I learned about this from Aleks's Twitter feed.
It's got a slider bar at the bottom that lets you move continuously from the scale of a coffee bean to the scale of a carbon atom. Beyond its inherent coolness, this display answers a question I asked last year:
When I took science in 9th grade, I remember being disturbed by a gap in the story. From one direction, we were told about atoms and subatomic particles and how they clustered into molecules. From the other, we were told about cells--single-celled animals and single human cells, then multicelled animals, then larger things such as jellyfish, etc., building up to people. We even talked about the parts of a cell--nucleus, axons, cilia, etc.
But we never were given the link between molecules and cells. And what really bothered me was that there was never even any recognition of the gap. This was really too bad, because long molecules are cool--there are proteins shaped like hooks that grab onto other molecules, etc. But it was either atoms or cells, nothing in between.
This is a problem in many areas of human understanding, not just biology.
In the above-linked entry, I talked about discontinuities in the understanding of economics (even by well-known practitioners in the field). For another example, when I was a kid we were given the impression that Jewish history was continuous up to about 70 A.D. (well, they didn't call it A.D., but you know what I mean) and then nothing happened until about 1491 or so and then nothing until, when, 1850? Perhaps one or two individual people in the intervening times, but no sense of a continuous history, never really a sense of how people got from point A to point B. In this case, I'm sure the professional historians have a clearer picture, but for some reason it never seems to get into the books. I guess people prefer to hear about disconnected episodes?
- Log in to post comments
That is a nice visual.
Folks trained as biologists learn about scale through microscope work. Therefore, scale in biology can be sort of disjoint, as it is understood mostly in terms of which class of instrument you need to look at the object. Magnifying lens? Dissecting scope? Optical scope? Electron scope? etc.
I'll always remember the first time I saw DNA replication represented in a biochemistry book. It was a revelation to see this connection between the DNA molecule and the nucleosome/ribosome organelles.
In geography we obsess over scale (though not those scales), as the scale/resolution at which you analyze something can lead to different results. Thus we try to identify what the appropriate scale of analysis is for any given problem (obviously we are not the only people that worry about this but it comes up a lot). The 'ecological fallacy' and 'modifiable areal unit problem' literature discuss these issues. Regarding the atoms->molecules->cells->universe issue, did you ever read E.O Wilson's 'Consilience'? That issue is the central focus of his book.
They didn't even mention 1290? Whoa.
I am so stinkin busy these days. Would everyone please read this book and do a "blog" post on whether it's good or not:
http://www.upress.umn.edu/Books/K/kellert_scientific.html
At minimum please make sure the "commensurability" creed of the pythagorean cult is referenced somewhere fundamental, otherwise it probably sucks, and so does teh "University of Minnesota" and anyone who goes there.
Thanx gents
Frank D, I'm a geographer of sorts (MA of Interdisciplinary Studies, Geography and Art History) and I found myself working in these scales! Right now, I my project is "mapping" 5.5 day old mouse embryos. I'm developing a coordinate system to create regions in the embryo and so be able to discuss cell migration. The tough part is these little guys explode over the day, where my 5.5 day embryo is 200 or so cells bilaterally, my 5.75 day embryo is 700 cells! (We work with one half as that's what we can image) And as you point out, when I discuss scale with the dev bio's, it just doesn't sink in until the third go around.
Now if I can just work out the projection problem, I'll have a nice paper by February.
Sesame Street or the Electric Co. children show had a cool segue segment they'd always play called 'That's about the size' and it was a cartoon drawing taking you from the size of galaxies to atomic structures and did show molecule proteins floating inside of the cell they went into.
It all depends on parents teachers and instructors using the available materials and looking for it. Too bad you missed out in youth and felt short changed but then I just went to the library to research further to answer my question. Does it take being force fed correct knowledge otherwise blame others for your lack of enlightenment?
Don't answer, the state of the world today, says yes it does.