Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Smallest weight

  1. Jan 2, 2007 #1
    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:
     
  2. jcsd
  3. Jan 2, 2007 #2
    Everything that is matter has mass. A bread crumb has a weight.
     
  4. Jan 2, 2007 #3
    What would have the smallest mass.
     
  5. Jan 2, 2007 #4
    To my knowledge, an elementary particle called the neutrino has the smallest mass. I could be wrong, however.
     
  6. Jan 2, 2007 #5

    disregardthat

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    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..
     
  7. Jan 2, 2007 #6
    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!
     
  8. Jan 2, 2007 #7

    disregardthat

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    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...
     
  9. Jan 2, 2007 #8
    My dad said the same thing.:smile:
     
  10. Jan 2, 2007 #9

    disregardthat

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    Yes I did, son.


    :P
     
  11. Jan 2, 2007 #10

    ranger

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    Daisy is an odd name for a son :)
     
  12. Jan 2, 2007 #11

    disregardthat

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    Oh, it's a girl. Oh well, my lie has been revealed.
     
  13. Jan 2, 2007 #12
    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.
     
  14. Jan 2, 2007 #13

    disregardthat

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    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.
     
  15. Jan 3, 2007 #14
    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)


    The last time I stood on a weighing scale, it showed a little more than a few eV. :tongue:
     
    Last edited: Jan 3, 2007
  16. Jan 3, 2007 #15

    Gokul43201

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    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!
     
    Last edited: Jan 3, 2007
  17. Jan 3, 2007 #16
    Haha, there was a time were I took my dad for a textbook. The innocence of childhood... :tongue2:
     
  18. Jan 3, 2007 #17

    disregardthat

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    You tell me! :bugeye:

    I thought the planck units were the smallest units you could use, and that exists...
     
  19. Jan 3, 2007 #18

    Doc Al

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    Why don't you look up what Planck mass means and how it is defined?
     
  20. Jan 3, 2007 #19

    disregardthat

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    I did, I read an article about it... I'll look up on it again...
     
  21. Jan 3, 2007 #20
    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
     
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook

Have something to add?



Similar Discussions: Smallest weight
  1. Smallest wavelenghth? (Replies: 4)

Loading...