Scientists Weigh Smallest Mass Ever 199
PaSTE writes "From the article, 'US scientists have managed to measure the mass of a cluster of xenon atoms at just a few billionths of a trillionth of a gram - or a few zeptograms. The record measurement is in the mass range of individual protein molecules, and the detection was made using sensitive scales developed at Caltech.' Another big leap forward for nanotechnology."
As my Dad would say (Score:5, Funny)
DUPE (Score:1, Interesting)
Is it still April Fools?
Re:DUPE (Score:1)
Re:DUPE (Score:2)
Sadly, those wily editors fooled us again.
Re:As my Dad would say (Score:4, Funny)
Scientist Steve: YEAH! F**K YEAH!
CEO: So?
Scientist Bill: Because it's awesome!
CEO: We spent 240 million dollars to weigh things we can't even see?
Scientist Bill: *drunk* Yeah, I know, thats so...trippy...
CEO:Does this bring us any closer to nanobots?
Scientist Steve: Nope
CEO: You're fired
Scientist Bill: I guess this is the time to tell you I did your wife...
Re:As my Dad would say (Score:4, Funny)
Scientist Steve: Woooooh! Developers, developers, developers..
Scientist Bill: Quiet, Steve..
Re:As my Dad would say (Score:2)
Scientist Bill: Crap, how can we prove our results are reliable if the number keeps going down?
Re:As my Dad would say (Score:2)
CEO: Yeah, right. Tell me another one.
Re:As my Dad would say (Score:1, Flamebait)
Smallest Mass Ever?? (Score:3, Informative)
Usually people use different tools when it comes to measuring things with masses in this range - a mass spectrometer for example
As for measuring really light things using the change in frequency of something that's vibrating that's not new
first dupe! (Score:4, Funny)
shock horror (Score:5, Funny)
Re:shock horror (Score:2)
In other news (Score:2)
Real (Score:3, Informative)
Real-Fat Atoms. (Score:2, Funny)
Just what the world needs. Weight conscious atoms.
Re:Real-Fat Atoms. (Score:1)
>> scales
>
> Just what the world needs. Weight conscious
> atoms.
And scales to sit there and eat ice cream with them.
Re:Real (Score:1)
Re:Real (Score:2)
A related article (Score:5, Insightful)
A related article [slashdot.org] from less than 24 hours ago covers another use of the nanomechanical scale developed at Caltech. This article is not exactly a dupe because it talks about a different application of the same scale.
Obl Simpsons Quote (Score:1)
Re:Real (Score:1)
Re:Real (Score:2)
But can they weight.... (Score:3, Funny)
Re:But can they weight.... (Score:2, Funny)
Re:But can they weight.... (Score:2)
Re:But can they weight.... (Score:2)
Smallest ass ever.
k.
RTFA...this is NOT A joke. (Score:3, Informative)
Re:RTFA...this is NOT A joke. (Score:2)
1 zeptogram = 2.20462262 × 10-24 pounds (Score:5, Funny)
just in case NASA are reading
Re:1 zeptogram = 2.20462262 × 10-24 pounds (Score:3, Funny)
Ack! How many NASAs are there??!?
Re:1 zeptogram = 2.20462262 × 10-24 pounds (Score:3, Informative)
Re:1 zeptogram = 2.20462262 × 10-24 pounds (Score:5, Informative)
"The Board is the highest decision-making body in the company."
and
"The Board are split on the issue."
See Economist Style Guide [economist.com] for the details.
Re:1 zeptogram = 2.20462262 × 10-24 pounds (Score:1, Funny)
Re:1 zeptogram = 2.20462262 × 10-24 pounds (Score:1)
Re:1 zeptogram = 2.20462262 × 10-24 pounds (Score:2)
Why is that a flaw? The strength of the metric system is that someone who didn't know about "zepto-" can now apply it to meters, liters and any other SI unit.
What I want to know is, is there any truth to the rumor that they are considering "groucho-" for the next unit down? I made a jo
Slashdot is US centric you insensitive clod! (Score:2)
Or, in layman's terms... (Score:3)
Let's separate fact from trolls... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Let's separate fact from trolls... (Score:2)
American Icon Troll (Score:1, Troll)
Re:American Icon Troll (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:American Icon Troll (Score:2)
I hope my bible thumping relatives don't trump my wife's say when he day rolls around.
