What is the smallest unit of measurement used that the eye can see?

  • Context: High School 
  • Thread starter Thread starter kyphysics
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Eye Measurement Unit
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the smallest unit of measurement that the human eye can perceive, exploring both theoretical and practical aspects. Participants consider various contexts, including everyday measurement, scientific applications, and the limitations of human eyesight.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Debate/contested
  • Conceptual clarification

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants suggest that while units smaller than what the eye can see exist, the smallest regularly visible unit may be a millimeter, as indicated by traditional rulers.
  • Others mention that the width of a human hair (17 μm to 181 μm) and large paramecia (40-80 μm) are visible under certain conditions, challenging the notion of visibility limits.
  • There is a discussion about the subjective nature of visibility, with some arguing that individual eyesight affects what can be seen and measured accurately.
  • Some participants note that optical devices, like vernier calipers, can measure down to 0.001 inches, while others question the differences between various measuring tools.
  • A participant raises the idea that the diffraction limit of optical devices may define the fundamental limits of visibility.
  • There is a debate about whether mechanical enhancements like microscopes should be included in the definition of "seeing," with differing opinions on their role in measurement.
  • Some participants express that practical use of precise measurements is rare in everyday life, while others counter that they frequently measure smaller units.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants do not reach a consensus on the smallest unit of measurement visible to the eye, with multiple competing views and subjective interpretations of visibility and practicality remaining throughout the discussion.

Contextual Notes

The discussion highlights the limitations of human eyesight, the subjective nature of measurement, and the influence of optical devices, but does not resolve the various assumptions and definitions involved.

Who May Find This Useful

This discussion may be of interest to individuals exploring measurement techniques, the limits of human perception, and the practical applications of scientific measurements.

kyphysics
Messages
685
Reaction score
445
There are units of measurement smaller than our eyes can see, but that we use in science.

But, what is the smallest one that we can see and work with regularly?

I mean...on a traditional ruler, it'd be a millimeter, right? But, we can obviously go smaller - even if a ruler doesn't mark it. Anyone know the answer to this?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
@kyphysics, have you given this any thought yourself?

The width of a human hair is between 17 μm to 181 μm.
A μm is 1/1000 of a mm.
These are easy to see and can be measured with a micrometer.

Large paramecia are maybe 40-80 μm wide and are easily visible in the right lighting conditions.

I have worked with both of these.

There are fluorescent microbeads of various sizes. Since they give off light, they may be visible as "there" but not properly resolved as individuals. However, you might be able to suck one up in a pipette. Depends what you mean by "work with".
 
Last edited:
  • Like
  • Informative
Likes   Reactions: harborsparrow, Klystron, pinball1970 and 2 others
BillTre said:
@kyphysics,
A μm
How do you pronounce that unit of measure?
 
This is very subjective and based partly on peoples eyesight.

It would come up in reading the logarithmic scales of a slide rule where some people can estimate better than others.

With respect to the markings on a ruler, you would have the limitation of line thickness of the mark to consider. Its likely that 1/2 mm is the best one can do reliably unless the marking is finer.

On American standard you have 1/16 inch meaning your could estimate to 1/32 inch which is roughly 0.79 mm so I guess using mm markings you could get to 0.5mm
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: Lnewqban and BillTre
kyphysics said:
How do you pronounce that unit?
Its usually called a micron or a micrometer.
A million micrometers in a meter.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: pinball1970, dextercioby and kyphysics
I can see the color difference between 600nm light and say 620 nm light. Does that count (think about a soap bubble). So 20 nm (.02 micrometers).
You understand that your question has a thousand answers I hope.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: BillTre
BillTre said:
@kyphysics, have you given this any thought yourself?
:smile:
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: hutchphd
A good ruler with a vernier scale, typically known as a vernier caliper, can can easily be read to 0.001 inch. Although my old eyes now need a magnifying glass to make that reading easily.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: Wrichik Basu, jedishrfu, robphy and 2 others
jrmichler said:
A good ruler with a vernier scale, typically known as a vernier caliper, can can easily be read to 0.001 inch. Although my old eyes now need a magnifying glass to make that reading easily.
I take a photo with my phone, then zoom in.

Here's a virtual Vernier Caliper I made for my lab classes. (You can zoom-in on this one.)
https://www.geogebra.org/m/DemUu87n
1665236526397.png
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: Wrichik Basu and jrmichler
  • #11
jrmichler said:
A good ruler with a vernier scale, typically known as a vernier caliper, can can easily be read to 0.001 inch.
Is a Vernier micrometer different in kind? They get you .0001
https://www.grainger.com/product/3D...PX5tgBeTzvAXXj-HmYxoC6qAQAvD_BwE&gclsrc=aw.ds
Maybe that's different ?
But there are a variety Moire pattern (vernier) scales that in principal can get you to any optical multiple. How about Vernier scale to read the Vernier scale to read the Vernier scale.
Probably there is an argument involving the Rayleigh limit for your eyeball somewhere in this.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #12
robphy said:
I take a photo with my phone, then zoom in.

