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

[John Cuthber]

You have edited it.

it is still wrong.

perhaps, rather than editing it again, you might like to answer the questions and points I raised.

[Orodruin]

and they come out of a electron which is smaller than a whole atom.

 

No, this is not how quantum mechanics work. The electron is not full of photons that it can emit, it is interacting in a well defined way with the electromagnetic field, thereby creating excitations in it. This is very much alike how a rock thrown into a pond can create ripples on the surface without having ripples inside of it. Also, the size of the ripples may very well be larger than the size of the rock.

[ADVANCE]

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?

Edited May 4, 2014 by ADVANCE

[Orodruin]

We know that what you are suggesting is impossible in the very well tested theory of how light behaves. This theory has been tested and found to properly describe observations to an extremely high degree.

[ADVANCE]

We know that what you are suggesting is impossible in the very well tested theory of how light behaves. This theory has been tested and found to properly describe observations to an extremely high degree.

....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/

[Orodruin]

If someone came up to you and told you they had invented a device, no larger than a pen, which could be used to create black holes. Would you believe them? Would you undertake serious experimentation to find out whether or not they were correct?

[ADVANCE]

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...

Edited May 4, 2014 by ADVANCE

[swansont]

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

 

The wavelength of a photon, which is the size of merit for this discussion, is generally much larger than an atom.

 

As I stated before, if you are in the regime where the wavelength is that small, you will simply ionize the atom.

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?

 

I'm an atomic physicist. IOW, I work in this field; I trap atoms with lasers. Maybe consider that when you read my posts and I tell you that what you propose is not going to work. Take some physics classes, and you will eventually learn the details of this, but there's only so many times people are going to patiently tell you that no, this is wrong, before they ignore you.

[ADVANCE]

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

Edited May 5, 2014 by ADVANCE

[swansont]

A photon has a wavelength. In general terms, you can't use the light to localize anything smaller than about the size of the wavelength — you won;t know where the atom is inside of that size. Even for a "1 width line of photons" which can't really exist because such a source would diffract — the smaller an aperture, the more diffraction you get.

[ADVANCE]

A photon has a wavelength. In general terms, you can't use the light to localize anything smaller than about the size of the wavelength — you won;t know where the atom is inside of that size. Even for a "1 width line of photons" which can't really exist because such a source would diffract — the smaller an aperture, the more diffraction you get.

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?

Edited May 5, 2014 by ADVANCE

[Orodruin]

1. There is no smallest wavelength for photons. However, the wavelength is inversely proportional to the energy of the photon. While a photon with a wavelength of 600 nm has an energy of around 2 eV (the typical scale of binding energies of electrons to atoms). As has already been mentioned, a photon with a wavelength of a Bohr radius (ca 0.5 Å or 0.05 nm) would have an energy of ca 23 keV, large enough to ionize any atom.

This question is essentially of the form "If I could violate the laws of physics, what would the laws of physics be like?"

See 1, there is no smallest photon, but photons with shorter wavelengths would do things to your atoms you would not be particularly fond of.

[John Cuthber]

 

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?

Oh I didn't know you were that really involved / knowledgeable in physics ok then

 

"are you, and others, saying your only talking about the packets of photons"

No. Individual photons are bigger than atoms (in any sense in which you can define the size of a photon).

 

"...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.

Incidentally, I'm a spectroscopist.

That means my job is to understand the interaction between photons and atoms.

 

As far as I can tell, you are a school kid, which means your job is to learn.

[swansont]

 

1. There is no smallest wavelength for photons. However, the wavelength is inversely proportional to the energy of the photon. While a photon with a wavelength of 600 nm has an energy of around 2 eV (the typical scale of binding energies of electrons to atoms). As has already been mentioned, a photon with a wavelength of a Bohr radius (ca 0.5 Å or 0.05 nm) would have an energy of ca 23 keV, large enough to ionize any atom.

 

And the typical ionization energy of atoms and molecules is typically several eV. So 23 keV is more than a thousand times the ionization energy.

[John Cuthber]

 

And the typical ionization energy of atoms and molecules is typically several eV. So 23 keV is more than a thousand times the ionization energy.

And that energy corresponds to a temperature of hundreds of millions of degrees.

So you would heat the material instantly to a zillion times its boiling point.

Not good for trying to build structures.

[swansont]

And that energy corresponds to a temperature of hundreds of millions of degrees.

So you would heat the material instantly to a zillion times its boiling point.

Not good for trying to build structures.

 

Right. If we had a stream of these photons, we'd be making a plasma out of any solids (or gases or liquids) that got in the way.

[John Cuthber]

There's also the issue of the momentum they carry, it would be like trying to build a detailed model from clay by shooting artillery rockets at it.

[ADVANCE]

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.

[swansont]

 

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.

 

Such a gain medium seems impossible, since there is nothing to make the photons propagate in the direction you want; you need confinement, and that needs to be of order the wavelength at a minimum.

 

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.

 

This isn't about photon size as much as the impossibility of all that you want from the system. Light doesn't behave this way.

[ADVANCE]

 

Such a gain medium seems impossible, since there is nothing to make the photons propagate in the direction you want; you need confinement, and that needs to be of order the wavelength at a minimum.

 

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.

 

This isn't about photon size as much as the impossibility of all that you want from the system. Light doesn't behave this way.

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.

Edited May 5, 2014 by ADVANCE

[swansont]

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.

 

 

You can't confine something if you "shoot it out". The confinement is limited to something of order the wavelength in that medium. There will be diffraction when it leaves. You can't focus light to arbitrarily small spots.

[ADVANCE]

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...

Edited May 5, 2014 by ADVANCE

[John Cuthber]

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~

 

No we are not.

We are saying (because it's true) that a single photon of that energy would ionise that atom (possibly, multiply ionise it) and would knock it out of place.

 

And you really need to look up how diffraction works.

Edited May 5, 2014 by John Cuthber

[ADVANCE]

 

 

You can't confine something if you "shoot it out". The confinement is limited to something of order the wavelength in that medium. There will be diffraction when it leaves. You can't focus light to arbitrarily small spots.

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...

Edited May 5, 2014 by ADVANCE

[John Cuthber]

Will you stop saying "a single photon way smaller than an atom"?

Any photons you are going to use are a lot bigger than an atom.

There are "smaller" photons, but they carry so much energy they would ionise the atoma and they carry so much momentum they would knock it out of place.

 

Do you understand that?

 

Also, if (though it's impossible, I will ignore that for the minute) you managed to make a hole just one atom wide through something, perhaps a metal foil, and you shone light through it, you would not get a beam of light one atom wide coming out of the other side.

 

Do you understand that?

Each photon would reach the end of the tunnel and shoot off in some pretty much random direction by diffraction. The beam would not be thin and parallel. It would be essentially a "point source".

 

Do you understand that?