> Everything can be weighed, everything can be dunked in water to test its volume, so why should something not have a "volume"?
But it seems pretty obvious to me that you can't measure the volume of something (accurately) if it has features smaller than a water molecule.
Don't know about an equivalent example for weighing things.
But it stands to reason that, whatever you (think you) want to measure shouldn't have meaningful features smaller than the accuracy of the thing you're measuring with.
That's why we made electron microscopes, because photons were too big.
But it seems pretty obvious to me that you can't measure the volume of something (accurately) if it has features smaller than a water molecule.
Don't know about an equivalent example for weighing things.
But it stands to reason that, whatever you (think you) want to measure shouldn't have meaningful features smaller than the accuracy of the thing you're measuring with.
That's why we made electron microscopes, because photons were too big.