Can optical tweezers move a atom and could a optical tweezers be made as small as a cell or smaller?

[ADVANCE]

Can optical tweezers move a atom and could a optical tweezers be made as small as a cell or smaller?

 

And if the optical tweezers can move a atom can it like move one by one to put them together?

 

Because then this would achieve the "build one and it builds more and they multiply objective, and they all can move atoms to make anything, and if they use magnetic power it would look like smoke coming together, and could move anything around too)

[swansont]

Optical tweezers can certainly move atoms; it can move larger things. It doesn't have the resolution to move them one by one, though.

[ADVANCE]

I don't understand though exactly what you said, can they move an (single atom) around with control though to move it from one spot in space in vacuum to another spot? ex. like in vacuum from one corner of a room at floor to other diaganal corner at the ceiling, can an optical tweezer do that and no?.........................And actually I should also ask can an optical tweezer... or any possible-to-build-version-technique of it and its ways of working/principals be built that could move a single atom with control and do so and have the resolution to do so?

[swansont]

No, they could not select a single atom to move around. Typically it has been used to manipulate dielectrics that are micron-sized, or perhaps a bit smaller.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Optical_tweezers

 

The dipole force can also confine atoms, but would be exerted on all of the atoms in the laser field. The resolution of where the atoms go is the smallest region of the beam (the "waist") which is much larger than the size of an atom. As I said, the resolution just isn't there.

[ADVANCE]

Thanks that makes sense about that........and je...that goes right back to /my/ idea about making the beam of photons small enough to move a single atom around then.... I guess any further replies on this should go to my other thread on this...on we go to that thread/\/\/ and here's the link to the thread for simplicity. http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/82703-could-this-be-madework/

Edited May 3, 2014 by ADVANCE

[swansont]

that goes right back to /my/ idea about making the beam of photons small enough to move a single atom around then

 

Which you can't do; any light with a small enough wavelength will ionize the atom.

[ADVANCE]

Wait I wrote this but just noticed - inonize the atom and....move it though or why not??? All below I wrote is on hold really...then...

 

Are you saying though a small enough beam that's like a cone though or a straight line of photons?

 

And what if any different wavelength is tried-all the different photons, and some, or one of them work moving the atom?

 

And 3rdly isn't it the same principal that if a frog can be levitated, and many atoms can be, that in those two cases each atom or every other one is each being moved itself making up required force, and that we can do it to a single atom?

[swansont]

Wait I wrote this but just noticed - inonize the atom and....move it though or why not??? All below I wrote is on hold really...then...

 

Are you saying though a small enough beam that's like a cone though or a straight line of photons?

 

And what if any different wavelength is tried-all the different photons, and some, or one of them work moving the atom?

 

And 3rdly isn't it the same principal that if a frog can be levitated, and many atoms can be, that in those two cases each atom or every other one is each being moved itself making up required force, and that we can do it to a single atom?

 

There's a limit to how small you can focus light, and it depends on the wavelength. The light used for anything relating to radiation pressure is some reasonable fraction of a micron. So you won't be able to manipulate them any more precisely than that.

 

Frog levitation is from diamagnetism.

[ADVANCE]

Basing on that I think your saying can't focus light that small & some wavelength might be limited.......I'd imagine though it should be possible to make an atomic wire loop and at the end and such have a thing around it that can contract over it, orr sommething, and it would shoot out a line of photons, of different type depending on what atom is used for the electrons to pass through right?

 

And well really it probably is possible to have a single line of photons somewhere around the size of an atom shoot out, and as physics say the photons would move the atom...how do you know we couldn't?..... Do you really not definitly know though really for sure? And that sessions under a capable uhv afm could work pos-si-bly in building the first one?

 

To sum that up I mean isn't it possible to have a line of photons, of whatever wavelength it is that we would need that would be the best one, and it would move the atom? Or 4 lines/beams would move the atom? Again do you not know if it could work? Maybe it could?

[swansont]

Basing on that I think your saying can't focus light that small & some wavelength might be limited.......I'd imagine though it should be possible to make an atomic wire loop and at the end and such have a thing around it that can contract over it, orr sommething, and it would shoot out a line of photons, of different type depending on what atom is used for the electrons to pass through right?

 

And well really it probably is possible to have a single line of photons somewhere around the size of an atom shoot out, and as physics say the photons would move the atom...how do you know we couldn't?..... Do you really not definitly know though really for sure? And that sessions under a capable uhv afm could work pos-si-bly in building the first one?

 

To sum that up I mean isn't it possible to have a line of photons, of whatever wavelength it is that we would need that would be the best one, and it would move the atom? Or 4 lines/beams would move the atom? Again do you not know if it could work? Maybe it could?

 

Can you have a line of photons? Yes. It's called a laser. One atom thick? No. You can only confine photons down to a size around a wavelength (single-mode optical fiber) and when they leave the material they diffract — spread out.

 

Can photons manipulate atoms? Yes. The dipole force as from optical tweezers or radiation pressure from scattering. Can these manipulate a single atoms? Only if there is one atom around (hard to do). Can you put the atom wherever you want, down to atom-level precision? No, the resolution of the light good enough, and the atoms will always jiggle around as the result of interaction. This answer isn't going to change as the result of asking it again.

[John Cuthber]

Advance,

You seem to be missing the point about resolution here.

If I asked you to put a nail in a piece of wood, exactly ten centimetres from the top and ten centimetres from the left hand edge, you could probably get the pin in the right place to within a mm or so.

But you couldn't do much better than that for two reasons.

 

You can only see things about a tenth of a mm or so across so if you were using a ruler calibrated to , for example, 0.01mm. you wouldn't be able to see the lines on it. You could get round that problem using a magnifying glass.

