Physicists Watch Individual Electrons Flow 120
SG writes "Physicists at the Tokyo Institute of Technology have developed the world's most sensitive ammeter yet. The device allows current to be measured at the attoampere level and is expected to be of use in nanoelectronics, calibration devices, quantum computation and biology."
Picture (Score:5, Funny)
Re:To: MODS -- next time click the link (Score:1, Informative)
Re:To: MODS -- next time click the link (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Picture (Score:2)
Re:Picture (Score:2)
Re:Picture (Score:1)
Re:Picture (Score:1)
that was helpfull!
Shweet (Score:1, Interesting)
Would be nice if this could mean gigapixel cameras & the answer to the age old question of ghosts.
Re:Shweet (Score:2, Insightful)
dowsers already do that just fine.
Re:Shweet (Score:1)
Re:Shweet (Score:3, Funny)
KFG
So... (Score:5, Interesting)
As a non-phyisics grad (Computer science), I'm wondering.
Ryan Fenton
Re:So... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:So... (Score:5, Informative)
Re:So... (Score:1)
Must be a slow news day. 'Lets watch some electrons'
Cool! (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Cool! (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Cool! (Score:2)
Re:Cool! (Score:2)
Current, tunneling ? (Score:5, Interesting)
My question is if I want to measure current (assume an ideal current source) then I will hook it up to this new invention. The mechanism of current in this new measuring device is quantum tunneling. Is there any reason that the current source in question employs the same mechanism. It may still be conventional drift-diffusion with very very low fields (and probably very low mobility). Now when I interface it with this double-quantum device, does the change in mechanism ensures current quantity ? If answer yes, what is the intutive answer. I can understand current continuity when it is drift and diffusion.
Re:Current, tunneling ? (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Current, tunneling ? (Score:2, Interesting)
Uses: (Score:2)
Too Many Jokes... (Score:1)
Look at that one go! (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Look at that one go! (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Look at that one go! (Score:5, Funny)
"I dunno, but there's a dead cat in this box over here."
Re:Look at that one go! (Score:1)
Re:Look at that one go! (Score:2)
Re:Look at that one go! (Score:1)
No fair, you changed the outcome by measuring it!
That's It (Score:2)
So does this mean... (Score:3, Interesting)
Someone with a clue help me out here. Does this mean we'll get a definitive answer on how a single particle of light can actually be in two places at once?
um....photons != electrons so far as I know. (Score:2)
Re:So does this mean... (Score:2)
From Wikipedia [wikipedia.org]:
Duality wave/particule for electron too (Score:2)
Re:So does this mean... (Score:1)
Re:So does this mean... (Score:2, Informative)
Re:So does this mean... (Score:5, Insightful)
Single particle interactions are never in two places at once. The information that originally was one quantum may be distributed across space as it propagates as a wave or distributed across ensembles of different quanta in entangled states, but the interactions (particles) themselves are always strictly local.
Re:So does this mean... (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:So does this mean... (Score:3, Informative)
For a pretty thorough discussion of various interpretations, have a look at the containing article [washington.edu].
Re:So does this mean... (Score:1)
Basically, the Many Worlds interpretation simplifies to the Copenhagen interpretation if y
Re:So does this mean... (Score:5, Informative)
Re:So does this mean... (Score:3, Informative)
In the double slit experiment, the light or particle source that is used is turned down so low that at any given time, there is no more than 1 particle going through the barrier.
This cannot be replicated in a ripple tank. A ripple tank, or any kind of macro scale wave inherently cannot produce the same result as the double slit experiment because it can not be proven that any individual particle is the wave is interfering with itself.
Furthermore... (Score:2)
Also, isn't it that the collapse of the wave function depends on what you put after the barrier?
That is, if you put a single particle detector at one of the slits (or a very sensitive screen), you will get "pings" that eventually "build up" to show the interference pattern fringing. However, if you put a particle detector in front o
Re:So does this mean... (Score:3, Interesting)
Any observation of a quantum particle requires some sort of interaction with that particle. Once you interact with the particle, the wave function collapses.
Unless I'm horribly mistaken, this breakthrough only allows us to observe particles with less interaction to them. Regardless of this fact, any observation imlies a collapse of the wave function.
Re:So does this mean... (Score:1)
Re:So does this mean... (Score:2)
Tokyo Institute of Technology ?!? (Score:1, Funny)
Sigh...I need to get some soon.
Re:Tokyo Institute of Technology ?!? (Score:2)
Re:Tokyo Institute of Technology ?!? (Score:1)
Damn you recent memory of precursor sentences !
Re:Tokyo Institute of Technology ?!? (Score:1)
And I'm sure reading (and posting on) slashdot will help you a lot in that endeavour.
You have a long way ahead of you, young padawan...
In other news, Painters watch Paint Dry (Score:2)
more info (Score:3, Informative)
Great. (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:Great. (Score:1, Informative)
I think you'll find that the majority of charge carriers are in fact electrons.
Re:Great. (Score:2)
its still electrons (Score:2)
the only things that carry charge in a normal conductor are electrons, ions can also do it but only really in soloutions afaict.
For an unknow reason (Score:5, Funny)
Sure they can flow... (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
binary (Score:2)
Now they only need one electron - cool
Re:binary (Score:2)
Re:binary (Score:2)
They're all just mathematical models anyway (Score:1, Interesting)
And that's good, because it means that we can throw out old theories with impunity once better ones are devised. If we were to ever observe the TRUTH, we would no longer have the freedom to do that, and it would be the end of Scienc
Self Discovery (Score:1, Funny)
Something I can measure it with!
Thank you, God!
Muhaha!
It's alive! It's alive!
Some EE, please comment (Score:2)
Atto, Schmatto (Score:1)
Watch? (Score:1)
Exciting as watching... (Score:4, Funny)
Ahh, the wayward electron...
I can do it for cheaper. (Score:1, Funny)
nothing new to see, please move along... (Score:1)
Re:WHY!? (Score:2, Informative)
The device could be used for a wide variety of applications, including nanoelectronics, calibration devices, quantum computation and biology (Science 312 1634).
And that was in the first paragraph. It took you longer to type your post than it would have to actually read the first paragraph. And you even forgot to yell 'frist post.
Re:WHY!? (Score:1, Funny)
Re:WHY!? (Score:2)
Re:WHY!? (Score:5, Insightful)
The new, accurate electron counting capability alows the quantum of electrical charge to become the base unit, as it should be, and then to define current as the number of charges per second.
Re:WHY!? (Score:4, Funny)
god damn! (Score:3, Funny)
Re:WHY!? (Score:1)
Re:WHY!? (Score:4, Funny)
Re:WHY!? (Score:1)
Re:WHY!? (Score:1)
It's not the stray ones you have to watch out for - it's the ones that are meant for you.
Re:WHY!? (Score:2)
Why Not?
Re:WHY!? (Score:3, Insightful)
Just because it _may not_ be of any use today does not mean that it will always be "useless". The parabola was known to the ancient Greeks but it only saw its first "practical" use in the hands of Galileo Galilei who used it to predict the trajectory of cannon balls.
Re:WHY!? (Score:1)
Re:WHY!? (Score:2)
Re:WHY!? (Score:1)
Well, the whole thing is conjecture. But as to the involvement of parabolic mirrors, some have the idea that an array of flat mirrors arranged in a parabolic shape and that the array was somehow quickly and smoothly able to be changed so its focus changed. At least, that's one story I've heard about parabolic mirrors in relation to the ship burning device.
Of course others have proposed that parabolic mirrors were used to focus onto single flat mirros... and if that doesn't sound like it would work, good
Re:WHY!? (Score:2)
I think the various many flat shields theories are probably the most likely. It would be pretty hard to make a monolithic parabolic mirror big enough and it's not something you'd just have lying around. Nicely reflective shields, on the other hand, are handy for blinding, distracting and intimidating i
Re:WHY!? (Score:2)
There is more than that though - it is a wonderful thing, to be able to seek knowledge for knowledge's sake. Always there is this emphasis on a reason for learning about the world around us. It doesn't have to be that way. There is a joy to be found in discovery, regardless of the implications. This is an important thing.
Re:WHY!? (Score:2)
Re:WHY!? (Score:2)
Occording to TFS:
"and is expected to be of use in nanoelectronics, calibration devices, quantum computation and biology"
So are you actually asking why any of those would be useful?
Re:WHY!? (Score:3, Insightful)
Up until now the record for smallest current was about 100 attoamps with a dc squid. The great thing about them is that you can detect currents from 100 attoamps (if you're very, very careful) all the way up to milliamps, all in the same device in the same setup.
This new dev
Re:WHY!? (Score:1)
Re:WHY!? (Score:1)
When he got the electric field at the correct value the gravitational force (F = m*g) was canceled by the force due to the electric field (f = q*E)
What he actually measured was the charge on each droplet, and found that the lowest common factor was -1.67 e-19 (i.e 19 zeroes infront of 1.67, 0.00....0167)
How he did this was he dropped the oil drops from above, measured their terminal velocity, and from this, their mass. To charge the oil drop
Re:WHY!? (Score:1)
The primary evidence that people use to suggest Millikan knew what he was looking for were vague margin notes about particular data being close or some similar phrase. If I recall, they could simply be quick notes about how well he thought he performed the experiment for a given datum. I think he ended up taking the measurement he liked the most rather than averaging them or something like that. Meh, this is all stuff I gleaned from one of those Discovery shows or the like about him... Though, I really was
Re:WHY!? (Score:1)
cool
Re:Impressive (Score:1, Offtopic)
Re:still can not validate US electronic elections (Score:2, Funny)