Science > Physics > PHYSICAL REVIEW FOCUS 24 January 2005 http://focus.aps.org/
| Topic: |
Science > Physics |
| User: |
"Sam Wormley" |
| Date: |
24 Jan 2005 11:25:45 PM |
| Object: |
PHYSICAL REVIEW FOCUS 24 January 2005 http://focus.aps.org/ |
PHYSICAL REVIEW FOCUS 24 January 2005 http://focus.aps.org/
David Ehrenstein and Davide Castelvecchi, American Physical Society
Introductions to the Focus stories of the past week;
visit http://focus.aps.org for the complete stories.
A MICROSCOPE FROM FLATLAND
Biologists dream of a point-and-shoot camera that can reveal
details smaller than a wavelength of light in living cells.
Now, in an upcoming issue of PRL, researchers show that
"two-dimensional" light--short-wavelength light waves that
live on a surface--can improve resolution without the
expensive equipment and special preparations needed for
electron microscopes and other technologies. The team imaged
nanoscale holes as a demonstration, but they believe the
technique could ultimately take instant shots and even
movies of the biological nanoworld.
(I. Smolyaninov et al., Phys. Rev. Lett., to be published)
COMPLETE Focus story at http://focus.aps.org/story/v15/st3
.
|
|
| User: "Andy Resnick" |
|
| Title: Re: PHYSICAL REVIEW FOCUS 24 January 2005 http://focus.aps.org/ |
25 Jan 2005 07:33:35 AM |
|
|
Sam Wormley wrote:
<snip>
A MICROSCOPE FROM FLATLAND
<snip>
From the article:
"To demonstrate their technique, the team shot pictures of metal films
carved with grids of nanoscale holes. Although somewhat distorted, the
images resolved holes less than
150 nanometers apart, which would be impossible without the plasmons'
help. The team believes the resolution could be pushed to perhaps 10
nanometers."
This is quite worse than existing evanescent wave techniques, not to
mention atomic force microscopy. And, it's not clear how this could be
used for any biological sample. DOA.
--
Andrew Resnick, Ph.D.
Department of Physiology and Biophysics
CWRU School of Medicine
tanspose 'op' for mail
.
|
|
|
| User: "Timo Nieminen" |
|
| Title: Re: PHYSICAL REVIEW FOCUS 24 January 2005 http://focus.aps.org/ |
25 Jan 2005 07:53:12 AM |
|
|
On Tue, 25 Jan 2005, Andy Resnick wrote:
Sam Wormley wrote:
<snip>
A MICROSCOPE FROM FLATLAND
<snip>
From the article:
"To demonstrate their technique, the team shot pictures of metal films
carved with grids of nanoscale holes. Although somewhat distorted, the
images resolved holes less than
150 nanometers apart, which would be impossible without the plasmons'
help. The team believes the resolution could be pushed to perhaps 10
nanometers."
This is quite worse than existing evanescent wave techniques, not to
mention atomic force microscopy. And, it's not clear how this could be
used for any biological sample. DOA.
Aw, shucks, whether or not mercury is available, it managed to be an MPU,
and managed to attract the attention of a PRF writer. Surely, it must be
good and significant and important etc?
--
Timo
.
|
|
|
| User: "Gregory L. Hansen" |
|
| Title: Re: PHYSICAL REVIEW FOCUS 24 January 2005 http://focus.aps.org/ |
25 Jan 2005 03:58:40 PM |
|
|
In article <Pine.OSF.4.58.0501252345390.14354@dingo.cc.uq.edu.au>,
Timo Nieminen <uqtniemi@mailbox.uq.edu.au> wrote:
On Tue, 25 Jan 2005, Andy Resnick wrote:
Sam Wormley wrote:
<snip>
A MICROSCOPE FROM FLATLAND
<snip>
From the article:
"To demonstrate their technique, the team shot pictures of metal films
carved with grids of nanoscale holes. Although somewhat distorted, the
images resolved holes less than
150 nanometers apart, which would be impossible without the plasmons'
help. The team believes the resolution could be pushed to perhaps 10
nanometers."
This is quite worse than existing evanescent wave techniques, not to
mention atomic force microscopy. And, it's not clear how this could be
used for any biological sample. DOA.