Here's a virtual Vernier Caliper I made for my lab classes. (You can zoom-in on this one.)
https://www.geogebra.org/m/DemUu87n
View attachment 315247
Anyone have a "to internet scale/actual size" picture?

If you (anyone, I mean) could post it, that'd be visually helpful.
 
  • #13
jedishrfu said:
This is very subjective and based partly on peoples eyesight.

It would come up in reading the logarithmic scales of a slide rule where some people can estimate better than others.

With respect to the markings on a ruler, you would have the limitation of line thickness of the mark to consider. Its likely that 1/2 mm is the best one can do reliably unless the marking is finer.

On American standard you have 1/16 inch meaning your could estimate to 1/32 inch which is roughly 0.79 mm so I guess using mm markings you could get to 0.5mm
I figured high school level or every day rulers wouldn't have super small units.

But thought a more "professional" or "science-y" version might (meaning they'd have very thin markings).

For most people, we don't need to get that precise in every day life. When's the last time you needed to measure anything less than a millimeter?
 
  • #14
kyphysics said:
For most people, we don't need to get that precise in every day life. When's the last time you needed to measure anything less than a millimeter?
Why did you even start this thread?
 
  • Like
  • Haha
Likes   Reactions: Wrichik Basu, berkeman, phinds and 2 others
  • #15
BillTre said:
Why did you even start this thread?
Why do you ask? It's a point of curiosity I have.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: symbolipoint
  • #16
kyphysics said:
Why do you ask? It's a point of curiosity I have.
Because the post BllTre called out:
kyphysics said:
For most people, we don't need to get that precise in every day life. When's the last time you needed to measure anything less than a millimeter?
seems to almost rebut the opening post.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: Wrichik Basu and BillTre
  • #17
Again: the fundamental limit of any optical device is the diffraction limit. Anything else depends upon your definitions. I believe the eye is close to the diffraction limit in its design.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: DaveC426913 and BillTre
  • #18
DaveC426913 said:
Because the post BllTre called out:

seems to almost rebut the opening post.
Nah. I separate practical use vs. knowledge. Most stuff we learn in school is never used in real life.

Although, you never know if you'll get that question on Jeopardy.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: Hornbein and dextercioby
  • #19
kyphysics said:
Nah. I separate practical use vs. knowledge. Most stuff we learn in school is never used in real life.
Yah. I think that's the rationale BillTre was looking for.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: jedishrfu
  • #20
kyphysics said:
For most people, we don't need to get that precise in every day life. When's the last time you needed to measure anything less than a millimeter?

Several times a week if not several times a day...

1665415998289.png

https://learn.adafruit.com/calipers/featured_products
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: dextercioby, BillTre and kyphysics
  • #21
Last edited:
  • #22
kyphysics said:
There are units of measurement smaller than our eyes can see, but that we use in science.

But, what is the smallest one that we can see and work with regularly?

I mean...on a traditional ruler, it'd be a millimeter, right?

Who are "we"? Do you mean the average person? Or collectively all people? If it's the former then the answer is probably "nothing" since most people don't measure anything on regular basis. But if you mean the latter then it's whatever you define as "seeing".

Such a vague question. You can answer it any way you want.
 
  • #23
What I wonder is what qualifies as 'seeing'. Does a microscope count? I mean, it does nothing that your eyes don't already do. You can't disqualify a microscope simply due to it being a mechanical enhancement - unless you plan to disqualify glasses too.
 
  • #24
DaveC426913 said:
What I wonder is what qualifies as 'seeing'. Does a microscope count? I mean, it does nothing that your eyes don't already do. You can't disqualify a microscope simply due to it being a mechanical enhancement - unless you plan to disqualify glasses too.
The microscope gives your eyes an enlarged look at stuff, no?

In that sense, it's not what the natural eye typically sees and wouldn't qualify.
 
  • #25
Your eye "normally sees" light. The rest of the discussion is prattle. Really.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: russ_watters
  • #26
This seems like a good time to close the discussion. We've covered a lot of ground here and may fall off the world if we continue.

Thanks to everyone for contributing here.

Jedi
 
  • Like
  • Haha
Likes   Reactions: pinball1970, russ_watters and hutchphd

Similar threads

  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
1K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
2K
  • · Replies 27 ·
Replies
27
Views
4K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
664
Replies
9
Views
3K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
924
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
4K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
3K
  • · Replies 18 ·
Replies
18
Views
4K