ADVANCE

Well interesting, but as you said not definitely the answer to what definitely happens...

Just want to know because just want to~ lol Like if somebody lived in a room and then never went in there again, and there's no light except the ceiling light, and its a normal house with normal temperature how long untill all (cells/and other things) are not what they were at all?, unless maybe they stay as is...anybody know? If they stay as is or ~deflate kinda~ or totally fly away as all molocules & atoms and over how long does it take for most or all to?

Just cause.... I still don't knoww thoough..............

But will there be bacteria getting at all of them, is it likely there will be a good amount of them still in shape for weeks or years in a normal temperature household? Like if they are on a soup can in the food cupboard, or anywhere, Anybody know if they will be so degraded to atoms and molocules and crumble, or maybe they stay as is and only puss out some stuff, or maybe they stay just about the same as is...?

I mean when human cells, including other built things besides cells fall off onto the floor or in a corner or on a table do they stay as is for like weeks/years? Or the no thing I said above ect ect..... How they get degraded~ I couldn't find anything on the internet, so asking here...

I meant john-Did you come up with the uncertainty principal -is partely the reason- meaning not you made it...or get it from my sentance-in my other thread lol?? I said it myself but didn't take that as a reason because it doesn't stand by itself, but with the new as I notified just above it makes more sense I guess.......... And again just to put it here on the 4th page...Any other way though we can achieve the plan, because building a god send nanobot which will then duplicate to ~infintety~ correct? -Is not only far off maybe, but more limited on amazing things....because if we can build something that rather uses levitation to move an atom, the evolution of it would be so fast and it would do great things, for ex. unlike a nanobot (at least I don't think nanobots could do it) they could levitate air away, and open up apart every atom of a cell and record, & every cell of organs, and record, and can instantly build them and add them on to us and could also manipulate them on computer to be eternal, and create those....so if we can find a thing to then duplicate that uses levitation means to move an atom..........that would be very excellent... So any ideas? Any way of using gravitons, electrons, photons, from something built atomic orrr not...? hypervalent_iodine why did you just give me a warning point on this thread for spamming???? This reply above is to just re-paste it with some changes, and to still put at the end what else can we try~ and that finday a way of levitating an atom would be superior to using atoms to move an atom for as stated above why. Just to put here, for newcomers or refrance, the whole fast-paced plan which stands on this one problem of levitating an atom is said by me here link removed - stop doing this

After cells and other built things fall off a human in a non-dangorus area, do they stay as is? Or does every atom or molocule fly off or move/crumble apart and fly off, if so then how long does that take? And are all cells and other built things do your answer or are there some that stay as is longer? If so how much longer?

Just writing to say I edited my last reply and now read it~ Nooo I know that lol, I meant did you hear about it from my sentance though, and that it could be partely the answer to this not working, but only put it together cause I said it...?

Did you come up with the uncertainty principal or get it from my sentance lol?? I said it myself but didn't take that as a reason because it doesn't stand by itself, but with the new as I notified just above it makes more sense I guess..........any other way though we can achieve the plan, because building a god send nanobot which will then duplicate to ~infintety~ correct? -Is not only far off maybe, but more limited on amazing things....because if we can build something that rather uses levitation to move an atom, the evolution of it would be so fast and it would do great things, for ex. unlike a nano bot (maybe) they could levitate air away, and open up every atom of a cell and record, & every cell of organs, and record, and can instantly build them and add them on to us and could also manipulate them on computer to be eternal, and create those....so if we can find a thing to then duplicate that uses levitation means to move an atom.......... So any ideas? Any way of using gravitons, electrons, photons, from something built atomic orrr not...??

Oh so the photons we would even be interested in then would be the small width ones - gamma ray, xray, at that end...and I thought by small we were talking about small with no energy, radio waves, oops lol. Rather small photons has the most energy, and are on the gamma ray side. So even if perfectly a single xray/gamma ray photon hit the atom and electron/s flew off, wouldn't the atom go moving in one direction in vacuum though? This still has potential... Swansont have you read this, the first post, just wondering? Link removed Besides it still having potential, as basically a question, 2cd question is any ideas how we can make the blueprints in the link work?

