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

[John Cuthber]

As I pointed out some time ago in this thread, it's my job to understand things like the interaction between light and atoms (and it has been for longer than you have been alive).

Are you seriously asking if I only heard about the uncertainty principle from you?

Here's a hint. You didn't use the phrase "uncertainty principle" until after I had used it.

 

 

As for "Im talking about a test where a single or couple of xray or gammaray photons where shot at it mostly at one-side of the single atom, either with the atom floating in vacuum or at the corner of a larger mass."

I can tell you what the outcome of that test is almost certainly going to be.

A single photon misses the atom; nothing else happens.

 

Now, do you think anyone ever went to the trouble of setting up that experiment?

 

If you fire a lot of gamma ray photons at a lot of atoms then you get the compton experiment.

 

The effects of firing photons at atoms in general is well documented. Practically every sort of combination of material and photon energy has been investigated.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X-ray_photoelectron_spectroscopy

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultraviolet_photoelectron_spectroscopy

 

 

Also, if you are going to write about English, spell it correctly.

Edited May 8, 2014 by John Cuthber

[ADVANCE]

But we have to have a test performed...a test where a single or couple of xray or gammaray photons where shot at it mostly at one-side of the single atom, either with the atom floating in vacuum or at the corner of a larger mass. (Unless there is references to such tests) If success we will get everything and become gods...

 

Also y haven't you answered the other 2 hey...just say nope other then your idea there no other way to levitate a atom with percision...or your idea if you have one....and what about the other 1st question, What's the smallest we can levitate with percision using photons?

Edited May 8, 2014 by ADVANCE

[John Cuthber]

"But we have to have a test performed...if success we will get everything and become gods..."

Let me know if you get funding.

 

Also, will you please sort out your grammar.

Stuff like "Also y haven't you answered the other 2 hey...just say nope other then your idea there no other way to levitate a atom with percision."

is difficult to read.

 

If you can't be bothered to write it properly, why should I bother to answer?

[ADVANCE]

It's just some short form.....

You seriously don't know of any such test being performed as I just said!?? Does anyone (have references)??? Oh nooo then we will never truely know...I'll end up at university doing it myself later...noooo

 

But seriously while your answers are nice to know the outcome of it not working, could you's answer my other two questions above what we could do/try else?

Edited May 8, 2014 by ADVANCE

[John Cuthber]

It's just some short form.....

No it isn't. It's ambiguous and that's about the worst thing scientific writing can be.

 

"You seriously don't know of any such test being performed as I just said!?"

I explained why it would be pointless.

"then we will never truely know"

We pretty much do know- that's why it's pointless.

[ADVANCE]

And the other 2 questions what about them?....

 

Where did you go??? Why are you refusing to answer the other 2 questions!

 

And stop being rude and mean, nobody likes that, didn't you read my statements below?

Edited May 8, 2014 by ADVANCE

[ADVANCE]

What's the smallest we can levitate with photons with precision? Would the smallest be something the size of a pencil eraser, or a cell, or maybe a object of 5,000 atoms? What's the smallest we can levitate with photons with precision?

Edited May 8, 2014 by ADVANCE

[swansont]

What level of precision?

[John Cuthber]

And the other 2 questions what about them?....

 

Where did you go??? Why are you refusing to answer the other 2 questions!

 

And stop being rude and mean, nobody likes that, didn't you read my statements below?

"Where did you go?"

Bed.

"Why are you refusing to answer the other 2 questions!"

Would you like to explain exactly what those two questions are?

"And stop being rude and mean"

You can't be bothered to write properly, and you expect me to give up my time to repeat answers that I have already given- even though I'm not getting paid for this or anything like that , then when I stop for a break, you say I'm rude.

Would you like to think that over?

And there are no "statements below" to read unless you mean

"Everyone is conscious and equal, besides our different bodies, memory and decisions, we are all identical consciousnesses.

If there is no god, we have to immediately find a way to make our consciousnesses in our brains stay going so we can live forever."

and they don't seem very relevant.

