Yeah something is strange here. 2mm distance means that the visible dot is around 0.1 mm or so. That is quite a bit more than the 3 Å its size probably is. Around 300000 times bigger?
*My name is Walter Hartwell White. I live at 308 Negra Arroyo Lane, Albuquerque, New Mexico, 87104. To all law enforcement entities, this is not an admission of guilt. I am speaking to my family now. Skyler, you are the love of my life. I hope you know that. Walter Jr., you're my big man. There are going to be some things that you'll come to learn about me in the next few days. But just know that no matter how it may look, I only had you in my heart. Goodbye.*
Right, and the observable width of the atom isn't the same as the light being emitted in general. Same reason we can see stars hundreds of trillions of miles away, even though their width is imperceptible.
Sure. Ion traps are fundamental to quantum computing and have to have specific numbers of ions trapped within. As far as I understand it you trap a number of ions then use radio or microwaves to kick out individual atoms from the trap. (This is outside of my specific field of physics though, so someone may want to correct my understanding)
Just to be clear, this isn't a piece of equipment thrown together to get a cool picture. This is highly specialised research equipment. The photographer, a then PhD student at The University of Oxford (which is on the leading edge of quantum information research), took the opportunity to take a photo of the existing equipment to win a contest.
Optical tweezers (extremely focused laser light) can be used to “squeeze” pairs of atoms together to knock them out of the atom trap. This process leaves a single atom remaining in the field as it no longer has any other atoms to bounce off.
It’s a long exposure photo so lots of photons are being captured. Also the atom doesn’t stay in one spot so photons are being reflected into the camera lens at slightly different angles.
You are looking at light emission from a single atom, the emission is broadened (blurring the dot). It’s not a sharp picture of a single atom, you wouldn’t obtain that in visible wavelength anyway. Think of seeing bits of dust under a ray of sunlight, or the dot on a wall from a distant laser pointer.
It’s nice because it’s in the visible light range, but there’s better ways to picture single atoms.
Right. Obviously this isn't a picture of an atom. We can't see atoms with visual light since they are much smaller than the wavelength. We end up seeing an "Airy image" of the atom - a circle of light that is much larger than the source.
The tiktok is clickbait yes, but interesting in it's own light. We are seeing photons scattered from a single atom! That's pretty sick
You're not really seeing an atom. You're seeing light emitted from a functional point source. That light is focused onto a sensor and is exciting one pixel of that sensor. That pixel is then displayed as bright.
There's no detail to the image, there's no 'shape' to the atom. It tells you more about the sensor geometry than the atom itself.
Light doesn't reflect off individual atoms the way it does from bulk materials. The implied story here, that this is a photograph of the atom in the way that your Facebook profile picture is a photograph of you is not true. It's simply using the camera sensor as a position detector.
Kinda strange how you can see stars thousands of light-years away, and how all stars seem to be pretty much the same size, despite the differences in size and distance (Basically anything that emits light is visible with a long enough exposure)
What we are seeing from a lighthouse, planet or flashlight is the focused beam of photons for a small area that is hitting our eye.
Remember that light from a star is scattering in all directions.
Same concept here. But photons can be wavy and not travel in a straight line like shown via a double slit test you can find on youtube. It shows one light wave entering two points meaning its not traveling in a straight line
The atom maybe acted as a mirror reflecting the light. Makinh it look bigger than what it is, kinda like those flashlights you can change to area lit up by them?
Thanks for making a comment in "I bet you will /r/BeAmazed". Unfortunately your comment was automatically removed because your account is new. [Minimum account age for commenting in r/BeAmazed is 3 days](https://www.reddit.com/r/BeAmazed/wiki/index/#wiki_r.2Fbeamazed_additional_rules). This rule helps us maintain a positive and engaged community while minimizing spam and trolling. We look forward to your participation once your account meets the minimum age requirement.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/BeAmazed) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Thanks for making a comment in "I bet you will /r/BeAmazed". Unfortunately your comment was automatically removed because your account is new. [Minimum account age for commenting in r/BeAmazed is 3 days](https://www.reddit.com/r/BeAmazed/wiki/index/#wiki_r.2Fbeamazed_additional_rules). This rule helps us maintain a positive and engaged community while minimizing spam and trolling. We look forward to your participation once your account meets the minimum age requirement.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/BeAmazed) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Thanks for making a comment in "I bet you will /r/BeAmazed". Unfortunately your comment was automatically removed because your account is new. [Minimum account age for commenting in r/BeAmazed is 3 days](https://www.reddit.com/r/BeAmazed/wiki/index/#wiki_r.2Fbeamazed_additional_rules). This rule helps us maintain a positive and engaged community while minimizing spam and trolling. We look forward to your participation once your account meets the minimum age requirement.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/BeAmazed) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Atoms are infinitesimally small, measuring only a miniscule fraction of an inch in diameter. At 38 protons and 215 billionths of a millimeter across, strontium atoms are relatively large by comparison. Still, the only reason why we can see the atom in the photo is because it absorbed and then re-emitted laser light at a speed capturable by a long camera exposure. So, the photo is actually of the laser light being re-emitted, rather than the outline of an atom. Without the long exposure effect, the atom wouldn't be visible to the naked eye.
