The Naked Scientists

The Naked Scientists Forum

Author Topic: Is this an error in Wikipedia?  (Read 4237 times)

Offline DoctorBeaver

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 12656
  • Thanked: 3 times
  • A stitch in time would have confused Einstein.
    • View Profile
Is this an error in Wikipedia?
« on: 19/08/2007 21:24:45 »
I found this in an article about large extra dimensions http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Large_extra_dimension :-

Since the planck length is the shortest distance which can be resolved with a microscope, the ordinary notions of space time have no meaning for objects closer together.

What kind of microscope can resolve to the Planck length!?  :o


 

Offline syhprum

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 3821
  • Thanked: 19 times
    • View Profile
Is this an error in Wikipedia?
« Reply #1 on: 19/08/2007 21:48:38 »
I think in this rather esoteric article a comparison is made between the familiar electron microscope that uses voltages in the region of 100KV and accelerators such as the LHC which operate at much greater energy of 14Tev
« Last Edit: 20/08/2007 07:45:56 by syhprum »
 

Offline DoctorBeaver

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 12656
  • Thanked: 3 times
  • A stitch in time would have confused Einstein.
    • View Profile
Is this an error in Wikipedia?
« Reply #2 on: 20/08/2007 13:03:47 »
But even 14TeV is nowhere near the Planck energy. As far as I'm aware a method for probing anywhere near the Planck length hasn't even been theorised yet.

(I thought the LHC was due to operate at 7TeV)

My mistake - it's 7TeV per beam, which totals 14TeV. I apologise.
« Last Edit: 20/08/2007 13:41:23 by DoctorBeaver »
 

Offline lightarrow

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 4586
  • Thanked: 7 times
    • View Profile
Is this an error in Wikipedia?
« Reply #3 on: 21/08/2007 14:18:06 »
I found this in an article about large extra dimensions http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Large_extra_dimension :-

Since the planck length is the shortest distance which can be resolved with a microscope, the ordinary notions of space time have no meaning for objects closer together.

What kind of microscope can resolve to the Planck length!?  :o
It means: theoretically. Of course no such microscope able to resolve such distances can exist now and in the far future.
 

lyner

  • Guest
Is this an error in Wikipedia?
« Reply #4 on: 21/08/2007 17:15:12 »
You mean good old Wikkers got it wrong? How can that be?
 

Offline lightarrow

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 4586
  • Thanked: 7 times
    • View Profile
Is this an error in Wikipedia?
« Reply #5 on: 21/08/2007 17:37:18 »
You mean good old Wikkers got it wrong? How can that be?
Well, I didn't intend it as an error. I don't know perfectly english language however. Written in that way means that such a microscope really exist?
 

Offline DoctorBeaver

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 12656
  • Thanked: 3 times
  • A stitch in time would have confused Einstein.
    • View Profile
Is this an error in Wikipedia?
« Reply #6 on: 21/08/2007 18:20:58 »
You mean good old Wikkers got it wrong? How can that be?
Well, I didn't intend it as an error. I don't know perfectly english language however. Written in that way means that such a microscope really exist?

Do you mean that you wrote that article?
 

lyner

  • Guest
Is this an error in Wikipedia?
« Reply #7 on: 21/08/2007 18:26:06 »
I think that the word microscope is just a shorthand for a thought experiment involving the  measurement of the disturbance of a high energy beam (e/m or particles).
I think the point that is being made is that, for that scale of event, the energy of gravitational attraction becomes comparable with the electromagnetic energy so you you begin to hit a fundamental limit  to how much disturbance you can achieve with your 'probing' energy. (e.g. E=hf, which we all know and love.)

My jibe at Wikkers was just humorous -  anyone can be an expert on Wikipedia  and theres' no way of knowing when you use it as your only source. Peer review of 'reputable' articles does have some advantages.
 

Offline DoctorBeaver

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 12656
  • Thanked: 3 times
  • A stitch in time would have confused Einstein.
    • View Profile
Is this an error in Wikipedia?
« Reply #8 on: 21/08/2007 18:36:00 »
I browse Wiki et al looking for interesting stuff, but then I like to check with more reputable sources.
 

Offline lightarrow

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 4586
  • Thanked: 7 times
    • View Profile
Is this an error in Wikipedia?
« Reply #9 on: 22/08/2007 12:15:21 »
You mean good old Wikkers got it wrong? How can that be?
Well, I didn't intend it as an error. I don't know perfectly english language however. Written in that way means that such a microscope really exist?

Do you mean that you wrote that article?
No. (Thank you to consider me so cultured!  :))
 

Offline DoctorBeaver

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 12656
  • Thanked: 3 times
  • A stitch in time would have confused Einstein.
    • View Profile
Is this an error in Wikipedia?
« Reply #10 on: 22/08/2007 13:38:56 »
You mean good old Wikkers got it wrong? How can that be?
Well, I didn't intend it as an error. I don't know perfectly english language however. Written in that way means that such a microscope really exist?

Do you mean that you wrote that article?
No. (Thank you to consider me so cultured!  :))

Sorry, I misunderstood your reply.
 

The Naked Scientists Forum

Is this an error in Wikipedia?
« Reply #10 on: 22/08/2007 13:38:56 »

 

SMF 2.0.10 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines
SMFAds for Free Forums