[ADVANCE]

Well I really don't know how any one could not agree with my signiature statements...they are convincing I'm sure, I can easily see everywhere everybody enjoys the same things alike ect. and that we're all a neutral identical conscious, in which there is many of us, but it's a horror to have a consciousness die, same as this I already wrote - And the living forever thing is a must...

 

Anyhow my other 2 questions were, also along with something to put to ask and say about if anybody does have reference/s or if none, these:

 

1. This question you already know & answered, but someone else may have reference/s maybe? - a test, which has to be done, or I'll do it lol, where a single or couple of xray or gammaray photons where shot at it mostly at one-side of the single atom, either with the atom floating in vacuum or at the corner of a larger mass. Any references anyone? This btw is something now that will be in the backpack of my mind to have yet to finish now..either by finding reference/s or doing it myself...

 

And here is those 2 other questions.

 

2. "But can we levitate bigger stuff with photons with percision? what's the smallest? a cell? maybe molecules luckily, you would hope at least...or pencil erasers? ------What's the smallest we can levitate with percision using photons?" I actually made a thread already for this question.........feel free to answer here or on that thread, maybe go to that thread...

3. "I meant in that big paragraph any other ways-((any ideas)) how to levitate an atom with percision ---- gravitons? electrons? any way with photons? neutrinos? leptons?"

Edited May 9, 2014 by ADVANCE

[ADVANCE]

What level of precision?

To be able to take anything of above the smallest size and down to the smallest size -fewest amount of atoms together as a mass possible, to be able to levitate them around and move and bond them together to make anything, Orr have every element in buckets as the smallest amount of atoms together and to be able to move those together and bond them to make anything.

 

In which wanting to make one of these, and have it succeed in the duplication process and have them all under control to make anything ect~

 

I was thinking how the bigger objects could be torn apart mostly-how desired, and how bonded together.....is that a problem? Even if we had the two levitators pushing them hard together to bond for ex.? Would the pellet levitating plan above solve this in which they could be pushed hard together and bond easily? Maybe if they were, 5 or 10 thousand atoms in size?...

Edited May 9, 2014 by ADVANCE

[Delta1212]

Assuming there's no after life (I think that is probably a safe assumption, but I will admit that it is an assumption), there is no living forever. Even if you somehow manage to find a way to transfer your mind into some other construct, build on top of your current brain, or rebuild new, healthy duplicates of yourself every time your body gets run down, you will eventually die. The sun is going to expand and wipe out life on Earth. Before that, there are about a million natural disasters that will probably kill you and destroy whatever technology you might use to bring yourself back, including at least a couple dinosaur killers.

 

And even if you somehow make it out of the solar system and avoid all of the million and one pitfalls that will probably kill you outside the bounds of our terrestrial home, the heat death of the universe means that there will eventually be no useable energy in the universe left to keep your brain (or whatever you are at that point) running. And there is absolutely nothing you can do about that.

 

So basically, we are all eventually going to die no matter what life-prolonging tricks we might come up with. There is no immortality.

[ADVANCE]

Na dude, lol, talking about just that now um the universe is probably so not gonna end so we better do, get our buts, I means brains staying going, -I mean the consciousness in there, and if so later we can have a technology such as in my threads I'm talking in to then get us out of here away and can prob then take stuff or planets and build planets-a new solar system built....we do soooo not know if the universe is gonna end, you can guess all this other stuff, and I would imagine the universe started, but DEF. we r so just gonna hope it stays going and the universe will just be...you don't even know if it's expanding, it could JUst be infinite...so stop saying it's gonna close and kill all...so lets continue with getting out of here, as in staying alive and being able to fly out into space and stay alive somewhere~

Edited May 10, 2014 by ADVANCE

[Mordred]

