Please turn on javascript in your browser to play chess.
Science Forum

Science Forum

  1. Standard member sonhouse
    Fast and Curious
    20 Feb '15 16:36 / 1 edit
    http://phys.org/news/2015-02-atomic-resolution-holography-electron-microscope-world.html

    This is some serious res!

    How would you calculate the # of times of amplification at that res? Like we speak of a microscope with 1000 power magnification, what would the equivalent be for that beast?
  2. 22 Feb '15 17:32
    Originally posted by sonhouse
    http://phys.org/news/2015-02-atomic-resolution-holography-electron-microscope-world.html

    This is some serious res!

    How would you calculate the # of times of amplification at that res? Like we speak of a microscope with 1000 power magnification, what would the equivalent be for that beast?
    So are we talking sub-atomic particles here? Maybe even the strings themselves? I wish I had one in my basement.
  3. Standard member sonhouse
    Fast and Curious
    24 Feb '15 13:04
    Originally posted by woadman
    So are we talking sub-atomic particles here? Maybe even the strings themselves? I wish I had one in my basement.
    Getting down there for sure. 1 picometer=.01 angstroms. So 0.43 picometers =.0043 angstroms. Spectacular resolution for sure. It can show where atoms are very accurately.

    A typical distance between atoms is around 3 angstroms. So this kind of super res will probably make for the next round of scientific advancement.

    Not ready for strings however. That would be something like 40 orders of magnitude better yet.
  4. 24 Feb '15 13:44
    Originally posted by sonhouse
    Getting down there for sure. 1 picometer=.01 angstroms. So 0.43 picometers =.0043 angstroms. Spectacular resolution for sure. It can show where atoms are very accurately.

    A typical distance between atoms is around 3 angstroms. So this kind of super res will probably make for the next round of scientific advancement.

    Not ready for strings however. That would be something like 40 orders of magnitude better yet.
    What about quantum non-locality ? Once you make an observation, it throws everything off. Uhh, I might be mixing things up a bit, I mean where a positron is both a wave and a particle at the same time....
  5. Standard member sonhouse
    Fast and Curious
    24 Feb '15 16:05 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by woadman
    What about quantum non-locality ? Once you make an observation, it throws everything off. Uhh, I might be mixing things up a bit, I mean where a positron is both a wave and a particle at the same time....
    There is that, but I think you would run into problems only at a res probably a thousand times greater than this latest work.

    It would really be neat to have an instrument that could directly visualize that effect, like see the physical location judder about as you are looking at it.
  6. 24 Feb '15 16:05
    Originally posted by woadman
    So are we talking sub-atomic particles here? Maybe even the strings themselves? I wish I had one in my basement.
    It depends on what sub-atomic particles you are talking about. A typical atom nucleus has a radius on the order of about 1-10 femtometers or 0.001-0.01 picometers. The nucleus itself, of course, is composed of other, smaller particles.
  7. Standard member DeepThought
    Losing the Thread
    24 Feb '15 19:48
    Originally posted by woadman
    So are we talking sub-atomic particles here? Maybe even the strings themselves? I wish I had one in my basement.
    If string theory has anything to do with the real world then string effects won't be apparent for another 30 odd orders of magnitude.
  8. Standard member sonhouse
    Fast and Curious
    25 Feb '15 11:48
    Originally posted by DeepThought
    If string theory has anything to do with the real world then string effects won't be apparent for another 30 odd orders of magnitude.
    And it will take a lot more than slinging high energy electrons at strings hoping to get a bead on THEM!