6 posts • Page 1 of 1
10^-38m is not measurable simply because it is too small for us to accurately measure at this time. In class, Lavelle said that the threshold for what we could measure was around 10^-13 or 10^15m, which is still very small. For reference, the diameter of an atom is around 1 angstrom, or 10^-10m.
It is too small because the amplitude of the wave and its frequency is so minuscule to detect that it almost seems like it does not exist. Using a number multiplied by 10^-15 or 10^-18 is just the smallest we can actually detect and any smaller is just theory.
I think it's crazy that any wavelength smaller than 10^-18 is just a theory. For me, it is hard to grasp the concept that 10^-18 is measurable, but just .000001 smaller than that number is not considered measurable. What is the defining line for measurable vs. non-measurable.
Values smaller then 10^-18 are considered immeasurable because they would be too small to be detected by the technology we have nowadays. That is considered the defining line in our terms. However, that does not mean that wavelengths smaller than that do not exist. We just do not detect them. Only particles with small masses will have detectable wavelengths.
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests