U.S. Scientists Learn How to Levitate Tiny Objects

K

KennyFlys

Guest
This is cool! Imagine the possibilities...

CHICAGO (Reuters) – U.S. scientists have found a way to levitate the very smallest objects using the strange forces of quantum mechanics, and said on Wednesday they might use it to help make tiny nanotechnology machines.

They said they had detected and measured a force that comes into play at the molecular level using certain combinations of molecules that repel one another.

The repulsion can be used to hold molecules aloft, in essence levitating them, creating virtually friction-free parts for tiny devices, the researchers said.
Click to expand...
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20090107/sc_nm/us_nanotech_levitation;_ylt=AleF0LffJ.5Ave5i95Mnw.ADW7oF
 
Ummm, Isn't that the same principle as putting the same poles together on magnets? Isn't that the same principle used in MagLev trains? Granted, I CAN'T imagine the possibilities of suspending molecules.
 
Greg Bockelman said:
Ummm, Isn't that the same principle as putting the same poles together on magnets? Isn't that the same principle used in MagLev trains? Granted, I CAN'T imagine the possibilities of suspending molecules.
Click to expand...
No Greg, what you are talking about is the use of magnetism. This is using a quantum mechanics force called the 'strange force'. It is an interaction betwen sub-atomic particals.

Magnetic forces can only happen between materials that may be magnetized such as ferrous metals. The strange force is in each and ever type of material.

This force is also active at a subatomic level and could potentially be used to make very small, atom sized, machines.
 
Greg Bockelman said:
Ummm, Isn't that the same principle as putting the same poles together on magnets? Isn't that the same principle used in MagLev trains? Granted, I CAN'T imagine the possibilities of suspending molecules.
Click to expand...
With magnetism such as MagLev, you're polarizing a given material. This process is using the natural resistance that exist between different materials at the molecular level when they are placed within close proximity. Each material is not polarized within itself such as a magnetized piece of metal.

Imagine an engine crankshaft being modified with a layer of this material with the opposing gear having the other material. I don't see magnetism holding up as this could.
 
I hope this doesn't spiral this into the SZ. If it does, ya'll can have it by yourselves....

In the past, advancements in technology have been what has rejuvenated a stagnant economy. The last big tech boom was 'dot.com'. I think some big advancement in sub-atomic technologies will be the tow truck to pull this economy out of the ditch. You have this advancement that Kenny has mentioned. I did a presentation this fall on Excitonic Integrated Circuits, which could revolutionize the application and speed of integrated circuits.

It will be interesting to see what comes out of science next. It's obvious we have exhausted our business model advancement thinking for the time being. We need something more 'physical' to bring us out of the slump..

Just my very random two cents worth...
 
smigaldi said:
No Greg, what you are talking about is the use of magnetism. This is using a quantum mechanics force called the 'strange force'. It is an interaction betwen sub-atomic particals.

Magnetic forces can only happen between materials that may be magnetized such as ferrous metals. The strange force is in each and ever type of material.

This force is also active at a subatomic level and could potentially be used to make very small, atom sized, machines.
Click to expand...

Scott- do you mean the Strong force? I'm unfamiliar with the strange force

I think you confused strange quarks with the force of a similar name. Strangeness if a property of quarks describing decay in strong & electromagnetic reactions and is represented by the sum of strange quarks and strange antiquarks.

The strong force binds quarks & gluons together.
 
Forget nano tech.....I want a Star Wars Speeder (or a hoverboard).
 
May be a bit of a leap, but would this lend and validity to the Hutchinson Effect?
 
U.S. Scientists Learn How to Levitate Tiny Objects ... and Chicks Still Not Impressed. U.S. Scientists Distraught, Lonely.
CHICAGO (Reuters)...
​
-harry
 
Cap'n Jack said:
Scott- do you mean the Strong force? I'm unfamiliar with the strange force

I think you confused strange quarks with the force of a similar name. Strangeness if a property of quarks describing decay in strong & electromagnetic reactions and is represented by the sum of strange quarks and strange antiquarks.

The strong force binds quarks & gluons together.
Click to expand...
Isn't the force between the Lorentz strange attractors called the "strange" force?

I might be confusing the words.
 
Last edited:
smigaldi said:
Magnetic forces can only happen between materials that may be magnetized such as ferrous metals. The strange force is in each and ever type of material.
Click to expand...

Non-ferrous metals can be used to create and respond to magnetic fields. The aluminum cup in your mechanical tach (or old speedometer) responds to the rotating magnet inside it. Any magnetic field cutting through any conductor will create electron flow, which in turn creates its own magnetic field that interacts with the original field. Metal detectors work this way, too.


Dan
 
Dan Thomas said:
Non-ferrous metals can be used to create and respond to magnetic fields. The aluminum cup in your mechanical tach (or old speedometer) responds to the rotating magnet inside it. Any magnetic field cutting through any conductor will create electron flow, which in turn creates its own magnetic field that interacts with the original field. Metal detectors work this way, too.


Dan
Click to expand...
I see word parsing is still with us.

