5 ms·

So 90,000 times smaller. At first glance you made it look 90x smaller because I couldn't tell if "mcg" was a typo for "mg" or not (without clicking the link). I

by feoren 3y ago

So 90,000 times smaller. At first glance you made it look 90x smaller because I couldn't tell if "mcg" was a typo for "mg" or not (without clicking the link). I've never seen anyone use "mcg" to mean "microgram" before and I feel like it's misleading. Use "ug", or "μg" if you're feeling fancy.

twic 3y ago
Use of "mcg" for micrograms is common practice in medicine. I always assumed it was because it's easier to type than μg, but it seems a medical body recommends it because μg is too easily mistaken for mg: https://www.ismp.org/sites/default/files/attachments/2017-11/Error%20Prone%20Abbreviations%202015.pdf https://www.ismp.org/sites/default/files/attachments/2017-11...
- marcosdumay 3y ago
  > μg is too easily mistaken for mg Is that some joke about medical writing? Anyway, I just noticed that table doesn't have rules for nanogram. There is also no mega-anything. (On a serious parenthesis, I think I actually understand their rationale; but changing the abbreviation of only one of them is still confusing.)
  - tlb 3y ago
    Before Unicode, 'μ' was typically entered as an 'm' in a Greek font. This can go wrong in several ways, like if you converted the document to plain text, or if your laser printer didn't have the font and it substituted a regular font, you're suddenly off by a factor of 1000. 'mc' is ugly but safe.
    - marcosdumay 3y ago
      Interesting. There's that too. I assumed it was because of the phonetic similarity.
    - danbruc 3y ago
      What time period, system and region are we talking about? For some characters using a specific font was certainly necessary but for µ? It is in the original IBM PC character set from 1981 and could easily be put into plain text files. I would guess that most extended ASCII character sets contain it but I don't know for sure. Every [German] keyboard I ever used had it on the M key.
      - tlb 3y ago
        I remember having to get a µ that way using FrameMaker on SunOS 4 in the mid-90s. Mac had a µ from the beginning. And some PC code pages did. But PCs in Canada (where I'm from) used code page 850, which had an Á (for French) where µ would be. Just the sort of thing that would hose you if you tried printing a Mac document on a school printer. Here's a howto article that suggests using an 'm' in the Symbol font in Word: https://www.officetooltips.com/word_2016/tips/how_to_insert_micro_sign_or_mu_symbol_in_word.html https://www.officetooltips.com/word_2016/tips/how_to_insert_...
eterevsky 3y ago
Yes, I meant micrograms. 90'000 times sounds a lot, but just a few decades ago the biggest objects in superposition were individual particles and atoms, and the crystal from the new study is 10^16 times bigger than that.
jojobas 3y ago
That's not it. The mass difference of entangled states should be over the 90mg, suggesting much, MUCH heavier entangled object.

by feoren 3y ago

twic 3y ago

Use of "mcg" for micrograms is common practice in medicine. I always assumed it was because it's easier to type than μg, but it seems a medical body recommends it because μg is too easily mistaken for mg: https://www.ismp.org/sites/default/files/attachments/2017-11/Error%20Prone%20Abbreviations%202015.pdf https://www.ismp.org/sites/default/files/attachments/2017-11...

marcosdumay 3y ago
> μg is too easily mistaken for mg Is that some joke about medical writing? Anyway, I just noticed that table doesn't have rules for nanogram. There is also no mega-anything. (On a serious parenthesis, I think I actually understand their rationale; but changing the abbreviation of only one of them is still confusing.)
- tlb 3y ago
  Before Unicode, 'μ' was typically entered as an 'm' in a Greek font. This can go wrong in several ways, like if you converted the document to plain text, or if your laser printer didn't have the font and it substituted a regular font, you're suddenly off by a factor of 1000. 'mc' is ugly but safe.
  - marcosdumay 3y ago
    Interesting. There's that too. I assumed it was because of the phonetic similarity.
  - danbruc 3y ago
    What time period, system and region are we talking about? For some characters using a specific font was certainly necessary but for µ? It is in the original IBM PC character set from 1981 and could easily be put into plain text files. I would guess that most extended ASCII character sets contain it but I don't know for sure. Every [German] keyboard I ever used had it on the M key.
    - tlb 3y ago
      I remember having to get a µ that way using FrameMaker on SunOS 4 in the mid-90s. Mac had a µ from the beginning. And some PC code pages did. But PCs in Canada (where I'm from) used code page 850, which had an Á (for French) where µ would be. Just the sort of thing that would hose you if you tried printing a Mac document on a school printer. Here's a howto article that suggests using an 'm' in the Symbol font in Word: https://www.officetooltips.com/word_2016/tips/how_to_insert_micro_sign_or_mu_symbol_in_word.html https://www.officetooltips.com/word_2016/tips/how_to_insert_...

eterevsky 3y ago

Yes, I meant micrograms. 90'000 times sounds a lot, but just a few decades ago the biggest objects in superposition were individual particles and atoms, and the crystal from the new study is 10^16 times bigger than that.

jojobas 3y ago

That's not it. The mass difference of entangled states should be over the 90mg, suggesting much, MUCH heavier entangled object.