what is the shortest possible measurement between two objects that aren't touching?
370151
I submit two replies, the correct answer depends on the quesion, which I may not have properly understood.\n \n(1) If you mean the measurable distance, then it is sub-atomic particle units of measurememnts.\n\n(2) If you mean the measure between any two points,  well that depends on how far they are from each other, this would be a straight line,  assuming of course (1) they are in the same dimension, lets assume that they are in our universe which has three known spatial dimensions and a fourth dimension - time (2)that there is no other plane in between them and they can be contained in a common plane at the same instant in time. (3) the space between them is not warped. All the above conditions are necessarily to be met for the second reply.
760560
...a question that ha plagued manking for centuries, this is the quantum view of the problem.\nsay we are dealing with a hypothetical piece of string, we want to know it's length but we have no means of measuring it because it is hypothetical, therefore we can not even see it. In quantun physics, this string would be described as being in a superposiion of states. This 'superposition of states' basically means that the string must be all possible lengths all the way from 0 up to infinite. The superposition of states applies to the string right up until it is measured, at which point the string 'decides' what length it is. But as i said this string is hypothetical. So, how long is a piece of string?: all possible lengths in the universe!
408251
Measure the diameter and multiply by pi (3.1415)
777467
A very basic way of doing this is by holding your outstretched hand at arms length in front of you - hiding the object to be measured (move your hand the appropriate number of times to cover the object). Each hand movement should cover approximately 10°. Then there is 57.3° to a radian. From there is is a simple deduction.
409033
a vernier caliper should do the trick.  it can measure the inner and outer diameter
720092
While the answers above are correct, I will go a bit further.\n\nEstes rockets sells a nice tool for just this very job that will make your measurement fairly easy and accurate. It is called AltiTrak (TM).\n\nhttp://www.estesrockets.com/cgi-bin/products.cgi?view,296
433102
Since the piece of string is not necessarily straight, it is insufficient to simply measure the distance from one end to the other.  Furthermore, the length of the string depends on the observer - if the string were moving at relativistic speeds (that is v/c is not << 1) compared to the observer, the string would not be nearly as long as an observer that moved with the string.  To measure the proper length of the piece of string, consider an observer that moves with the piece of string and that the entire string itself moves at a constant speed (since if part of the string were spinning very quickly and another were motionless, the observer on the motionless piece would observe the spinning piece to have length contraction as above).\n\nSide note:  My girlfriend is telling me that she wants to kick me in the face for responding like this.. hope you enjoy! (:\n\nAnyhow, the appropriate way to find the length of the string is to move as an observer sitting on the string and integrating over the path at an instant in time.  This will give you the proper length of the string which is the longest possible measurable length for the string.  Any other measurement would find a value that is smaller than this and would vary depending on the speed of the observer compared to the string as well as any relativistic gravitational effects.
122089
close one eye and stare at a single point. then using a protractor or something move a yardstick with a red dot sticking out of the end up or down to a point where you cant see it, mabby we dont have one
224679
No, because you can always make something smaller. Although lengths shorter that the Planck length (1.62e-35 meters) don't make physical sense.
752656
The size of an object you can resolve with an optical system has a theoretical limit given by the wavelenght of the light you're using divided by the diameter of the optics multiplied by 1.22. If you plug the numbers in you find for a 1 foot diameter optical system at visible light (~400 nm) at an altitude of 100km, the smallest thing you could see is on the order of a foot, give or take (rough calculation). You could definitely not read a postage stamp or a wrist watch. Maybe a license plate with some bigger optics, but this is ignoring all sorts of atmospheric scintillation which screws things up.
123925
the same way you figure small radius.  i'm not sure i see the dilemma. ???
939597
measure the distance between the beginning of the positive transition to the end of the negative transition.\nThis will be the wave length.
252742
I believe the bounds are where the numbers are deviated but still close. Say, in the problem, 11 cm is measured to the nearest centimeter. So, it may not be 11cm. It could be 10.6 cm, 11.3 cm, or even 10.51294803 cm. But they'll all be 11cm in the measurement. \n\nSo for the question, if it's asking for the minimum possible area:\nLet l be length and w be breadth. \n10.5 <= l < 11.5\n8.5 <= w < 9.5\nThe lower bound would be composed of the shortest length and breadth. \nA = 10.5(8.5) = 89.25 cm^2
183956
Half the diameter, or circumference divided by 2.pi
739157
Direct measurement will be correct.\nPeople can be mistaken, or lie.\n\n;-D Where did you not learn to spell? Wow.
234828
A tool to measure diameter of a round object.
75525
a) 72.072 cm/sec^2\n\nb) 82.63 cm/sec^2