Here is the cartoon (from my own local paper, the Kansas City Star) that made this obvious to me:
Once I saw that, I remembered this earlier cartoon, where the visual non sequitur had gone right by me the first time, but after seeing the above cartoon, with the amoeba-looking thing labeled "God particle," it finally clicked for me.
I hope he's using the highest possible magnification on that thing ... |
According to this webpage, the smallest thing you can see with just your eyes is 0.1 mm (100 micrometers, or 100,000 nanometers) long; that would mean, I think, that the smallest thing you could see at 100x magnification would be 0.001 mm (one micrometer, 1,000 nanometers) long. That same webpage lists the size of the smallest thing visible by light microscopy as 500 nanometers; another website gives the theoretical limit as 200 nanometers, which is approximately equal to the wavelength of visible light.
The webpage I cited first in the above paragraph, the "Cell Size and Scale" page, further states that the most powerful electron microscopes (microscopes that don't rely on visible light, but which use a beam of electrons to illuminate whatever they're pointed at) can resolve individual molecules, even individual atoms.
Here is a page on CERN's website that does a decent job of conveying just how small the particles they're trying to learn about are:
The infinitesimal scale of particle physics is mind-blowing, and rather abstract to imagine. If we enlarge an atom to the size of the Earth, then the protons and neutrons that make up the nucleus of the atom would each measure the length of an Olympic stadium. Smaller still are the quarks. If we consider our hypothetical atom blown up to the size of the Earth, then a quark would be smaller than a tennis ball.
However, this does not give us a very good idea of the size of the atom itself. So staying with the same analogy, but scaling things in the opposite direction, if an atom was the size of the Earth, then an amoeba would be as big as our solar system. Going even further, the distance from the centre of Geneva to CERN (about 10 km) would stretch across the entire Milky Way galaxy.So if, as mentioned above, a single atom represents the smallest thing that can be seen by any microscope, these subatomic particles are smaller than that by many orders of magnitude. So the possibility of seeing even one of the larger subatomic particles through a light microscope makes the idea of me taking off my glasses, peering into a cup of coffee and watching individual molecules of sugar dissolve sound plausible by comparison.
More examples of cartoons showing people looking through light microscopes at the "God particle:
Here's one showing the "God particle" in what appears to be a petri dish:
... and, finally, here's one showing it in a test tube:
(People might associate the test tube more with chemistry than with microbiology, but you can indeed grow cultures in a test tube. Bacteria cultured in a test tube are going to be suspended in a liquid growth medium, rather than spread across a solid one, but they can live there just as well.)
Anyway, I got a huge kick out of these cartoons, seeing as how they unconsciously nudge you toward the conclusion I named in my post title: All Science Is Microbiology. Even when it's theoretical physics.
I have no idea if anyone besides me finds this funny; of anyone who reads, or might read, here I'd be most confident of thevenerablecorvex sharing my appreciation of it. Hopefully if I name her, she will see this post and laugh, too.
Whatever you do, don't blink! |
This one is from England, so at least it's not just Americans who don't know how big the Higgs is! |
This one is visible to the naked eye! |
Anyway, I got a huge kick out of these cartoons, seeing as how they unconsciously nudge you toward the conclusion I named in my post title: All Science Is Microbiology. Even when it's theoretical physics.
I have no idea if anyone besides me finds this funny; of anyone who reads, or might read, here I'd be most confident of thevenerablecorvex sharing my appreciation of it. Hopefully if I name her, she will see this post and laugh, too.
5 comments:
Thanks for the link! And I've often noticed that, insofar as most media is concerned, all science is chemistry (or at the very least, uses test tubes; I suppose it could be microbiology as well).
Unless it's astronomy, but in that case it will always be done (improbably) using refracting telescopes.
One other thing I would like to add: the Higgs boson is electrically neutral, so it doesn't interact with photons; thus, you wouldn't be able to see it using a microscope even if it were big enough.
...Actually, come to think of it, do you ever read TVTropes? This seems like it could be one.
I do read it, but sporadically, so I don't know what all is on there.
I had also seen the thing about test tubes being emblematic of All Science --- meant to put a clause about that in my post, but couldn't get the words to gel quite the way I wanted.
That's interesting about the photons: I hadn't realized something needed to have an electric charge to interact with them. Or does scale enter into it, as well?
That also seems to imply that, if it could be magically blown up to a theoretically detectable size, it would be invisible to electron microscopes as well.
This is a great post! Thanks for sharing.
The reason for this absurd illustrations might be, that a physicist sitting in front of a monitor or of a piece of paper does look less interesting (and even less scientific).
I do read it reguraly.This is good.Thanks for sharing.
Post a Comment