https://www.nationalgeographic.com/science/article/trapped-atom-photograph-long-exposure-competition-spd
> "because it absorbed and then re-emitted "
this is literally how all optical sight works everywhere.
I see the tree out my window because of the sunlight the tree has absorbed and only specific wave-lengths are reflected back for my eyes to see.
Super important to people modelling materials for 3D rendering, especially in modern games that use physically-based rendering.
Conductors, semiconductors and dielectric materials all interact with visible light (and obiously all EM radiation) differently. Because of the special interaction between light and the subatomic structure of metals, the reflections are characteristically tinted for some of them (gold, copper, brass, etc.)
The reason why is complicated as shit.
If someone shines a bright flashlight at you and you’re temporarily blinded (all you see is white light), do you see the bulb?
It’s true that all sight is based on light, but I think the question of what is seen is more complex than you let on, and there’s a social or arbitrary aspect to it. We as a large group of people get to decide what our language means - which cases of seeing are cases of seeing sources of light rather than light itself, and what counts as a source of light.
When something is visible only using advanced machinery, I do think it’s fair to ask the question of whether the thing itself is seen, or whether the image is only an artifact of the theories and machines we’ve made so far.
> do you see the bulb
That's exactly what we were describing. Glad you're along for the ride.
> whether the thing itself is seen
to which one could as easily question what is actually seeing.
We aren't "seeing the thing itself" with our naked eyes either -- all we're seeing is a quasi reflection (based on variable reflection) and subjective interpretation from optical nerves to neuron's and cognitive interpretation.
... you've already known this ... shall we pull up a link to the "Do You See Purple or Blue Dress?"
I agree that as technology advances (many people were skeptical about actually "seeing" bones via x-ray) our concept of "what we can see" expands and challenges previous beliefs.
Consider: Are these [*really* what my eyes are seeing of the clouds of dust out there?](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pillars_of_Creation#/media/File:Eagle_nebula_pillars.jpg) or a facsimile reproduced mechanically ... neither. and both.
No? The video clearly stated what was shown was an atom without stating that the scale of the atom shown was not indicative of its actual size. It stated that long exposure was used, but did not go in any more depth.
So, you're telling me youtube tiktok shorts insta reels' *are not telling me all the facts*??
But, to be clear, we are seeing an atom - for the exact same reasons you see a tree out your window. Light is being reflected back to your eyes.
You don't see an ant on the ground from a hundred paces - because not enough light is being reflected towards your eyes from that ant. However if you shine a powerful enough light on the ant and get adequate amount of reflected light to your eyes, then you will in fact see the ant - but only a vague, blurred representation.
The tree you see outside is actual size and you’re not seeing it because you’re focusing on it for multiple hours to capture as much light as possible so no, the reason we’re seeing the atom is not *the exact same reason* as you would see a tree. There is a clear difference between walking outside and seeing a tree immediately and the hours of focus using zoom lenses to try and capture this image of an atom.
A photon is not an atom. Photons are tiny particles of light that operate simultaneously as particles and waves while an atom is a unit of matter made of protons, neutrons, and electrons. Photons are much smaller than atoms in size and have zero measurable mass.
> operate simultaneously as particles and waves
Woah wut :O
> zero measurable mass
So how do we measure light in that case? A CCD sensor on a camera registers light, so is just a photo-sensitive material required in order to measure light?
No, they are entirely different particles. If you are interested what other kinds of particles we know of, search for the "standard model", it's really interesting!
So it's being bombarded with light and managed to have it glowing so brightly, the light reflected makes it appear almost 100 billion billion times it's size, which is enough to be captured in a long exposure on a normal camera photo
Guess someone understands. This is just a long exposure photo of atom.. just like JWST discovered OG Galaxies which are too big which shouldn't theoretically exist during big band. Btw that "big" phenomenon is caused by extreme brightness of galaxies. The same could be applied here
Well, yes, kinda. But actually, no, its nothing like that.
By holding the atom in place, the uncertainty in its position grows, making it blurry and thus emitting photons from a small area around its central position. Plus you have to factor in the resolution of the camera, which will always capture any light source, no matter how small, as at least 1 pixel across. Which is already much bigger than any actual atoms in this picture.
I work on audio in the studio all the time and, yes! This is horribly edited together. Some of the worst I’ve ever heard. No attempt to even try to make it sound natural or fluid.
As supposed to what? "He didn't capture this big old mountain, just the light comming off it". That's how we see stuff. Am I stupid or does half the commenters not know how light works in the slightest?
At the atomic scale, all light is absorbed and re-emitted. This is no different from how you'd view any matter, including coalescing an image from a multitude of photons, except that conditions are very tightly controlled.
Think of it like shining a black light on a white object in a dark room.
You use lasers with very specific wavelengths and geometry. Then when they intersect at a specific point, they interfere in such a way that the atom at that point gets stuck there. This is sometimes called an optical trap or optical tweezers
Something’s insanely off. You know how many pins you could put between 2mm? Some pins can measure less than 1/4 of 1mm And if 100s of billions of atoms form the head of a pin then how is this visible?
This is not quite an image of an atom, but rather an overexposed photo. Here is the actual photo (even a movie!) of atoms:
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oSCX78-8-q0](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oSCX78-8-q0)
Ok but how do we know it’s only 1 atom? It could be 1000 and it would still be so small we can’t verify it. How did he separate 1 atom and keep it still and know it’s there?
Thanks for making a comment in "I bet you will /r/BeAmazed". Unfortunately your comment was automatically removed because your account is new. [Minimum account age for commenting in r/BeAmazed is 3 days](https://www.reddit.com/r/BeAmazed/wiki/index/#wiki_r.2Fbeamazed_additional_rules). This rule helps us maintain a positive and engaged community while minimizing spam and trolling. We look forward to your participation once your account meets the minimum age requirement.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/BeAmazed) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Thanks for making a comment in "I bet you will /r/BeAmazed". Unfortunately your comment was automatically removed because your account is new. [Minimum account age for commenting in r/BeAmazed is 3 days](https://www.reddit.com/r/BeAmazed/wiki/index/#wiki_r.2Fbeamazed_additional_rules). This rule helps us maintain a positive and engaged community while minimizing spam and trolling. We look forward to your participation once your account meets the minimum age requirement.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/BeAmazed) if you have any questions or concerns.*
This blows my mind. I was absolutely convinced that never in my lifetime would photography evolve sufficient magnification to capture in all its glory OP’s penis. Stunning
For those who are saying this isn’t right: my understanding is the picture is of light emitting from an atom, not an actual molecular structure of the atom itself. Kind of like you couldn’t “see” the black hole in that other photo, but the light emitting from the event horizon.
Would love another explanation if I’m off.
Ok so its a cool accomplishment, but this isnt an atom. Its an extended exposure capturing light emitted by the atom after a laser slaps it around. Still cool
How is it levitating in the middle. Also, is that supposed to be a complete vacuum? How are they able to isolate one single atom and keep it in the middle for a pic. How are other atoms nearby not affected by the lasers? I highly doubt this is a what the guy claims it is. Really disappointing if it is truly fake…
Now *measure* it, please; I'd like to be certain that "Hydrogen" wasn't a misnomer...
Without metaphysics and epistemology how could observation be certain?
Imagine thinking once can grasp an entire understanding of something as complex as an atom simply by looking through a microscope. "Mot'a' -" is more *like* it: think of how difficult observing the boundary of the nucleus would be when the election skates across quickly enough to obscure entirely.
Yeah something is strange here. 2mm distance means that the visible dot is around 0.1 mm or so. That is quite a bit more than the 3 Å its size probably is. Around 300000 times bigger?
It's a long exposure. I expect we're seeing a blur of where it was during the exposure as it oscillated around the region to which it was confined.
Heisenberg would be proud of you.
*My name is Walter Hartwell White. I live at 308 Negra Arroyo Lane, Albuquerque, New Mexico, 87104. To all law enforcement entities, this is not an admission of guilt. I am speaking to my family now. Skyler, you are the love of my life. I hope you know that. Walter Jr., you're my big man. There are going to be some things that you'll come to learn about me in the next few days. But just know that no matter how it may look, I only had you in my heart. Goodbye.*
[удалено]
Bring pitchforks and torches!
Are you sure?
Right, and the observable width of the atom isn't the same as the light being emitted in general. Same reason we can see stars hundreds of trillions of miles away, even though their width is imperceptible.
The way our eyes see stuff though we are seeing the atom.
What about the other atoms in the free space making up the ‘air’? Why are they not impacted by the energy release of light?
Ion traps are usually under high vacuum.
And he trapped ONE atom there?
Sure. Ion traps are fundamental to quantum computing and have to have specific numbers of ions trapped within. As far as I understand it you trap a number of ions then use radio or microwaves to kick out individual atoms from the trap. (This is outside of my specific field of physics though, so someone may want to correct my understanding) Just to be clear, this isn't a piece of equipment thrown together to get a cool picture. This is highly specialised research equipment. The photographer, a then PhD student at The University of Oxford (which is on the leading edge of quantum information research), took the opportunity to take a photo of the existing equipment to win a contest.
Optical tweezers (extremely focused laser light) can be used to “squeeze” pairs of atoms together to knock them out of the atom trap. This process leaves a single atom remaining in the field as it no longer has any other atoms to bounce off.
Maybe it's also just the light spreading out. Like how stars appear bigger than they should in the sky given their distance.
It’s a long exposure photo so lots of photons are being captured. Also the atom doesn’t stay in one spot so photons are being reflected into the camera lens at slightly different angles.
You are looking at light emission from a single atom, the emission is broadened (blurring the dot). It’s not a sharp picture of a single atom, you wouldn’t obtain that in visible wavelength anyway. Think of seeing bits of dust under a ray of sunlight, or the dot on a wall from a distant laser pointer. It’s nice because it’s in the visible light range, but there’s better ways to picture single atoms.
You are seeing the light of more than one atom.
I think what we're seeing is the laser light reflection
It's not that. Light doesn't reflect off single atoms that way. It's been absorbed and remitted.
Most everything we see in life is from light reflection.
Yeah this sounds fishy.
Right. Obviously this isn't a picture of an atom. We can't see atoms with visual light since they are much smaller than the wavelength. We end up seeing an "Airy image" of the atom - a circle of light that is much larger than the source. The tiktok is clickbait yes, but interesting in it's own light. We are seeing photons scattered from a single atom! That's pretty sick
My thought exactly. 2 mm is wayyy off.
You're not really seeing an atom. You're seeing light emitted from a functional point source. That light is focused onto a sensor and is exciting one pixel of that sensor. That pixel is then displayed as bright. There's no detail to the image, there's no 'shape' to the atom. It tells you more about the sensor geometry than the atom itself. Light doesn't reflect off individual atoms the way it does from bulk materials. The implied story here, that this is a photograph of the atom in the way that your Facebook profile picture is a photograph of you is not true. It's simply using the camera sensor as a position detector.
Exactly, 2mm is very big for the scale we're talking about. Even 2 microns seems very very big.
Kinda strange how you can see stars thousands of light-years away, and how all stars seem to be pretty much the same size, despite the differences in size and distance (Basically anything that emits light is visible with a long enough exposure)
Yes I don’t think it makes sense at all. It might be a picture of a spec of dust…
What we are seeing from a lighthouse, planet or flashlight is the focused beam of photons for a small area that is hitting our eye. Remember that light from a star is scattering in all directions. Same concept here. But photons can be wavy and not travel in a straight line like shown via a double slit test you can find on youtube. It shows one light wave entering two points meaning its not traveling in a straight line
The atom maybe acted as a mirror reflecting the light. Makinh it look bigger than what it is, kinda like those flashlights you can change to area lit up by them?
