Gorgeous photo in so many ways. I'm unable to dig up a high-res version. Anyone else having more luck?
Picture of a Single Atom Wins Science Photo Contest
11–20 of 88 posts
Re: Picture of a Single Atom Wins Science Photo Contest
#12This is an insanely cool picture. Some quick napkin math (please let me know if I'm way off base here): in the second pic, the electrodes are ~74 pixels apart and the strontium atom is ~2 pixels wide. The electrodes are ~0.078 inches apart, so these 2 pixels represent ~0.0021 inches (or ~0.05334 mm). Google tells me that the Van der Waals radius of a single strontium atom is 255 pm. So the diameter of the actual atom…
I guess it's basically a point source compared to the camera resolution, so what you're seeing as the "atom size" is the diffraction limit of the camera lens.
Re: Picture of a Single Atom Wins Science Photo Contest
#13Gorgeous photo in so many ways. I'm unable to dig up a high-res version. Anyone else having more luck?
Re: Picture of a Single Atom Wins Science Photo Contest
#14Earlier quoted context omitted.
From the article: > When illuminated by a laser of the right blue-violet color, the atom absorbs and re-emits light particles sufficiently quickly for an ordinary camera to capture it in a long exposure photograph.
That explanation doesn't really satisfy. Perhaps, based on a large body of experimental evidence, it is known that the number of atoms present can be determined by the apparent brightness. Perhaps it's something totally different. Regardless, it would be helpful if the author/photographer/somebody explained the rationale that makes them confident that this is only a single atom.
Basically the atom is glowing. Not very brightly, but enough so that the camera can see it.
The human eye after all can see a single photon. A single atom can emit a single photon, so it's not such a stretch.
Re: Picture of a Single Atom Wins Science Photo Contest
#15Earlier quoted context omitted.
From the article: > When illuminated by a laser of the right blue-violet color, the atom absorbs and re-emits light particles sufficiently quickly for an ordinary camera to capture it in a long exposure photograph.
That explanation doesn't really satisfy. Perhaps, based on a large body of experimental evidence, it is known that the number of atoms present can be determined by the apparent brightness. Perhaps it's something totally different. Regardless, it would be helpful if the author/photographer/somebody explained the rationale that makes them confident that this is only a single atom.
Isn't hard to figure out when you've only got one ion in the trap: https://www.physik.hu-berlin.de/de/nano/lehre/quantenoptik09...
Heck, you can line up ions in a row and take pictures of those if you'd like.
Re: Picture of a Single Atom Wins Science Photo Contest
#16Earlier quoted context omitted.
From the article: > When illuminated by a laser of the right blue-violet color, the atom absorbs and re-emits light particles sufficiently quickly for an ordinary camera to capture it in a long exposure photograph.
That explanation doesn't really satisfy. Perhaps, based on a large body of experimental evidence, it is known that the number of atoms present can be determined by the apparent brightness. Perhaps it's something totally different. Regardless, it would be helpful if the author/photographer/somebody explained the rationale that makes them confident that this is only a single atom.
> the rationale that makes them confident that this is only a single atom
Nothing photographic, as I understand it. The atom is positively charged, and is suspended in ultra-high vacuum by electric fields. Effectively they're "weighing" it, by measuring the total charge of whatever is suspended, and knowing (from the ionization energy?) the charge on one atom.
It should be noted that this is similar to how Millikan first measured the electron charge back in 1909.
Re: Picture of a Single Atom Wins Science Photo Contest
#17I'm imaging that the process of "magnifying" objects through photography has to degrade the true representation of the object. Kind of like expanding 1 pixel to cover a 500x500px space. In that sense I wonder how clearly we can ever hope to see an atom.
Obviously the technology and intent is impressive, but will we ever be able to see an atom more clearly or is it simply too small to be seen without Photoshopping in the details?
Re: Picture of a Single Atom Wins Science Photo Contest
#18This is an insanely cool picture. Some quick napkin math (please let me know if I'm way off base here): in the second pic, the electrodes are ~74 pixels apart and the strontium atom is ~2 pixels wide. The electrodes are ~0.078 inches apart, so these 2 pixels represent ~0.0021 inches (or ~0.05334 mm). Google tells me that the Van der Waals radius of a single strontium atom is 255 pm. So the diameter of the actual atom…
Analyze this photo instead: http://content.assets.pressassociation.io/2018/02/11175054/f...
Re: Picture of a Single Atom Wins Science Photo Contest
#19I'm curious to know how they managed to get a single atom there in the first place. I'm assuming it's not with atomic tweezers?
Re: Picture of a Single Atom Wins Science Photo Contest
#20Gorgeous photo in so many ways. I'm unable to dig up a high-res version. Anyone else having more luck?
http://content.assets.pressassociation.io/2018/02/11175054/f...
Awesome, thanks! Do you know where I can find the other submissions? Particularly "In a kitchen far far away..."? It looks astounding!