 

More importantly, the nail is bigger than 1 mm and so you can't really define it's position to within 1 mm.

 

The optical tweezers are simply "too big" for the resolution you want.

 

And, as Swansont has pointed out, asking the question again won't get a different answer.

Edited May 4, 2014 by John Cuthber

[ADVANCE]

Wait, to both of you, as you said John Cuthber optical tweezers are too big, wait wait wait, everyone here is talking though answering to if we made an atomic thing could it then be possible to have it shoot out the atomic-width line of photons-straight hopefully to try to move a da atom~... are we?.....

[John Cuthber]

No.

The photons are vastly bigger than the atoms (about 1000 fold).

It would be like trying to move grains of rice with a bulldozer.

(Actually, rather more difficult due to quantum effects which don't trouble rice grains or bulldozers)

[ADVANCE]

No, photons are way smaller than atoms that's not true. Not True! ...What are you DO IN, lying.........

 

And you know you didn't answer if were talking about using an optical tweezers, or what's really possibly if something was built at the atomic level to shoot out the photons..............alot of my questions don't get answers really though, by anyone...obviously when I ask 4 questions in a line by line or a paragraph together, I obviously am asking about each one....

[John Cuthber]

 

No, photons are way smaller than atoms that's not true. Not True! ...What are you DO IN, lying.........

 

And you know you didn't answer if were talking about using an optical tweezers, or what's really possibly if something was built at the atomic level to shoot out the photons..............alot of my questions don't get answers really though, by anyone...obviously when I ask 4 questions in a line by line or a paragraph together, I obviously am asking about each one....

LOL

Strictly speaking, the size of a photon is rather poorly defined.

Since we are talking about lasers and optical tweezers the wavelength of the photons is of the order of 500 nm

 

The radius of typical atom is about 130 pm

http://en.wikipedia....nts_(data_page)

Edited May 4, 2014 by John Cuthber

[ADVANCE]

Well obviously the photons shooting out will have to be around exactly the size of an atom or way smaller to even have maybe 4 beams hitting at the atom...(((so forget the optical tweezers then))), it has to be some atomic thing and shoot out a focused beam of the photons...were you both talking this whole time about the bigger clumsy thing or what is possible at the atomic scale?...I think you's were talking about the bigger clumsy thing... no no no we have to talk about it being atomic~ ......that being said swansont well then no wonder you were saying it wouldn't be that thin right? so it could be from something smaller/atomic, and as of yet still no real answer this couldn't work - as a note...

 

Um who's negativ ing this reply down? It'ss trruue we could have an atomic thing shoot out a line of photons as big or smaller than an atom anddd physics is that it would move the atom...you guys ar'nt explaining why that wont work or other things that prove not... or just don't know....then say it in your reply you don't definitely know... Remember for resource is this thread, along with this important one All about, it, below...

http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/82703-could-this-be-madework/

Edited May 4, 2014 by ADVANCE

[John Cuthber]

"Well obviously the photons shooting out will have to be around exactly the size of an atom or way smaller to"

That may be "obvious", but it's wrong.

 

If you are talking about visible light then, compared to an atom, it is huge and clumsy.

The fact that you don't seem to like this will not change reality.

 

"It'ss trruue we could have an atomic thing shoot out a line of photons as big or smaller than an atom"

Nope, it is not true, and I guess that's why someone felt it warranted negative rep.

 

".you guys ar'nt explaining why that wont work"

Yes we are.

The photons are too big.

It's like moving an ant about by putting it in a matchbox.

You can move the box with as much precision as you like, but you still can't specify the position of the ant better than saying "it's in that box somewhere".

[ADVANCE]

"Well obviously the photons shooting out will have to be around exactly the size of an atom or way smaller to"

That may be "obvious", but it's wrong.

 

If you are talking about visible light then, compared to an atom, it is huge and clumsy.

The fact that you don't seem to like this will not change reality.

 

"It'ss trruue we could have an atomic thing shoot out a line of photons as big or smaller than an atom"

Nope, it is not true, and I guess that's why someone felt it warranted negative rep.

 

".you guys ar'nt explaining why that wont work"

Yes we are.

The photons are too big.

It's like moving an ant about by putting it in a matchbox.

You can move the box with as much precision as you like, but you still can't specify the position of the ant better than saying "it's in that box somewhere".

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............

[John Cuthber]

But since a photon is smaller than a atom then ----

How many times do we need to tell you?

A photon is not smaller than an atom.

It's about a thousand times bigger.

[ADVANCE]

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

[John Cuthber]

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

No.

Why do you continue to ignore the widely available data.

The wavelength of visible light (which is as good a measure of the "size" of the photon as any other measure) covers the range from roughly 400 nm (violet) to about 700 nm (red).

The size of atoms (as I pointed out earlier) is about 150 pm

So that's about 3000 times smaller.

Stop ignoring reality.

[Orodruin]

Exactly how big do you think a photon is? A photon is not a little billiard ball and the best definition of its "size" is the size of the typical quantum mechanical wave packet - which may depend on both the emission and absorption processes.

 

As I said in another thread, elementary particles are not waves or small billiard balls - they are elementary particles and have some properties we typically would associate with billiard balls and some we would associate with waves. But they do not care about how you model them, they are what they are and all we can do is to try to model them as good as possible.

[ADVANCE]

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...

Edited May 4, 2014 by ADVANCE

[John Cuthber]

"All over the internet is that photons are, smaller than an atom"

http://xkcd.com/285/

 

They don't "come out of an electron"They come from moving an electron.

Do you understand that I can take a pen with a nib 1mm across and draw a wave with a wavelength of 10 cm?

Edited May 4, 2014 by John Cuthber

[ADVANCE]

****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...

Edited May 4, 2014 by ADVANCE