Anything I said about that was either a wire loop, up & then down and the photon-shooting area is at top, and atoms surrounding -that- with a hole at the top...with my one question I asked I meant would some of the defraction maybe come from as the photons bounce upward in the surrounding tube their energy might go into the atoms and come out near at the top and cause disturbance to the, percision. Also wait if we are talking about the lowest energy radio waves with a low frequency and high wavelength, and if you look at my question below to john's reply that was my last reply above, I'm asking what now strange stuff could even smaller radio wave photons do to an atom....but don't they have the lowest energy? Or is the strange stuff simply because they are heading really straight / condensed at the atom more? -----ya......and I did say sorry for asking once again, and asked so because it seemed like that in the writting... Now when you say the even smaller photons would knock it out of place...what out of place the atom or its electron? Andd also, as a side question, when you look for ex. at gamma ray and radio waves, both opposite, if you drew their height~their width in a 2 sided tunnel on the tabble, are they the (same) in there........... or does the one of them go really uppp high & down lowww....and other one goes more condensed straight? Actually I remember someone saying the smallest photon, radio I'm assuming, has, a smaller up-down width size, right? or are all photon types the same?

ya......and I did say sorry for asking once again, and asked so because it seemed like that in the writting... Now when you say the even smaller photons would knock it out of place...what out of place the atom or its electron?

I know what I said was possibly confusing so to make my other questions simpler I mean: What I mean in this...see below-------Just a question though, when John said: "purposely ignoring about trying to shoot out just a 1-width line of photons?" We are intentionally ignoring something which can not exist, other than to tell you it's impossible (because of the laws of diffraction) because it can't exist. Are you saying you's arrre saying that even if tried to be focused the photons would shoot out like a wide spray-defraction...and that a single photon way smaller than an atom is there? Sorry to ask again but it just sounds like that when I read that. -------Is see at the end there I'm asking because if your saying its defracting out then are you saying there is in the defraction smaller than an atom photons? And my last question above there was this if you missed it. Are you saying the top atoms at the top may even release photons from absorbing some energy from the ones coming up the tube? Like I mean your not saying that......but also maybe saying-including that partely to the defraction...

Are you saying the top atoms at the top may even release photons from absorbing some energy from the ones coming up the tube? Like I mean your not saying that......but also maybe saying-including that partely to the defraction...

To your sentance- "If you were somehow able to generate the light from a one-atom wide source, it would not propagate in such a narrowly-defined beam. It would diffract. A lot." But I, as I always meant for it, to be surrounded and focused though........maybe even a half sphere capsule above it with a hole at the top and any photons that arn't really going out straight get attracted or something to the sides and tunneled away through atoms? Or a long high tube also with something like that...like I assume it should be possible to have a lengthy contraption to have a line of focused photons coming out. But more importantly about the size of the photon, the smallest one, you didn't answer to this below swansont could you? ***Also 2cdly want ask too though that if we did get a smaller photon as someone said you can-go-smaller what things bad would it do to shooting at an atom and not fond of the things, what? Just a question though, when John said: "purposely ignoring about trying to shoot out just a 1-width line of photons?" We are intentionally ignoring something which can not exist, other than to tell you it's impossible (because of the laws of diffraction) because it can't exist. Are you saying you's arrre saying that even if tried to be focused the photons would shoot out like a wide spray-defraction...and that a single photon way smaller than an atom is there? Sorry to ask again but it just sounds like that when I read that.

Lol you's are saying above there that if we did have septillions of photon shooters it would over heat / explode / or at least from them all bouncing back and the energy being absorbed everywhere~ Just a question though, when John said: "purposely ignoring about trying to shoot out just a 1-width line of photons?" We are intentionally ignoring something which can not exist, other than to tell you it's impossible (because of the laws of diffraction) because it can't exist. Are you saying you's arrre saying that even if tried to be focused the photons would shoot out like a wide spray-defraction...and that a single photon way smaller than an atom is there? Sorry to ask again but it just sounds like that when I read that.

