What is Digg?69 Comments
- blackjack75, on 02/22/2008, -0/+36I can push atoms with my bare hands. Hell, even dozens of them when I am in shape.
- klassica, on 02/22/2008, -3/+20Ounces? Now that's just stupid. What is it in newtons? Stupid fellow Americans and their antiquated units.
And was that Avoirdupois or Troy ounces? They are talking about metals after all. - DarkDragon, on 02/22/2008, -1/+12why are they measuring force in ounces? Newtons FTW!
- dougmc, on 02/22/2008, -1/+11Actually, an ounce IS a measure of force. And a measure of mass.
Technically, an ounce is currently defined as a unit of mass rather than force (weight), but originally it was a unit of force rather than mass.
But that's all about picking nits. In common usage, mass and weight are generally the same thing to most people. Perhaps once we colonize the Moon or other planets, this will stop being the case, but for now it is. - jeffiek, on 02/22/2008, -0/+9"scientists have been pushing atoms around for some time"
Hey, pick on someone your own size. - BoneheadFarker, on 02/22/2008, -1/+9Almost...it's one thing to move atoms around. It's a completely different matter of getting them to fuse together into a molecule...
- Dantetheinferno, on 02/22/2008, -0/+7Being a HS junior, we don't even use the english system anymore in our physics class.
- geneticlemon, on 02/22/2008, -2/+8By day, he's a mild-mannered back-up dancer. By night, he's a radioactive physicist.
- inactive, on 02/22/2008, -0/+5I'll say 8.4x10^30 gravitons.
- slezzzter, on 02/22/2008, -0/+5You can't use speed to express force. You can,however, ask what the energy of an incident photon would have to be to move an atom. Or, more interestingly, what is the longest wavelength of light that will move an atom. This begs an even bigger question about your ability to impact an atom in the Angstrom range with a light wave with wavelength in the micron range. Anyway, your question is misguided because, although the speed of light in free space is the same for all E-M waves, the actual momentum of the wave is dependent on the wavelength.
- GreatGrizzly, on 02/22/2008, -0/+4it requires OVER NINE THOUSAND!
- dougmc, on 02/22/2008, -0/+4It was probably `run of the mill' ounces,
If it helps, one ounce = 0.27801385 newtons.
In any event, I doubt most people are aware of what newtons are, even where the Metric system is commonly used, unless it's got the word `fig' in front of it. And since that was a US article, using the units used in the US seems appropriate -- even though scientists here generally use the metric system. - SpectralSounds, on 02/22/2008, -0/+4You know those wacky scientists are playing, "Atomic Shuffleboard". That would make shuffleboard at least somewhat less lame than it is now.
- dsmx, on 02/22/2008, -0/+3That's nothing I can move entire vehicles weighing tons just by moving my foot a little.
- akatherder, on 02/22/2008, -0/+3Every physics class and textbook I have ever used has been in Newtons. I live in the US.
- suinmind, on 02/22/2008, -0/+2I thought it is hard to STOP a particle from moving. (absolute zero and a good chunk of modern of physics....)
- finista, on 02/22/2008, -1/+3In other news: scientists discovered genes that control the desire to discover genes.
- Ploosheeta, on 02/22/2008, -0/+21.21 gigawatts!
- canUdi9it, on 02/22/2008, -0/+2This experiment basically proves that motion is discrete, not continuous. Motion occurs in quantum jumps, like a mouse cursor that "moves" across a digital screen one pixel at a time. This also solves the famous Zeno paradox that "proved" motion to be impossible. Since motion isn't infinitely divisible, there's no paradox.
Quoting the article:
"When the tip pushes hard enough, the atom hops, almost instantaneously to the next indentation. “It’s not smooth,” said Markus Ternes, another Almaden scientist working on the research. “It’s faster than we can detect.”
I propose that "faster than we can detect" means instantaneously; i.e. a quantum leap. - theaceoffire, on 02/22/2008, -0/+2True, but we haven't had control.. just probabilities. "If I do this, 30% of the time it will make this pattern".
- noahhoward, on 02/22/2008, -0/+2No, we've been moving them individually. http://www-03.ibm.com/ibm/history/exhibits/vintage ...
- Stupidumb, on 02/22/2008, -1/+2I don't believe in atoms because I am Catholic.