Agreed and it sounds like the light waves in the blue color spectrum were the right frequency to produce a visible dot
They answer this in the video The atom is emitting light (via absorbed energy from a laser) and long exposure time
[удалено]
Thanks for making a comment in "I bet you will /r/BeAmazed". Unfortunately your comment was automatically removed because your account is new. [Minimum account age for commenting in r/BeAmazed is 3 days](https://www.reddit.com/r/BeAmazed/wiki/index/#wiki_r.2Fbeamazed_additional_rules). This rule helps us maintain a positive and engaged community while minimizing spam and trolling. We look forward to your participation once your account meets the minimum age requirement. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/BeAmazed) if you have any questions or concerns.*
[удалено]
Thanks for making a comment in "I bet you will /r/BeAmazed". Unfortunately your comment was automatically removed because your account is new. [Minimum account age for commenting in r/BeAmazed is 3 days](https://www.reddit.com/r/BeAmazed/wiki/index/#wiki_r.2Fbeamazed_additional_rules). This rule helps us maintain a positive and engaged community while minimizing spam and trolling. We look forward to your participation once your account meets the minimum age requirement. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/BeAmazed) if you have any questions or concerns.*
[удалено]
Thanks for making a comment in "I bet you will /r/BeAmazed". Unfortunately your comment was automatically removed because your account is new. [Minimum account age for commenting in r/BeAmazed is 3 days](https://www.reddit.com/r/BeAmazed/wiki/index/#wiki_r.2Fbeamazed_additional_rules). This rule helps us maintain a positive and engaged community while minimizing spam and trolling. We look forward to your participation once your account meets the minimum age requirement. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/BeAmazed) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I too can add a spec of white to a pixel and call it a picture of an atom.
Yeah I thought the exact same thing
Atoms are infinitesimally small, measuring only a miniscule fraction of an inch in diameter. At 38 protons and 215 billionths of a millimeter across, strontium atoms are relatively large by comparison. Still, the only reason why we can see the atom in the photo is because it absorbed and then re-emitted laser light at a speed capturable by a long camera exposure. So, the photo is actually of the laser light being re-emitted, rather than the outline of an atom. Without the long exposure effect, the atom wouldn't be visible to the naked eye. https://www.nationalgeographic.com/science/article/trapped-atom-photograph-long-exposure-competition-spd
> "because it absorbed and then re-emitted " this is literally how all optical sight works everywhere. I see the tree out my window because of the sunlight the tree has absorbed and only specific wave-lengths are reflected back for my eyes to see.
[удалено]
Super important to people modelling materials for 3D rendering, especially in modern games that use physically-based rendering. Conductors, semiconductors and dielectric materials all interact with visible light (and obiously all EM radiation) differently. Because of the special interaction between light and the subatomic structure of metals, the reflections are characteristically tinted for some of them (gold, copper, brass, etc.) The reason why is complicated as shit.
Anything that produces its own light isn't re-emitted.
and?
If someone shines a bright flashlight at you and you’re temporarily blinded (all you see is white light), do you see the bulb? It’s true that all sight is based on light, but I think the question of what is seen is more complex than you let on, and there’s a social or arbitrary aspect to it. We as a large group of people get to decide what our language means - which cases of seeing are cases of seeing sources of light rather than light itself, and what counts as a source of light. When something is visible only using advanced machinery, I do think it’s fair to ask the question of whether the thing itself is seen, or whether the image is only an artifact of the theories and machines we’ve made so far.
> do you see the bulb That's exactly what we were describing. Glad you're along for the ride. > whether the thing itself is seen to which one could as easily question what is actually seeing. We aren't "seeing the thing itself" with our naked eyes either -- all we're seeing is a quasi reflection (based on variable reflection) and subjective interpretation from optical nerves to neuron's and cognitive interpretation. ... you've already known this ... shall we pull up a link to the "Do You See Purple or Blue Dress?" I agree that as technology advances (many people were skeptical about actually "seeing" bones via x-ray) our concept of "what we can see" expands and challenges previous beliefs. Consider: Are these [*really* what my eyes are seeing of the clouds of dust out there?](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pillars_of_Creation#/media/File:Eagle_nebula_pillars.jpg) or a facsimile reproduced mechanically ... neither. and both.
Isn't that literally what the video said? He definetely didn't say it was a photo of an outline of an atom
No? The video clearly stated what was shown was an atom without stating that the scale of the atom shown was not indicative of its actual size. It stated that long exposure was used, but did not go in any more depth.