I have to get back to reciting now
I pledge allegiance to the flag, of the United States of Jesusland.
And to the haughty moral values for which it stands.......
It's an April Fools Day Dupe (Score:1)
A few xenon atoms.. Whoppie-doo (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:A few xenon atoms.. Whoppie-doo (Score:4, Informative)
Re:A few xenon atoms.. Whoppie-doo (Score:1, Interesting)
Re:A few xenon atoms.. Whoppie-doo (Score:2)
Well this help get rid of physical kilogram? (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Well this help get rid of physical kilogram? (Score:2, Informative)
A#~=6.02x10^23 molecules per mol.
weighing out the stuff will still require a standardized mass as electrons,protons, and neutrons all have different masses.
you simply cannot say,
Egads! there are 0452803598204499410100100 molecules in this sample.
you would still have to find out the number of different elementary particles.
Re:Well this help get rid of physical kilogram? (Score:2)
Apparently, the correct spelling of his name [u-net.com] isn't as well known.
Re:Well this help get rid of physical kilogram? (Score:2)
What the hell... (Score:1)
Boycott reality on April 1st (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Boycott reality on April 1st (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Boycott reality on April 1st (Score:2)
Shiny Steel (Score:3, Funny)
The best thing about nanotechnology is that it seems to require exotic industrial gases, cryogenics and stainless piping and pressure vessels and stuff. Woo-hoo, I've got an automatic in!
Repost as April Fool's...? (Score:2)
A dupe, but my "Water on Mars" story rejected? (Score:2)
MY Story has an actual nasa.gov link in it. Does the dupe? Nope.
Water found on Mars!
NASA has released a photo proving there is Water On Mars [nasa.gov]. This is certainly the most dramatic picture I've seen of such, leading credence to the idea that there was once Life on Mars.
Assembling zee test mass (Score:1)
The obvious follow-up question... (Score:3, Funny)
Re:The obvious follow-up question... (Score:1)
It's your electron cloud that makes you look fat.
Re:The obvious follow-up question... (Score:2)
Some more info (Score:5, Informative)
I need to be informed... (Score:2)
Re:I need to be informed... (Score:2)
Photons (Score:2)
Re:Photons are massless (Score:2)
Re:Photons are massless (Score:2, Insightful)
p=h*f/c
h = is Plank's constant, f= frequency of the photon, and c = speed of light. Since h and c are constants, then the only thing the photon exchanges to transfer momentum is frequency. Weird.
Photons are massless (Score:2)
No they don't. A photon is nothing but electromagnetic radiation packet.
> the only thing the photon exchanges to transfer momentum is frequency. Weird.
Not really. "Momentum" for a photon is not the same thing as one for a particle. When a photon "hits" something, it can convert its electromagnetic energy into the mechanical energy of heat. Although it does not have momentum, it has energy, and can give momentum to absorbing particles.
Re:Photons are massless (Score:2)
A photon is not 'merely' an electromagnetic radiation packet. It is the force-carrying particle (gauge boson) of the quantized EM-field. It *is* a fundamental subatomic particle, and it *is* valid to say that it has a zero rest mass.
Without mass a photon exerts no gravitational force on other particles, but it is indeed deflected by a gravitation field (distortion in space-time, if you like).
Re:Photons are massless (Score:2)
Considering that there is absolutely no experimental evidence to support these latest "gauge field", "force particle", etc. hypotheses, I'll stick with the "mere electromagnetic radiation packet" for now.
Because of this, it doesn't make sense to me to speak of a photon's "momentum", which in my view refers exclusively to "real" particles. The property you are describing looks like the same thing from the point of view of the ob
Re:Photons are massless (Score:2)
> for everyday electromagnetism (that doesn't come
> into conflict with quantum mechanics)
As long as quantum mechanics is around, there will never be a consistent explanation for anything. Sure, QM, QED, and all those modern exotics might produce the correct results, but they do not do it properly. There are way too many ad-hoc decisions and no explanations of anything. QM is a religion; they tell you how they think things work and you get to take t
Re:Photons are massless (Score:2)
Re:Photons are massless (Score:2)
> "if it predicts correctly, and every element in
> the theory maps to an element in the universe,
> then we assume the theory has physical meaning."