Aw, shucks, whether or not mercury is available, it managed to be an MPU,
and managed to attract the attention of a PRF writer. Surely, it must be
good and significant and important etc?
PRF writer?
--
"Not that there's anything wrong with just lying around on your back. In
its way, rotting is interesing too... It's just that there are other ways
to spend your time as a cadaver." -- Mary Roach, "Stiff", 2003.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Timo Nieminen" |
|
| Title: Re: PHYSICAL REVIEW FOCUS 24 January 2005 http://focus.aps.org/ |
25 Jan 2005 05:02:21 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 25 Jan 2005, Gregory L. Hansen wrote:
Timo Nieminen <uqtniemi@mailbox.uq.edu.au> wrote:
Aw, shucks, whether or not mercury is available, it managed to be an MPU,
and managed to attract the attention of a PRF writer. Surely, it must be
good and significant and important etc?
PRF writer?
Physical Review Focus writer. I expected confusion on MPU, but I thought
PRF would be obvious from the subject line :)
--
Timo
.
|
|
|
| User: "Gregory L. Hansen" |
|
| Title: Re: PHYSICAL REVIEW FOCUS 24 January 2005 http://focus.aps.org/ |
25 Jan 2005 07:55:10 PM |
|
|
In article <Pine.OSF.4.58.0501260900320.22986@dingo.cc.uq.edu.au>,
Timo Nieminen <uqtniemi@mailbox.uq.edu.au> wrote:
On Tue, 25 Jan 2005, Gregory L. Hansen wrote:
Timo Nieminen <uqtniemi@mailbox.uq.edu.au> wrote:
Aw, shucks, whether or not mercury is available, it managed to be an MPU,
and managed to attract the attention of a PRF writer. Surely, it must be
good and significant and important etc?
PRF writer?
Physical Review Focus writer. I expected confusion on MPU, but I thought
PRF would be obvious from the subject line :)
Right, right... subject line.
--
"Very well, he replied, I allow you cow's dung in place of human
excrement; bake your bread on that." -- Ezekiel 4:15
.
|
|
|
| User: "Timo Nieminen" |
|
| Title: Re: PHYSICAL REVIEW FOCUS 24 January 2005 http://focus.aps.org/ |
25 Jan 2005 09:04:51 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 26 Jan 2005, Gregory L. Hansen wrote:
Timo Nieminen <uqtniemi@mailbox.uq.edu.au> wrote:
On Tue, 25 Jan 2005, Gregory L. Hansen wrote:
Timo Nieminen <uqtniemi@mailbox.uq.edu.au> wrote:
Aw, shucks, whether or not mercury is available, it managed to be an MPU,
and managed to attract the attention of a PRF writer. Surely, it must be
good and significant and important etc?
PRF writer?
Physical Review Focus writer. I expected confusion on MPU, but I thought
PRF would be obvious from the subject line :)
Right, right... subject line.
While on obvious matters, if you want me to send you a list of papers, can
you send me a working email address?
--
Timo
.
|
|
|
| User: "Gregory L. Hansen" |
|
| Title: Re: PHYSICAL REVIEW FOCUS 24 January 2005 http://focus.aps.org/ |
26 Jan 2005 09:40:14 AM |
|
|
In article <Pine.OSF.4.58.0501261302070.24748@dingo.cc.uq.edu.au>,
Timo Nieminen <uqtniemi@mailbox.uq.edu.au> wrote:
On Wed, 26 Jan 2005, Gregory L. Hansen wrote:
Timo Nieminen <uqtniemi@mailbox.uq.edu.au> wrote:
On Tue, 25 Jan 2005, Gregory L. Hansen wrote:
Timo Nieminen <uqtniemi@mailbox.uq.edu.au> wrote:
Aw, shucks, whether or not mercury is available, it managed to be an MPU,
and managed to attract the attention of a PRF writer. Surely, it must be
good and significant and important etc?
PRF writer?
Physical Review Focus writer. I expected confusion on MPU, but I thought
PRF would be obvious from the subject line :)
Right, right... subject line.
While on obvious matters, if you want me to send you a list of papers, can
you send me a working email address?
Sorry about that, I forgot to give it.