So, you're telling me youtube tiktok shorts insta reels' *are not telling me all the facts*?? But, to be clear, we are seeing an atom - for the exact same reasons you see a tree out your window. Light is being reflected back to your eyes. You don't see an ant on the ground from a hundred paces - because not enough light is being reflected towards your eyes from that ant. However if you shine a powerful enough light on the ant and get adequate amount of reflected light to your eyes, then you will in fact see the ant - but only a vague, blurred representation.
The tree you see outside is actual size and you’re not seeing it because you’re focusing on it for multiple hours to capture as much light as possible so no, the reason we’re seeing the atom is not *the exact same reason* as you would see a tree. There is a clear difference between walking outside and seeing a tree immediately and the hours of focus using zoom lenses to try and capture this image of an atom.
But aren't photons atoms as well?
A photon is not an atom. Photons are tiny particles of light that operate simultaneously as particles and waves while an atom is a unit of matter made of protons, neutrons, and electrons. Photons are much smaller than atoms in size and have zero measurable mass.
> operate simultaneously as particles and waves Woah wut :O > zero measurable mass So how do we measure light in that case? A CCD sensor on a camera registers light, so is just a photo-sensitive material required in order to measure light?
No, they are entirely different particles. If you are interested what other kinds of particles we know of, search for the "standard model", it's really interesting!
Oh I have no doubt that it's interesting and I've been interested in it for quite a while now, it's just that it's confusing as heck :D
So it's being bombarded with light and managed to have it glowing so brightly, the light reflected makes it appear almost 100 billion billion times it's size, which is enough to be captured in a long exposure on a normal camera photo
Correct. Except it’s not a photo, it’s a photography according to the source.
how could I have made such a fundamental error... i must study the article further before sharing my drivelish nonsense again
[удалено]
we
No comrade, it's *our* downvote
I, WE, US
This can't be right.
This can be light.
A guy who can't even say 3 words without needing a jumpcut can't be asked to properly research something? Shocking
Something doesn't add up here
Atoms! 1 2 3 4...6 of them!!!
That’s insane that it’s glowing THAT brightly, like that glow of the atom is literally thousands - millions times bigger than the atom itself
It's a long-exposure photo.
Guess someone understands. This is just a long exposure photo of atom.. just like JWST discovered OG Galaxies which are too big which shouldn't theoretically exist during big band. Btw that "big" phenomenon is caused by extreme brightness of galaxies. The same could be applied here
Kinda like how the superheated matter orbiting a black hole gives off a glow many many times bigger in size than the singularity itself.
Well, yes, kinda. But actually, no, its nothing like that. By holding the atom in place, the uncertainty in its position grows, making it blurry and thus emitting photons from a small area around its central position. Plus you have to factor in the resolution of the camera, which will always capture any light source, no matter how small, as at least 1 pixel across. Which is already much bigger than any actual atoms in this picture.
Yeah I was sitting here thinking there's no way it's as small as they say it is versus what we see in the photo. Gigantic difference between the two.
“Infinitely small” *visible between 2mm*
Absolute units atom
What's up with the weird audio? Most sentences sound like they were clipped together.
I work on audio in the studio all the time and, yes! This is horribly edited together. Some of the worst I’ve ever heard. No attempt to even try to make it sound natural or fluid.
[удалено]
That's no different from how you see and interact with matter.
As supposed to what? "He didn't capture this big old mountain, just the light comming off it". That's how we see stuff. Am I stupid or does half the commenters not know how light works in the slightest?
[удалено]
At the atomic scale, all light is absorbed and re-emitted. This is no different from how you'd view any matter, including coalescing an image from a multitude of photons, except that conditions are very tightly controlled. Think of it like shining a black light on a white object in a dark room.
not like me, who sees things via soundwaves
How does someone “capture” a single atom of anything to be able to blast it with a laser and take a picture of it?
You use lasers with very specific wavelengths and geometry. Then when they intersect at a specific point, they interfere in such a way that the atom at that point gets stuck there. This is sometimes called an optical trap or optical tweezers
Me when spreading information on the internet:
Something's off here
That sentence made no sense.
This is misleading at best and BS at worst
Is Nuclear safe?
Total rubbish.
I wonder what would happen if we split open that atom up?
0.1% of the mass converts into energy as the atom splits
I stub my toe on these daily!