Please reread and understand the use of the term "such as". It was not my intent to list each and every material or way in which something may become a magnetic nor to explain the difference between electromagnetism, permanent magnetism, and even the paramagnetism that you make reference to.

Gonna have to start using these outside of the SZ I guess

:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:
 
Last edited:
smigaldi said:
Like MMGW, evolution, and Santa Claus? :D :D :D
Click to expand...
Actually that was a joke that my astronomy buddy and I pass back and forth. Many years ago we were having a discussion about the merits of Punctuated Equilibrium and a rather fundamentalist coworker chimed in with something like..."you know that all that science stuff has been proven wrong". My friend and I started howling with laughter in spite of the fact the other guy was dead serious. That line has gotten a lot of mileage between us over the years.
 
SkyHog said:
I thought, aside from the whackos working on the UFT (I kid), that the source of gravity was theorized and practically accepted to be from intertial force of spinning objects and mass?
Click to expand...

Nope, I mean yes. You might be right, but no one knows. Gravitons is another theory. This is what amazes me about the arrogance of the GW/CC crowd. We don't even know what causes gravity, yet they are sure of what causes climate changes? :rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl:
 
Last edited:
smigaldi said:
Isn't the force between the Lorentz strange attractors called the "strange" force?

I might be confusing the words.
Click to expand...

An "attractor" is a set of numbers describing the time dependance of a point's position in space. A strange attractor is one having a non-integer dimension or is chaotic. The Lorentz attractor is a set of numbers derived from some equations describing chaotic flow (in the original research by Lorentz, atmospheric convection).

This does not correspond, except perhaps as a mathematical description, to the quantum mechanics forces.
 
Cap'n Jack said:
An "attractor" is a set of numbers describing the time dependance of a point's position in space. A strange attractor is one having a non-integer dimension or is chaotic. The Lorentz attractor is a set of numbers derived from some equations describing chaotic flow (in the original research by Lorentz, atmospheric convection).

This does not correspond, except perhaps as a mathematical description, to the quantum mechanics forces.
Click to expand...
Thanks for the clarification then.
 
Geico266 said:
Nope, I mean yes. You might be right, but no one knows. Gravitons is another theory. This is what amazes me about the arrogance of the GW/CC crowd. We don't even know what causes gravity, yet they are sure of what causes climate changes? :rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl:
Click to expand...
I certainly don't want to make my own thread turn political. You make a valid point. I had never thought of that. We really don't have more than a theory about gravity.

It's amazing the knowledge we've accomplished on issues such as that started in this thread yet are so far behind in others one would think we had nailed by now.
 
KennyFlys said:
I certainly don't want to make my own thread turn political. You make a valid point. I had never thought of that. We really don't have more than a theory about gravity.

It's amazing the knowledge we've accomplished on issues such as that started in this thread yet are so far behind in others one would think we had nailed by now.
Click to expand...

I sometimes have a hard time expressing my points, Ken, you nailed it. This is what I've been trying to say about the world around us. We as just passengers on a rock hurtling though space, revolving around a dying star. We don't even know for certain what forces holds us on the surface and maintains our orbit, yet for people to say for certain that man is responsible for GW/CC is the most arrogant assertion I have heard in my life time.

Levitating subparticles is a huge step in understanding the world inwhich we find ourselves sharing.
 
Last edited:
We don't even know for certain what forces holds us on the surface and maintains our orbit, yet for people to say for certain that man is responsible for GW/CC is the most arrogant assertion I have heard in my life time.
Click to expand...
So it's: "until we know everything, we cannot know anything"?
-harry
 
mantakos said:
So it's: "until we know everything, we cannot know anything"?
-harry
Click to expand...

No, to assert we know everything is arrogant. To grasp a piece of information and come to a political conclusion while the facts are still being disputed by the most knowledgeable scientiists in the world is arrogant.
 
Geico266 said:
No, to assert we know everything is arrogant. To grasp a piece of information and come to a political conclusion while the facts are still being disputed by the most knowledgeable scientiists in the world is arrogant.
Click to expand...
If you are waiting for unanimity of opinion before declaring everything true you will still need to assert that the earth is flat. Science does not work by unanimity it works by the principle of consensus.

Consensus can change when presented with new evidence or an expansion of ideas.
 
It is changing. As time passes, more scientists are moving from the GW/CC group to non-believers as they don't see a preponderance of clear evidence. Simply the use of climate models isn't enough for them.

The discovery originally discussed in this thread was probably thought to never be possible.
 
KennyFlys said:
It is changing. As time passes, more scientists are moving from the GW/CC group to non-believers as they don't see a preponderance of clear evidence. Simply the use of climate models isn't enough for them.
Click to expand...
I doubt that and would like to see evidence of your assertion. I have seen scientists complaining that their raising of questions, a normal part of any scientific method, is mischaracterized by Sen. Inhofe and other GW deniers as them chaingin their opinion on GW. This topic will quickly lead to political discussion so I would suggest that follow-ons be posted to the SZ.
 