1. Can there be created a photon that has a even smaller wavelength(or straight) than the smallest or is there a stop at the smallness side? Also wrote this but it goes here~Totally lost in the last part of the qouted above...it sounds as if your saying besides the smallest wavelength photon, you could shoot out smaller photons if a atomic thing really small where able to shoot the photons out...are you / is that true? 2. If the smallest wavelength photons where shot out from only one laser, or if undefracted - make up, could it keep the atom in the beam and move around the beam to move the atom? Oh wait you answered this right...but, oh wait you said it would jiggle around right? .....Or no it would move it around?, or no it would move it around if undefracted? 3. Are you saying though yes the smallest photon, because of its properties, totally like acts bigger than a atom and is 5 times bigger than an atom or at least 2-3 times bigger?

Umm...because moderators on forums are strict and want you to only talk about the topic that was in the opening entry...then when you say "The wavelength of a photon, which is the size of merit for this discussion, is generally much larger than an atom." Are you saying (because this threads starts with biiigg optical tweezers) are you, and others, saying your only talking about the packets of photons from the big thing and purposely ignoring about trying to shoot out just a 1-width line of photons? I'm really just wondering...cause I'm sure...a single photon is smaller than an atom, and never ever heard of them being bigger other than many-of-them together.....Or are, you saying the smallest photon isss bigger than an atom because it acts and goes static-y and up and down and stuff? Oh I didn't know you were that really involved / knowledgeable in physics ok then

bbbuttt with this we would be in our made heaven in space and live forever as gods soon as you see exxactly why here and in that link.....and we don't know for sure it couldn't work...

....still wanna try making some atomic thing though....don't ya still wanna try? Have the world try? ----If it works...then walla, everything I said in this link below - in my first post at the top, will work... http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/82703-could-this-be-madework/

I saiddd, maybe the photons could act wavy and wont do so annd the physics of the universe might be like that and we have to create then something that uses atoms to move atoms, like nanobots, or to save us at least "consciousness transfer" to something.... And again we don't know, it should be tested....the waves may move the atom with percion-4 of them maybe and it could work............maybe they are small balls, your link went to nothing, and the internet says they just are small and come out of the electron...so most likely they are small and it could work, we do not, know... Like admit it..........you don't know for sure right?

****Incase anyone doesn't notice I edited my reply so here**** All over the internet is that photons are, smaller than an atom obviously, and they come out of a electron which is smaller than a whole atom. And it doesn't matter, nobody knows if we could build a atomic thing that could shoot out photons focused and percisely move the atom with the required other stuff---camera ect. ....and then it would multiply and the last technology is created...were done...if this works......have anyone here been under a microscope / or a capable one and tried huh, no, so we have to try in reality... If you read this thread and my other one then I linked above...you can see anything I'v said that could proove it couldn't work maybe, maybe....like over heating...bounce back photons...exploding.....or also as I said maybe uncertainty of the particles maybe which could go along with or not another problem which is maybe particles they way they work may just be like that wave stuff and wont do so...but we don't know for sure, a test would be highly neccesary....which most problems though could be solved, maybe...

All over the internet is that photons are, smaller than an atom obviously, and they come out of a electron which is smaller than a whole atom. And it doesn't matter, nobody knows if we could build a atomic thing that could shoot out photons focused and percisely move the atom with the required other stuff---camera ect. ....and then it would multiply and the last technology is created...were done...if this works......have anyone here been under a microscope / or a capable one and tried huh, no, so we have to try in reality... If you read this thread and my other one then I linked above...you can see anything I'v said that could proove it couldn't work maybe, maybe....like over heating...bounce back photons...exploding.....or also as I said maybe uncertainty of the particles maybe which could go along with or not another problem which is maybe particles they way they work may just be like that wave stuff and wont do so...but we don't know for sure, a test would be highly neccesary....which most problems though could be solved, maybe...

OMG that's many photons together, a single photon is much smaller than an atom.

But since a photon is smaller than a atom then ----your talking about many photons shot at the atom above there----.....I'm talking about a line of photons that are just a single photon width, even 2 or 3 or 6~ so not to be rude but...then, I don't know why you even just wrote that then............