As far as I know this is the finest/affordable resolution obtainable, however it still depends on wavelength as swansont and others are describing, its an intriguing development. As far as I know not yet on market. the related nano equipment is also included. Love to get my hands on these to play around with, in particular the single photon LED (sends a stream) and the quantum dot detector, not to mention the particle entanglement diode. However this is still determined by wavelength. I mentioned them simply to point out some of the latest developments in nanotech applications (Keyword,quantum, as in all the rules mentioned on this thread apply)

 

http://www.toshiba-e...uantumdots.html

http://www.toshiba-e...ndetection.html

http://www.toshiba-e...generation.html

http://www.toshiba-e...otonsource.html

http://www.toshiba-e...tangledled.html

Edited May 9, 2014 by Mordred

[ADVANCE]

So then without them even using a UHV AFM or one that is capable of building in 3d they have a method of making a single photon shooter anddd detector? So then the test can be performed! That I described above. Because there are no actual tests yet as I described above to prove a single atom can't be levitated around with precision, so we should do the test and shoot 1 or a couple gammaray or xray photons at a single atoms side.

[swansont]

!

Moderator Note

What's the smallest we can levitate with photons with precision? merged with this, since the discussion seems to be identical.

[ADVANCE]

So swansont and others, what would be the smallest we could levitate around and push the two together to bond? Could we with a mass of 10,00 atoms? or smaller? Or, bigger? Instead of moving a atom itself around with precision and bonding them...

[swansont]

So swansont and others, what would be the smallest we could levitate around and push the two together to bond? Could we with a mass of 10,00 atoms? or smaller? Or, bigger? Instead of moving a atom itself around with precision and bonding them...

 

This has been answered several times now. We can push atoms around. What we can't do is place them precisely.

[ADVANCE]

 

This has been answered several times now. We can push atoms around. What we can't do is place them precisely.

I'm not asking about a single atom though anymore, I'm talking about bigger as since bigger as a frog works so what about a 10,000 atom mass or ect. ?

[John Cuthber]

The frog isn't levitated precisely* and it isn't levitated with optical tweezers.

 

 

* there's a non uniform field gradient which means the bottom of the frog is pushed up slightly more than his head. The effect is tiny and I don't imagine it bothers the frog, but, the imprecision is there.

 

As has been pointed out before (post 57), we can't do anything precisely.

The uncertainty principle forbids it.

Edited May 11, 2014 by John Cuthber

[swansont]

I'm not asking about a single atom though anymore, I'm talking about bigger as since bigger as a frog works so what about a 10,000 atom mass or ect. ?

 

You asked about the smallest thing. Atoms are smaller than frogs.

[ADVANCE]

 

You asked about the smallest thing. Atoms are smaller than frogs.

But what would happen if we made a hand sized shooter to shoot out the right invisible photons (the right sized ones, the right ones~ or 2 or more kinds) and shot it at a crumb sized object, would it push and levitate it?????

 

I meant what would work that's the smallest i.e. maybe we can do this with a 10,000 atom mass~

Edited May 11, 2014 by ADVANCE

[swansont]

But what would happen if we made a hand sized shooter to shoot out the right invisible photons (the right sized ones, the right ones~ or 2 or more kinds) and shot it at a crumb sized object, would it push and levitate it?????

 

I meant what would work that's the smallest i.e. maybe we can do this with a 10,000 atom mass~

 

If you read the wikipedia bit on optical tweezers, you'd see that they do this with dielectric (polystyrene) beads.

[ADVANCE]

 

If you read the wikipedia bit on optical tweezers, you'd see that they do this with dielectric (polystyrene) beads.

But how big do you think it would have to at least be to levitate it around with precision and to be able to push them hard together to bond? And maybe we could heat them up with the photons and push them together?

Edited May 11, 2014 by ADVANCE

[ADVANCE]

 

If you read the wikipedia bit on optical tweezers, you'd see that they do this with dielectric (polystyrene) beads.

Like we can't do my wishful plan because we can't move a atom with precision, but could it still be achieved with a mass of not one atom but 10,000 together as the object-ball? How big-how many atoms at least?