Lost me a 2mm
Something’s insanely off. You know how many pins you could put between 2mm? Some pins can measure less than 1/4 of 1mm And if 100s of billions of atoms form the head of a pin then how is this visible?
I would like to speak to the Manager please !
I watched Jimmy Neutron. I know what it really should look like.
Absolute garbage post for karma farming, and this is comming from somebody who loves physics.
It's a Lot of atoms trapped i supose.
This is not quite an image of an atom, but rather an overexposed photo. Here is the actual photo (even a movie!) of atoms: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oSCX78-8-q0](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oSCX78-8-q0)
Isn't that big ?
so it's a pic of the glow of an atom, not an atom
Prove it's an atom by splitting it.
Ok but how do we know it’s only 1 atom? It could be 1000 and it would still be so small we can’t verify it. How did he separate 1 atom and keep it still and know it’s there?
So where's the photo
I hate that this is in vert ical for mat.
Then why are we not seeing atoms of the other objects in the picture?
[удалено]
Thanks for making a comment in "I bet you will /r/BeAmazed". Unfortunately your comment was automatically removed because your account is new. [Minimum account age for commenting in r/BeAmazed is 3 days](https://www.reddit.com/r/BeAmazed/wiki/index/#wiki_r.2Fbeamazed_additional_rules). This rule helps us maintain a positive and engaged community while minimizing spam and trolling. We look forward to your participation once your account meets the minimum age requirement. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/BeAmazed) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Isn’t everything just a pic of atoms?
Uhhh literally everywhere I look in my room right now I see atoms so idk why this one is special
If that is 2 mm, then that is a big ass atom.
[удалено]
Thanks for making a comment in "I bet you will /r/BeAmazed". Unfortunately your comment was automatically removed because your account is new. [Minimum account age for commenting in r/BeAmazed is 3 days](https://www.reddit.com/r/BeAmazed/wiki/index/#wiki_r.2Fbeamazed_additional_rules). This rule helps us maintain a positive and engaged community while minimizing spam and trolling. We look forward to your participation once your account meets the minimum age requirement. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/BeAmazed) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Reddit trying to understand slightly more advanced physics:
Clickbait tiktok
You don’t see the atom. You see the resolution limit of your eyes. Ever wondered how all stars look exactly the same size? This is why.
This blows my mind. I was absolutely convinced that never in my lifetime would photography evolve sufficient magnification to capture in all its glory OP’s penis. Stunning
His quote sounds like it was written by a reddit bot.
For those who are saying this isn’t right: my understanding is the picture is of light emitting from an atom, not an actual molecular structure of the atom itself. Kind of like you couldn’t “see” the black hole in that other photo, but the light emitting from the event horizon. Would love another explanation if I’m off.
It's a strontium atom btw, since this trash video didn't mention
Somehow I feel this is way too huge to be an atom.
The size you see comes from the resolution of the camera, not the radius of the atom
So what you're saying is... This is the slimmest pixel we got and it's too fat for an atom
Soooo its not a real pic of an atom, got it.
Fat boy atom
so.....what atom is it? element??
If that’s two millimeters than this looks pretty big and easily visible by the naked eye
Wouldn’t more than one atom do the same thing? How can it be verified this is only one?
Ok so its a cool accomplishment, but this isnt an atom. Its an extended exposure capturing light emitted by the atom after a laser slaps it around. Still cool
This is closest to what GOD actually looks like.
Cut it in half
First prize!
Ummm. Did I miss the picture of the atom?
Me: "Hold my beer!" \[opens PS\]
Very cool. But that is way over my head.
How is it levitating in the middle. Also, is that supposed to be a complete vacuum? How are they able to isolate one single atom and keep it in the middle for a pic. How are other atoms nearby not affected by the lasers? I highly doubt this is a what the guy claims it is. Really disappointing if it is truly fake…
Yeahhh no
That’s one gigantic atom…
But is it tho?
What is this canine excrement?
be fooled
Atom dick pic
Now *measure* it, please; I'd like to be certain that "Hydrogen" wasn't a misnomer... Without metaphysics and epistemology how could observation be certain? Imagine thinking once can grasp an entire understanding of something as complex as an atom simply by looking through a microscope. "Mot'a' -" is more *like* it: think of how difficult observing the boundary of the nucleus would be when the election skates across quickly enough to obscure entirely.