KennyFlys said:
The discovery originally discussed in this thread was probably thought to never be possible.
Click to expand...
Many things were never thought possible. Just think back to when we were kids and what we see now as normal everyday events.

My parents were both born in the 1920's, when they were being raised aviation was just a sparkle is a few people's eyes. Yet my parents lived to see air transport, jets, the 747, and of course our travel to another world. Amazing when you think about it.

Waht you and I are seeing in the way of interaction via the Internet is amazing too. When we were growing up, touch tone phones were the big rage. Now look at what we are doing!!
 
smigaldi said:
What you and I are seeing in the way of interaction via the Internet is amazing too. When we were growing up, touch tone phones were the big rage. Now look at what we are doing!!
Click to expand...

I remember trading my slide rule for a Texas Instrument calculator. All it could do it add, subtract, multiply, and divide, no memory. $350 in 1973. ...I thought I was in tall cotton. :rofl:

Like you said, now look at us. From party lines to virtual servers. Amazing.
 
Geico266 said:
I remember trading my slide rule for a Texas Instrument calculator. All it could do it add, subtract, multiply, and divide, no memory. $350 in 1973. ...I thought I was in tall cotton. :rofl:

Like you said, now look at us. From party lines to virtual servers. Amazing.
Click to expand...

and they took up exactly half of a Hartmann briefcase.
 
Geico266 said:
Nope, I mean yes. You might be right, but no one knows. Gravitons is another theory. This is what amazes me about the arrogance of the GW/CC crowd. We don't even know what causes gravity, yet they are sure of what causes climate changes? :rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl:
Click to expand...

You guys really get me going sometimes. I squirted my tasty beverage out my nose when I read this. Its like saying we can't cure the common cold, therefore our ability to treat disease must be nil. No one is certain about the cause of gravity because it is tied up in the fundamental building blocks of the universe, which are really hard to see. It's not too hard to measure atmospheric CO2 levels. But go on, say we don't know anything about whatever aspect of science it is that you personally don't like, since there are some pretty basic things that we humans are still working out.
 
and another promising thread heads to the spin zone...
 
Clues to the mysterious of the universe abound, it is man's ability to interpret them that is still developing. How does a gecko walk upside down on a smooth surface?
 
alaskaflyer said:
Clues to the mysterious of the universe abound, it is man's ability to interpret them that is still developing. How does a gecko walk upside down on a smooth surface?
Click to expand...

Try these links...
http://pubs.acs.org/cen/critter/gecko1.html
http://pubs.acs.org/cen/science/85/8530sci1.html#2
http://pubs.acs.org/cen/science/85/8530sci1.html#3
http://pubs.acs.org/cen/critter/gecko.html

Essentially millions of tiny hairs that take advantage of intermolecular forces that are significant at the size of these hairs.

The links go the the American Chemical Society. Lots of interesting science there.
 
alaskaflyer said:
Clues to the mysterious of the universe abound, it is man's ability to interpret them that is still developing. How does a gecko walk upside down on a smooth surface?
Click to expand...
Who cares about that??!!!

I want to know when they evolved to be able to walk up right and speak with an English accent? You would also wonder if they did develop intellect why go into the insurance business!!!
 
alaskaflyer said:
Clues to the mysterious of the universe abound, it is man's ability to interpret them that is still developing. How does a gecko walk upside down on a smooth surface?
Click to expand...

smigaldi said:
Who cares about that??!!!

I want to know when they evolved to be able to walk up right and speak with an English accent? You would also wonder if they did develop intellect why go into the insurance business!!!
Click to expand...

I think I'm being made fun of here! :rofl::rofl::rofl:

I'm not sure what is worse the caveman or the gecko thing. :rofl::rofl::rofl:
 
steingar said:
You guys really get me going sometimes. I squirted my tasty beverage out my nose when I read this. Its like saying we can't cure the common cold, therefore our ability to treat disease must be nil. No one is certain about the cause of gravity because it is tied up in the fundamental building blocks of the universe, which are really hard to see. It's not too hard to measure atmospheric CO2 levels. But go on, say we don't know anything about whatever aspect of science it is that you personally don't like, since there are some pretty basic things that we humans are still working out.
Click to expand...

Sorry about the nose spray. :rofl:

All I am saying, like the intent of this thread, we are still learning about GM/CC and the world around us. To come to a definate conclusion will only be definately wrong in the years to come.
 
Cap'n Jack said:
Try these links...
http://pubs.acs.org/cen/critter/gecko1.html
http://pubs.acs.org/cen/science/85/8530sci1.html#2
http://pubs.acs.org/cen/science/85/8530sci1.html#3
http://pubs.acs.org/cen/critter/gecko.html

Essentially millions of tiny hairs that take advantage of intermolecular forces that are significant at the size of these hairs.

The links go the the American Chemical Society. Lots of interesting science there.
Click to expand...

Thanks. I actually knew that, the point was to show a similar phenomenon as the OP that was only recently understood :redface:

However, I want to point out that though that hypothesis exists, we can never "know" that is what is happening as a definitive fact.

And yet the gecko still walks upside down on a smooth surface. Go figure.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top