4 ms·

This article gives no information about how these microscopes work, what advantage do they have over electron microscopy. An HN comment below actually provided

by pratio 5y ago

This article gives no information about how these microscopes work, what advantage do they have over electron microscopy. An HN comment below actually provided more context. Who developed this tech and how long have we been working no it. I don't understand how it reached the top posts. Here's a more info from Technion https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HtcVL7KnfCI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HtcVL7KnfCI

ishtanbul 5y ago
This is why i read hacker news
- wolverine876 5y ago
  Why trust a random person on HN over a random person at the New Scientist (who is probably an experienced journalist in the field, and has editors double-checking what they write), who researched the story and spoke to the people who made the microscope? Imagine if someone here said, 'I spoke to the scientists who made the microscope and they said...'. We'd think that was awesome? That's in the New Scientist article.
doctoboggan 5y ago
I don’t think that is the same technology, it seems to be an electron microscope not a light microscope. The article references “squeezed light” which is a trick for adding more certainty to a photons position (at the expense of less certainty in its momentum - heisenburg always wins) To learn more about squeezed light check out this video from PBS Spacetime[0]. The video doesn’t cover this light microscope, but does explain squeezed light. [0]: https://youtu.be/uZDhCW-PTRM https://youtu.be/uZDhCW-PTRM
wolverine876 5y ago
> This article gives no information about how these microscopes work Are we reading different articles? From the article: They used a type of microscope with two laser light sources, but sent one of the beams through a specially designed crystal that “squeezes” the light. It does so by introducing quantum correlations in the photons – the particles of light in the laser beam. The photons were coupled into correlated pairs, and any of them that had energies unlike the others were discarded instead of being paired off. That process lowered the intensity of the beam while decreasing its noise, which allowed for more precise imaging.

by pratio 5y ago

ishtanbul 5y ago

This is why i read hacker news

wolverine876 5y ago
Why trust a random person on HN over a random person at the New Scientist (who is probably an experienced journalist in the field, and has editors double-checking what they write), who researched the story and spoke to the people who made the microscope? Imagine if someone here said, 'I spoke to the scientists who made the microscope and they said...'. We'd think that was awesome? That's in the New Scientist article.

doctoboggan 5y ago

I don’t think that is the same technology, it seems to be an electron microscope not a light microscope. The article references “squeezed light” which is a trick for adding more certainty to a photons position (at the expense of less certainty in its momentum - heisenburg always wins) To learn more about squeezed light check out this video from PBS Spacetime[0]. The video doesn’t cover this light microscope, but does explain squeezed light. [0]: https://youtu.be/uZDhCW-PTRM https://youtu.be/uZDhCW-PTRM

wolverine876 5y ago

> This article gives no information about how these microscopes work Are we reading different articles? From the article: They used a type of microscope with two laser light sources, but sent one of the beams through a specially designed crystal that “squeezes” the light. It does so by introducing quantum correlations in the photons – the particles of light in the laser beam. The photons were coupled into correlated pairs, and any of them that had energies unlike the others were discarded instead of being paired off. That process lowered the intensity of the beam while decreasing its noise, which allowed for more precise imaging.