- #1
- 2,575
- 10,491
In biology and optics, macroscopic and microscopic are distinguished by being large enough (or not) to be seen by the unaided eye (or almost), vs. requiring a microscope rather than just a hand lens (or macrolense).
Fairly small things (like paramecia) can be easily seen without a microscope, depending on the lighting and other aspects of the setting.
In physics (as I understand it) these terms are used to distinguish between the thermodynamically driven behavior of large populations of particles (like a population of gas molecules) vs. the detailed behavior of each individual particle (microscopic; very data intensive).
What are the considerations with respect to this thermodynamics view, on when an increasing number of particles (particle population size) result in it being more appropriate to consider them as a population of particles rather than a collection of several single particles, each with its own distinguishable behavior?
Not expecting a sharp cut-off.
Fairly small things (like paramecia) can be easily seen without a microscope, depending on the lighting and other aspects of the setting.
In physics (as I understand it) these terms are used to distinguish between the thermodynamically driven behavior of large populations of particles (like a population of gas molecules) vs. the detailed behavior of each individual particle (microscopic; very data intensive).
What are the considerations with respect to this thermodynamics view, on when an increasing number of particles (particle population size) result in it being more appropriate to consider them as a population of particles rather than a collection of several single particles, each with its own distinguishable behavior?
Not expecting a sharp cut-off.