfield both
still fall into the range of our everyday hunamn experience.
What not to do
Shift one side of the comparison a bit (like making model atoms the size of marbles ~1cm) and
the other side falls way out of human everyday experience (model hair 5km diameter).
The comparison becomes completely useless as a means for intuitive understanding.
Also choose one magnification level and stick with it for as much as possible. Do not jump around with magnification levels wildly.