3 ms·
The way the article (I know it's Nature, but still) talks about "highest possible" makes it sound dubious. Surely there is a printing scale below this at a mole
by Tsagadai 14y ago
The way the article (I know it's Nature, but still) talks about "highest possible" makes it sound dubious. Surely there is a printing scale below this at a molecular or atomic level (or even at the sub-atomic level). Saying this is the "highest possible" is terrible scientific reporting because we know of smaller scales we just don't necessarily know how to 'print' them yet.
It's an impressive achievement but I don't think it is the "ultimate".
- roel_v 14y agoFrom the article: "Even under the best microscope, optical images have an ultimate resolution limit, and this method hits it. When two objects are too close together, light reflecting off them will diffract, and the two objects blur together. This effect, called the diffraction limit, sets in when the distance between two objects is equal to half the wavelength of the light used for imaging. The wavelength in the middle of the colour spectrum is about 500 nanometres. That means the pixels in a printed image can’t be spaced any closer together than about 250 nanometres without looking smudged. Yang’s images pack the pixels at just this distance."