- sonoran, on 02/22/2008, -0/+1It's pretty apparent from this article that the answer to the question "How much force does it take to push and atom?" is: "It depends"
It depends on the atom and what it's resting on. - uiguy3, on 02/22/2008, -0/+1Scientists keep pushing atoms around. What did atoms ever do to scientists?
- inactive, on 02/22/2008, -3/+4gay imperial system of America.
- theviceroy, on 02/22/2008, -0/+1would not the minimum amount of force required to move a particle be an important piece of information when it comes to trying to find inductive evidence for the existence of gravitons?
- emehrkay, on 02/22/2008, -0/+1Dude do you know how long I've wanted one of those food replicators from star trek?
Just gotta keep it filled with atoms. - cambob76, on 02/22/2008, -0/+1Could this technique be used to spread atoms apart from one another to make a material lighter than air (less dense)... and then change it back again?
- josegutz, on 02/22/2008, -1/+2 Can push with a pencil?
- plarp, on 02/22/2008, -1/+2depends on which one of the 4 forces you are talking about..
- gerbco, on 02/22/2008, -0/+1I thought they did this in willy wonka.. what if you nudge it too hard will it cause a reaction with a pretty mushroom cloud?
- iamaelephant, on 02/23/2008, -0/+1Wow. Everything you just said is utterly and ridiculously wrong in every way. Wow.
- djepik, on 02/25/2008, -0/+1I would say F = M * A
- warriorscot, on 02/23/2008, -0/+1local manufacturing is usually more practical unless the efficiency in manufacture and transport is very large so it would have a large advantage on that front as long as it didn't use more energy its would be fine and as it can take huge quantities for almost everything even in manufacture it would have to require vast amounts of power.
There is no idea here, it is just an experiment at the moment there can't be any real product in mind at this early stage so many things could just not work. - apache2, on 02/23/2008, -0/+1
(1 / 130 000 000 000) ounce-force * 0.27801 N/ounce-force = 2.13853846 × 10^(-12) N
o/ - canUdi9it, on 02/26/2008, -0/+1Why so defensive? Apparently you've never heard of the Planck length and time. Look it up in wikipedia. You might learn something.
- Larz0rz, on 02/22/2008, -0/+1We pay these guys to play atomic shuffleboard?
- Stupidumb, on 02/22/2008, -0/+1Seriously?!
- o0JoeCool0o, on 02/22/2008, -1/+2u just made me want a fig newton.
- noahhoward, on 02/22/2008, -0/+1http://www-03.ibm.com/ibm/history/exhibits/vintage ... Individually moving atoms in 1990.
- kaelyiesta, on 02/22/2008, -0/+1Like all inventions and technological advancement, there has to be a practical value. We could all have jetpacks right now(they were made in the 50s and worked fine) but we don't. Why? Because its not practical. Its fuel inefficient(even compared to cars), and its dangerous and no one has found a way to make them profitable for a mainstream transportation method.
I worry about similar problems with creating things from scratch so to speak. How much energy would it take to create and store the ingredients and transport the ingredients compared to storing and transporting goods created by current methods? Sure its neat, but unless it is actually more efficient in some way, I remain wary of adopting such ideas.
Hopefully as we learn more, the solutions to these concerns will be practical. - kaelyiesta, on 02/22/2008, -1/+2I believe that absolute zero is a term used to describe the internal motion within a molecule or atom. The kinetic energy considered when talking about absolute zero is the energy of the electrons in orbit around the nucleus of the atom. If you reduce its temperature to 0 kelvin, or absolute zero, you have removed all its internal kinetic energy and the electrons collapse into the nucleus and the whole thing falls apart(or something, I haven't checked the latest journals on this topic).
What I believe this experiment is trying to do is move the entire atom, which is resisting motion due to being pushed up against other atoms that are for the most part unyielding. It is an issue of external motion of the entire atom, rather than the internal system of electrons within the atom. - uiguy3, on 02/22/2008, -0/+0Yeah.
- dbs1221, on 02/22/2008, -1/+1Because most of their readers are American and better understand an ounce of force than a newton.
-
Show 51 - 68 of 68 discussions
The Digg Toolbar for Firefox lets you Digg, submit content, and keep track of Digg even when you're not on the Digg site. Download the official 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is