Smallest weight

  • Thread starter scupydog
  • Start date
101
0
Scupydog is my dad i would like to ask a question that my dad thinks he can answer.

If you had a very sensitive weighing scales and you put the lightest thing on them, what would it weigh.

Daisy 11. :smile:
 
1,424
1
Everything that is matter has mass. A bread crumb has a weight.
 
101
0
Everything that is matter has mass. A bread crumb has a weight.
What would have the smallest mass.
 
1,424
1
To my knowledge, an elementary particle called the neutrino has the smallest mass. I could be wrong, however.
 

disregardthat

Science Advisor
1,842
33
The smallest mass that can exist in nature is 2.176 × 10-8 kg which is the planck mass. I don't know what has that mass though..
 
761
15
Weight is a force, it depends on the mass of thing you're weighing and the acceleration due to gravity where you are. weight=mass*gravity

Basically you weigh more when gravity is stronger, gravity is about the same everywhere on the surface of the Earth, but actually it's slightly stronger at the poles - if you went to the North Pole you'd weigh more than if you were on the equator!
 

disregardthat

Science Advisor
1,842
33
He meant mass, so weight doesn't have much to do with this.

Either way you see it, the lightest thing would be the thing with the smallest mass, if you compare it to something with the same gravitational force on it...
 
101
0
The smallest mass that can exist in nature is 2.176 × 10-8 kg which is the planck mass. I don't know what has that mass though..
My dad said the same thing.:smile:
 

disregardthat

Science Advisor
1,842
33
Yes I did, son.


:P
 

disregardthat

Science Advisor
1,842
33
Oh, it's a girl. Oh well, my lie has been revealed.
 
321
1
To my knowledge, an elementary particle called the neutrino has the smallest mass. I could be wrong, however.
I don't that what she's asking. That would the wo..universe's lightest object but not the smallest mass possible. I don't know if there's a limit to how small things could get.
 

disregardthat

Science Advisor
1,842
33
Yes there is, and it is restricted to the planck length as far as I know. The smallest 'amount' of mass that can be set in the smallest possible volume (planckmeter^3) is excactly the planckmass.

If you are talking about weight, the smallest theoretical possible weight is 0, if not other mass is affecting the object, or is affecting it equally on all sides.
But weight is not the question here, because it differs.
 
2,035
2
My dad said the same thing.:smile:
The electron, which is certainly NOT the lightest particle of matter in the universe, is nearly a million million millon million times lighter than anything that might have planck mass.

This may give you some idea: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orders_of_magnitude_(mass)


Werg22 said:
To my knowledge, an elementary particle called the neutrino has the smallest mass. I could be wrong, however.
The last time I stood on a weighing scale, it showed a little more than a few eV. :tongue:
 
Last edited:

Gokul43201

Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
6,987
14
The smallest mass that can exist in nature is 2.176 × 10-8 kg which is the planck mass.
How is it then, that this is roughly the mass of one of my hairs? I can name a lot of things that are lighter than this.

daisy said:
My dad said the same thing.
Even dads can be wrong every once in a while. Most of the time, they're right though!
 
Last edited:
1,424
1
How is it then, that this is roughly the mass of one of my hairs? I can name a lot of things that are lighter than this.


Even dads can be wrong every once in a while. Most of the time, they're right though!
Haha, there was a time were I took my dad for a textbook. The innocence of childhood... :tongue2:
 

disregardthat

Science Advisor
1,842
33
How is it then, that this is roughly the mass of one of my hairs? I can name a lot of things that are lighter than this.
You tell me! :bugeye:

I thought the planck units were the smallest units you could use, and that exists...
 

Doc Al

Mentor
44,814
1,076
Why don't you look up what Planck mass means and how it is defined?
 

disregardthat

Science Advisor
1,842
33
I did, I read an article about it... I'll look up on it again...
 
no offense but this question has no meaning of course it would find the wieght if it was SENSITIVE ENOUGH!!!! if not it would'nt register anythinf
 
533
0
you'd probably need a cyclotron or something in that high-energy category to even detect its presence, let alone measure it
 

disregardthat

Science Advisor
1,842
33
Well, the weight was supposed to measure it's WEIGHT, not it's amount of energy, right?

I read about plancks constant, didn't udnerstand a thing, wikipedia is so unclear on definitions.

What IS the smallest weight then?
 
2,035
2
What IS the smallest weight then?
There is none, AFAIK. There might be a particle* which has the smallest measured mass (let's avoid weight), but if you're looking for an absolute lower limit (greater than 0) set by nature, I don't think there is one. Someone correct me if I'm wrong.

*most probably a neutrino, as of now
 

disregardthat

Science Advisor
1,842
33
I really was convinced that this lower limit was the planck mass.

I find it hard to believe that you could cut material in half endlessly and never get to the point where you can't cut no more.
 

Related Threads for: Smallest weight

  • Last Post
Replies
4
Views
18K
  • Last Post
Replies
11
Views
2K
  • Last Post
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • Last Post
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • Last Post
2
Replies
25
Views
3K
  • Last Post
Replies
4
Views
1K
  • Last Post
2
Replies
25
Views
2K
  • Last Post
Replies
8
Views
3K
Top