Slashdot Mirror
Scientists Weigh Smallest Mass Ever
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 big as a dimple on a pimple on a fly's left nut.
The GEEK shall inherit the earth...
first dupe!
They weigh less than the Olson Twins!
Article pointed to is from the 30th, two days ago, so it's not A.F. fodder.
Kate Moss?
I don't keep a lid on my coffee so when I walk around I look busy -me
"'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.""
Just what the world needs. Weight conscious atoms.
A related article 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.
This was posted on BBC on March 30.
just in case NASA are reading
A lot of people here are saying that "omg it's taco's penis". Let me explain something to these people: for something to have a mass (even if it is exceptionally small) it is first required that it exists. Since this has not been proven satisfactorily, I will say that it is probably taco's brain, which is obviously present (because he keeps posting stories), however very very small.
The smallest mass ever measured would have to go to the electron. However, the measurement does not involve a scale but rather manipulation of electric fields. Moreover, scientists have shown that nuetrinos do in fact have mass (previously thought to be massless) and soon it will be the smallest mass ever measured
You don't have to be smart to use a Mac, you just have to be smart enough to buy one
If they could take the cylinder they have now and weigh with enough precision, Avogadro's number would be known and the kilogram would no longer be tied to a physical object.
Transcend Humanity. Please.
I wish people wouldn't post, you know, real stories on April 1st. Boycott reality for a day. It causes confusion.
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!
Does this quark make me look fat?
The thing that pisses me off about it is that some fuckers in Washington and Florida (and probably elsewhere with less outgoing news coverage) got votes out of this woman.
"It weighs more than Bush's brain."
:P
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.
"Derp de derp."
You know, you can replace that with just about anybody famous or not, and chances are somebody will agree with you. That doesn't stop you from being incredibly not funny.
[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!"
This isn't the smallest mass ever measured, if it's anything it might be the smallest mass ever measured with something that's essientially mechanical. . ...
http://www.vetscite.org/publish/items/000305/
And what about physists who come up with masses for the fundamental particles??
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
Professor Roukes' homepage has a link to his earlier published paper on attogram mass detection (2004). The abstract mentions that mass sensing of individual molecules will be realizable with optimized NEMS devices. Also there is link to paper which discusses the ultimate limit to mass sensing based on NEMS. Needless to say that so far it is not the physics of these nanostructures but the extrinsic amplifier noise which limited the measurement.
...the approximate weight of the average /.er's "little black book."
In Soviet Russia, Chuck Norris will still kick your ass.
Thanks for that. Now my girlfriend has a new target weight to reach by next April.
*sigh*
A photon not "in transit" makes no sense. They have zero-rest mass, which doesn't say much, because they are never at rest. However, although they are massless, the do have momentum, determined by this equation.
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.
That's right. All your base.
By looking at the change in resonance frequency, they are measuring the mass, not the weight. Therefore the results are the same on any planet, space station, etc. But can you call this procedure weighing?-)
Escher was the first MC and Giger invented the HR department.
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.
sic transit gloria mundi