Talk:Distances shorter than 1 pm

This article was nominated for deletion. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination: No Consensus, 13 January 2013, see discussion. Keep, 18 March 2008, see discussion.

This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Measurement (defunct) This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Measurement, a project which is currently considered to be defunct.MeasurementWikipedia:WikiProject MeasurementTemplate:WikiProject MeasurementMeasurement articles Lists Low‑importance This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Lists, an attempt to structure and organize all list pages on Wikipedia. If you wish to help, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.ListsWikipedia:WikiProject ListsTemplate:WikiProject ListsList articles Low This redirect has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

I've merged all the info from the pages for length scales 10^-24 to 10^-13 into this article, and it is still quite short. Any dissent to making all those pages redirect here? --David-Sarah Hopwood ⚥ (talk) 21:18, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

At AFD I argued: Rename and redirect, and let's argue instead about what their base names should be, which is the whole problem. I propose "1 yoctometre", "100 zeptometres", etc., through "100 yottametres". For purposes of people finding them, redirect from many other potential versions such as "1 centimeter" = "1 centimetre", "ten nanometres" = "10 nanometres" (these first two also combine), "1hm" = "1 hm" = "1 hectometre", "one thousandth metre" = "1 millimetre", "one milliard metres" = "1 gigametre" (use of >100 and <.01 is limited only to text, and only with meter and metre), "one billion metres" = "1 gigametre" (not "1 terametre"), and occasional exceptions like "1 myriameter" = "10 kilometres". Also add to disambiguation pages like "10K". That should be enough to define a system, y'all can take it from there. John J. Bulten (talk) 14:39, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

This seems to be the current consensus... the low and high ends of the scale need to be compressed, as with most of these scales. I suggest 6 orders of magnitude until you get to an order that has significant text. +sj + 22:08, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

I think the LHC has a spacial resolution around 10^-19m. 7TeV=E=hc/L (L is wavelength). gives 1.7E-19m. This is important since it will (when the LHC turns on) be the smallest length scale probed by human science. It might also be good to mention the current record made by Fermilab of ~1.5E-18m (800GeV). Pulu (talk) 06:33, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think the Fermilab has a spacial resolution around 10^-18m. 800GeV=E=hc/L (L is wavelength). gives 1.5E-18m. This is important since it is currently the finest length scale explored by human science. Has LIGO actually reached this scale of sensitivity yet, or is that its goal? Pulu (talk) 06:46, 12 November 2008 (UTC)