I trn from a shell account with the address
and I'm not allowed to change it in the header file. And the school has a
spam protector that protects one and only one e-mail address, and I've
chosen the generic @indiana.edu address. And, due to the mind-bogglingly
large amounts of spam that will fill my disk quota in less than a day, I
simply kill anything addressed to . I've
tried a few things to overcome that, and then stopped trying.
--
"We don't grow up hearing stories around the camp fire anymore about
cultural figures. Instead we get them from books, TV or movies, so the
characters that today provide us a common language are corporate
creatures" -- Rebecca Tushnet
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Andy Resnick" |
|
| Title: Re: PHYSICAL REVIEW FOCUS 24 January 2005 http://focus.aps.org/ |
25 Jan 2005 03:19:58 PM |
|
|
Timo Nieminen wrote:
<snip>
Aw, shucks, whether or not mercury is available, it managed to be an MPU,
and managed to attract the attention of a PRF writer. Surely, it must be
good and significant and important etc?
MPU?
--
Andrew Resnick, Ph.D.
Department of Physiology and Biophysics
CWRU School of Medicine
tanspose 'op' for mail
.
|
|
|
| User: "Uncle Al" |
|
| Title: Re: PHYSICAL REVIEW FOCUS 24 January 2005 http://focus.aps.org/ |
25 Jan 2005 05:20:00 PM |
|
|
Andy Resnick wrote:
Timo Nieminen wrote:
<snip>
Aw, shucks, whether or not mercury is available, it managed to be an MPU,
and managed to attract the attention of a PRF writer. Surely, it must be
good and significant and important etc?
MPU?
LPU.
--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz.pdf
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: PHYSICAL REVIEW FOCUS 24 January 2005 http://focus.aps.org/ |
25 Jan 2005 03:42:35 PM |
|
|
In article <ct6d88$1mc$1@eeyore.INS.cwru.edu>, Andy Resnick <axr67@op.cwru.edu> writes:
Timo Nieminen wrote:
<snip>
Aw, shucks, whether or not mercury is available, it managed to be an MPU,
and managed to attract the attention of a PRF writer. Surely, it must be
good and significant and important etc?
MPU?
Minimal Publishable Unit.
Mati Meron | "When you argue with a fool,
meron@cars.uchicago.edu | chances are he is doing just the same"
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Timo Nieminen" |
|
| Title: Re: PHYSICAL REVIEW FOCUS 24 January 2005 http://focus.aps.org/ |
25 Jan 2005 04:57:56 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 25 Jan 2005, Andy Resnick wrote:
Timo Nieminen wrote:
Aw, shucks, whether or not mercury is available, it managed to be an MPU,
and managed to attract the attention of a PRF writer. Surely, it must be
good and significant and important etc?
MPU?
Minimum Publishable Unit
--
Timo
.
|
|
|
| User: "Andy Resnick" |
|
| Title: Re: PHYSICAL REVIEW FOCUS 24 January 2005 http://focus.aps.org/ |
26 Jan 2005 07:44:09 AM |
|
|
Timo Nieminen wrote:
On Tue, 25 Jan 2005, Andy Resnick wrote:
Timo Nieminen wrote:
Aw, shucks, whether or not mercury is available, it managed to be an MPU,
and managed to attract the attention of a PRF writer. Surely, it must be
good and significant and important etc?
MPU?
Minimum Publishable Unit
Ah... Thank you!
--
Andrew Resnick, Ph.D.
Department of Physiology and Biophysics
CWRU School of Medicine
tanspose 'op' for mail
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Andy Resnick" |
|
| Title: Re: PHYSICAL REVIEW FOCUS 24 January 2005 http://focus.aps.org/ |
25 Jan 2005 07:35:34 AM |
|
|
Sam Wormley wrote:
<snip>
A MICROSCOPE FROM FLATLAND
<snip>
Just to rub more salt in:
From the article:
"Christian Girard of the Center for Material Elaboration and Structural
Studies in Toulouse, France, says state-of-the-art lithography cannot
yet produce mirrors as smooth as the surface of a droplet, but
technology is improving fast. "Perhaps it will be possible in the near
future," he says."
I guess they don't have mercury in Toulouse.
--
Andrew Resnick, Ph.D.
Department of Physiology and Biophysics
CWRU School of Medicine
tanspose 'op' for mail
.
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
