Clocking the Movements of Atoms 86
Roland Piquepaille writes "With special microscopes, scientists and engineers involved in nanotechnologies have been able to 'see' atoms for a while. But they couldn't clock the atomic response to events which typically occur in nanoseconds. Now, U.S. physicists have found a way to clock the movements of atoms at the nanometer scale. In their experiments, they were able to literally watch atoms switching positions in ferroelectric materials. Adding the dimension of time to the observation of the nanoworld could lead to easier developments of 'materials for improved memory applications in microelectronics.'"
I figured it out faster (Score:5, Funny)
I'd have just unplugged all the atoms, and when plugged in again, they'd all start counting from 12:00
Re:I figured it out faster (Score:2)
Re:I figured it out faster (Score:1)
Snore... (Score:1)
Re:Snore... (Score:5, Funny)
I boiled some water yesterday.
Re:I figured it out faster (Score:1)
At long last... (Score:4, Funny)
Re:At long last... (Score:2)
Re:At long last... (Score:3, Funny)
Re:At long last... (Score:2)
Yeah, we believe you.
Re:At long last... (Score:2)
Cybersex doesn't count.
Re:At long last... (Score:1)
Re:At long last... (Score:1)
Basic stages (Score:3, Funny)
Maybe Ars Technica will have a review later...
TFA? Yeah, it's worth reading. It's pretty cool the toys these guys (physicists in general) get to play with.
BS (Score:5, Informative)
*Femto*second laser spectroscopy has been available for some time now to investigate chemical reactions that happen much faster than nanoseconds. Got the Nobel Prize in Chemistry in 1999 for Zewail.
Re:BS (Score:2)
Avogadro's # is *small*??!! (Score:2)
602 214 150 000 000 000 000 000
considered small?!
Re:BS (Score:5, Informative)
However, it should be noted that this new report uses X-ray microdiffraction. They obtain picosecond time resolution, simultaneous with structural information. The article summary is not especially exact, but the structural information (positions of atoms) of this technique is indeed unique. Femtosecond laser spectrscopy will return quite a bit of information, but it doesn't really tell you the movement of the atoms in a bulk sample (only movement of atoms in relation to each other, during the chemical reaction). This new technique appears to be applicable to simultaneously deducing the locations and motions of atoms in solids (as opposed to gases/plasmas).
The time resolution is nothing amazing, but it is nevertheless quite impressive that they can deduce the motion of a domain wall in a solid with picosecond time resolution.
For anyone interested, the actually paper in question is:
Grigoriev et al. Physical Review Letters (12 May 2006), 187601. DOI 10.1103/PhysRevLett.96.187601
Re:BS (Score:2, Informative)
PDF WARNING!!!
http://homepages.cae.wisc.edu/~alexey/PRL06_grigo
Re:BS (Score:2)
Doesn't this conflict with Quantum mechanics?
Re:BS (Score:2, Insightful)
Hits for Roland (Score:2)
Yes, but that didn't get our favorite re-hash submitter Roland Piquepaille some hits to his web log.
Re:Hits for Roland (Score:2)
Re:Hits for Roland (Score:2)
It's okay, SuperBanana. We're all jealous of Roland.
Re:Hits for Roland (Score:2)
Yeah, I guess it does take a talent of a kind to write up so many rehashes of press releases and still manage to misunderstand and misinterpret every single one.
How fast are these things moving, really? (Score:4, Funny)
Re:He fooled you! - sorta (Score:3, Funny)
1,000,000,000/1,000,000,000 of course = 1/1 but not everyknow would know that a nanosecond is a billionth of a second.
Re:He fooled you! - sorta (Score:1)
Not everyone is smart enough to realize that identical prefixes cancel each other out, let alone know the meaning of "condescending" or "fuckwad" well enough to avoid appearing to be exactly that by picking a fight anonymously on the Interweb.
Re:He fooled you! - sorta (Score:2)
So wait, are you actually suggesting that you're not condescending? Not that I give a shit, but your comments have pretty much been the definition of condescending.
You're only a fuckwad if you try to say claim otherwise.
Re:He fooled you! - sorta (Score:1)
Re:He fooled you! - sorta (Score:1)
Re:He fooled you! - sorta (Score:2)
Re:He fooled you! - sorta (Score:2)
Re:How fast are these things moving, really? (Score:1)
Re:How fast are these things moving, really? (Score:2)
Approximately 1.5 parsecs.
Re:How fast are these things moving, really? (Score:1)
Re:How fast are these things moving, really? (Score:2)
(Yes I know how trivial it is to cancel out the "nano" in both the numerator and denominator, but google is more fun)
Re:How fast are these things moving, really? (Score:2)
Google is your friend...
Re:How fast are these things moving, really? (Score:2)
http://nobelprize.org/physics/laureates/1997/press
This is around 1100 m/s, or 2500 MPH. It goes on to point out that you don't get down to the 1 m/s range till about a millionth of a Kelvin (at which point it's a quarter of 1 m/s).
So, remember, every second, you're being bombarded (BOMBARDMENT! [POW!]) by
Re:How fast are these things moving, really? (Score:1)
Re:How fast are these things moving, really? (Score:1)
No, it's just under 4 kilometers per hour.
1.1 m/s * 3600 s/hr * 1/1000 km/m = 3.96km/hr
Re:How fast are these things moving, really? (Score:1)
Re:How fast are these things moving, really? (Score:2)
Just checking.
Re:How fast are these things moving, really? (Score:2)
No, the "real number" is 1111.11111111111...
You're off by a factor of 1000.
Re:How fast are these things moving, really? (Score:2)
I don't know about meters/second, but it's approximately 1.2096 meters/microfortnight. Does that help?
thanks, that's helpful (Score:3, Informative)
What about simulations? (Score:5, Informative)
Simulation Experimentation? (Score:1)
Don't get me wrong. Simulations are wonderful tools but, since they are many times (as I assume they are in this case) based solely on theory, experimental measurement
Re:What about simulations? (Score:1)
Re:What about simulations? (Score:1)
Re:What about simulations? (Score:2)
And how would these simulations need improving? Here is the code [univie.ac.at] I was using. Sure, it's only approximating reality, but the degree to which it is an approximation can be increased or decreased.
Re:What about simulations? (Score:1)
So it can help for example to decide how to tune the approximation and to verify your approximation and simulation. There is no perfect simulation, it may just be good enough for the job at hand.
Re:What about simulations? (Score:2)
Well, obviously. Nobody is trying to simulate things perfectly--that would be a huge waste of resources, but the summary claimed that we couldn't clock the time for nanosecond-scale interactions, which is completely wrong.
Re:What about simulations? (Score:2)
Phew! (Score:1, Funny)
they were able to literally watch atoms switching positions in ferroelectric materials
For a second there, I assumed that they'd built a microsope that could only figuratively watch things. Good job you pointed out that it literally works!
Clocking is good, but (Score:3, Funny)
No longer will atoms be bogged down at the n00b 'factory-spec' speed of light.
Now to find the multiplier...
Re:Clocking is good, but (Score:2)
Finally, some much-needed police funding (Score:3, Funny)
COPper atom: Do you know how fast you were going?
Helium atom (in a high voice): Not at all, officer!
Re:Finally, some much-needed police funding (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle (Score:1)
It would be funny if all electronics had to be constantly shot with x-rays so they behave the same as in a lab.
Anyone else thinking tele-transporter? (Score:1)
Won't be long now fellow geeks...
Soon, Tranporters!
And then, Replicators!