QM fails this criterium because its objects do not, by definition, map to elements in the universe. It states to the contrary, saying that wavefunctions do not and can not correspond to reality until measured. This is one its main insanities.
> we cannot verify QM to be "true" anymore than we
> can
Re:Photons are massless (Score:2)
Sorry, my mistake. I'm glad we agree on this point.
Intuition is not a method of science. Logic is the method of science
Again, I agree, and from that perspective I will say that QM has no mathematical or logical inconsistency. The only inconsistency is with intuition, common sense, and our subjective perception of reality. The math is rigorous and the theory is predictive. It is only at the level of *interpretation* that problems aris
Other applications? (Score:1)
So, does it (Score:1)
Imagine... (Score:1)
And that smallest mass is ... (Score:2)
"I won't let information get in the way of fighting terrorism" - George W. Bush.
Need penis jokes.. (Score:2)
You'd think April 1 people would be thinking about more penises.... cause' they're funny.. penises..
Re:Need penis jokes.. (Score:2)
I'm not. The type of jokes that were posted on the front page were generally the unbelieveable type that made it too obvious that it was a joke.
Maybe I'm feeling nostalgic, but I preferred the ones that actually fooled people [slashdot.org] fooled people into something that was believeable. This actually touched something that a lot of readers feared, and did catch enough people to be memorable.
Phish (Score:1)
Great (Score:3, Funny)
*sigh*
Weigh? (Score:3, Insightful)
Mass in AMu? (Score:2)
ie. H2O = 18amu's
H = 1 (x2)
O = 16
Re:Mass in AMu? (Score:2)
And of course, 1 amu = 1.66e-27 g, so 1 zeptogram (10e-21 g) is about 1.66e6 amu per weighted Xe Cluster. At a mass of 131.3 amu per Xe atom we get a cluster size of roughly 12000 Xe atoms per cluster.
Re:Mass in AMu? (Score:2)
"the mass range of individual protein molecules" (Score:3, Insightful)
Let's see, the smallest protein product I can find at the moment is NP_871795, a splice variant of C. elegans gene "thioredoxin H", encoding just seven amino acids: MTIYFTV, it weighs in at about 870 daltons (the full gene is 12.5 kD), which is just around the claimed "a few zeptograms" - 1.45 to be more precise.
Looks like for once the irrelevant biological reference is at least accurate. (for reference, the largest product is NP_787974 in drosophila: 2451.35 kilodaltons).
Maybe I'm not getting it, but I don't quite see the medical application of this. Many of the most common techniques in proteomics and molecular biology are based around measuring the weight of proteins (and other molecules), I don't know what benefits direct measurement would add. Unless it were cheaper or less labor intensive, which this doesn't sound like it is.
I'm guessing they just wanted to get the word "cancer" in there somewhere.
Mary-Kate Olsen? (Score:2)
Re: Nothing to see here... (Score:1)
Offtopic?!? Hoax or not, parent is right either way, because... story was here yesterday [slashdot.org]
--- Above clicky thingy provided free of charge as a service to them lazy /. readers.
Re:Nohing to see here... (Score:2)
Re:Nohing to see here... (Score:2)
Re:The truth... (Score:4, Funny)
Tee hee giggle snort. Uh huh.
If you're going to try for a funny, try soemthing where people have to figure it out. Example:
"Mr. Bush was pleased to find that science could finally measure what makes him such a strong leader!"
Okay, not all that funny, but at least it leaves a little more to the imagination.
Re:The truth... (Score:2)
You can't teach someone to be clever when they are motivated by ignorance and hate.
here: (Score:2)
Re:Obligatory (Score:2)
Re:Obligatory (Score:2)
There's a reason why you're smarter than an elephant you know? And a reason why a chimp is smarter than a dog, or why Dolphins are smarter than most other species.
Re:So at last... (Score:5, Insightful)
[disclaimer] I am rather liberal, and dislike GWB as much as any leftist man. But come ON people. Harding was MUCH dumber than GWB. You know, mister "You'll have to ask my advisor about that tax thing. There was a book about this tax thing which was supposed to explain it to be, but hell, i don't understand the book!"
Re:Dupe story (Score:2)