The 2018 Physics Nobel Prize: What ARE Optical Tweezers?

[@AkhilSAINaidu]

Amazing Video man.. You people make this planet a better place by upheave curiosity among students with videos like this..

[@phillyg7661]

I just found your channel and really like your perspective. 1:20 yes light has no mass.. It has energy, as we know energy relates to mass. So these tweezers are a sort of magnetic locking of the Piezoelectric electric effect? In that case the energy of the light matters and needs to be in the ultraviolet spectrum/frequency.

[@TDrake-iq6cp]

Thanks for the video! You (and others watching) might want to look again at the difference between optical tweezers (sometimes called optical dipole traps) and magneto-optical traps (sometimes called MOTs). This video sort of uses the physics behind MOTs when talking about optical tweezers--which is related but not exactly correct. Cheers!

[@ibknl1986]

You have a great presentational skills. Very easy to understand

[@jlfqam]

It's the same principle used in laser printers. Light induced electrostatics.

[@WhySoitanly]

'slight' (not much) is really 'sleight' (use dexterity or cunning).

[@ChintuBantu-Friends]

What is the application of optical tweezers in our daily life

[@atomsandsporks6760]

I guess that would depend on your definition of "daily life". Some of the most absolutely crucial technology that underpins our civilization never touches an everyday consumer's "daily life". You probably don't personally need an ion particle accelerator, for example, (or maybe you do, I dunno, everyone needs hobbies!) but for the people who make computer chips, like Intel, they're absolutely essential, without them they could not make them. So no computers, no phones, no digital electronics without them even if you're not going to find them on the shelf at your local consumer electronics store. In the case of optical tweezers they're used in biomedical research in a number of different ways. So unless you're a biomedical research you're never going to cross paths with one in "daily life" even if you consume medicines, for example, that they were an important tool in helping develop.

[@sto2779]

You must be living in that box from this video... such question is similar of a person asking "What is the application of "REAL tweezers" in our daily lives?".

[@ajd892]

I was watching Marvelous Mrs Maivel on Prime 30 minutes ago and her father got a job at Bell Labs. Googled Bell Labs. Cool history. Had no idea about the “Nobel alumni” they had a reputation for. Clicked on optical tweezers. Because I thought this meant you could move it with your EYES?!?! but then I am here, trying to understand with the knowledge of a nurse. Lol. Thanks MM for humbling me. 🤣

[@atomsandsporks6760]

I love that show. And Bell labs was indeed a hallowed place. The transistor (the basis of modern computers) was literally invented there, as was things like radio astronomy. There's quite a good book about it (The Idea Factory by Jon Gertner). Sadly, like so many of those famous industry labs, Bell labs in any recognizable form was shuttered in 2008 :S. Only "immediately marketable research" now.

[@ELYOUSFIWORLD]

why in 5:20 if light is bent to the left imply that the light have to push the lenz to the right ??

[@gordonotaku6002]

not sure if this is correct but, I guess that since the light is going to the left, there is a counter force that pushes the lens to the right(kinda like how a rocket works). At least that’s what I was imagining

[@xs6819]

So I am guessing the lasers used arent the high grade 1.5w and above otherwise it would melt/destroy any cells?!

[@sonalygoswami8157]

completely awesome way of explaining

[@atomsandsporks6760]

Thanks a lot!

[@drmksu38]

Thank you.. This is really amazing

[@atomsandsporks6760]

Thanks!

[@NS-bi8bi]

الله يسعدك أستاذة انتي هون، فرحت بتعليقك

[@NS-bi8bi]

ياريت تشرحيلنا ياه الله يعطيكي العافية

[@drmksu38]

باذن الله بشرحة اذا سمح لي وقتي 👍

[@IcyViolet11]

Thank you so much for this video, great explanation! Just subscribed :)

[@lunatime822]

Make more videos please

[@deemamattar517]

That was literally amazing 😊😊 Thank you

[@sumanglakapoor9048]

WOW! Explained so simply!

[@fjotschmt3523]

do you know the size limits for particles which can be manipulated by the optical tweezer ?

[@atomsandsporks6760]

I'm no expert, but my expectation would be that they cannot be applied to particles larger than the wavelength of the laser (i.e. restricted to ~sub 100-nm particles) and that the force generated is limited by the momentum of the light used (which would mean the maximum force is likely in the picoNewtons). So unfortunately it's not an approach that could be used at the macroscopic scale.

[@PandaFPV]

When tractor beam?

[@gustavowegner5507]

Nice explanation

[@Dhelira]

Great video and very enlightening. Thanks for sharing it

[@atomsandsporks6760]

Thanks for watching!

[@haya4895]

great informative video, thank you very much for the explanation

[@quahntasy]

I made a video on the same topic. You will be glad to know that this video was recommended to me on my homepage. That usually doesn't happen with New creators. So congrats :)

[@atomsandsporks6760]

Thanks. Much appreciated. I saw your video as well, I really like your animation work.

[@armankashef2027]

@@atomsandsporks6760 Hello thank you very much for your good video Can you explain why light does not push the mirror back?

[@KamranQaderi]

My group is very thankful to Arthur Ashkin for his discovery. We used this same technique to build a volumetric display. The work got published in Nature. Here's nature's video on it: kzbin.info/www/bejne/j4O9fpeHhLKDhLM

[@atomsandsporks6760]

Wow, that's some fantastic work. Very cool.

[@TipSheikh]

Great video fr

[@chaitanya9032]

Thanks for the video , a very good explanation .

[@mohamedhm8085]

Can we really use Newtonian mechanics on light ( no mass , moving at the speed limit .. ) like you did in intro ? I think that a relativistic or quantum explanation is more rigorous .. seems legit though

[@atomsandsporks6760]

As I say at the end of the video, it's a bit dishonest to use a Newtonian result but the answer ends up being the same except where the ball loses speed, light is instead red-shifted to lower energy (and still travels at the same speed). To do it correctly you would just use classical electrodynamics though, not quantum mechanics. As for the quantum description, it's my policy to always use the classical picture when that holds the same physics. The momentum of light is NOT a quantum effect and was a known prediction of Maxwell and classical electrodynamics back in the 1860s and was first observed in 1900 (years before anyone came up with the notion of a photon). Interestingly it actually goes back further than that, believe it or not it was first suggested Johannes Kepler in the 17th century who noticed that the tails of comets always point away from the sun and (correctly) hypothesized it was because light has momentum. So, radiation pressure is a classical effect, no quantum mechanics needed, QM or QED will tell you the same story.

[@mohamedhm8085]

Atoms and Sporks thank you

[@matthewbrightman3398]

Elastic collisions

[@ayan-7625]

Just came here from your reddit! New subscriber, would love if you could cover semiconductor physics!

[@bl4ck0p]

Nice channel bro.

[@jayesh6687]

thanks for video

[@atomsandsporks6760]

Thanks!

[@xs6819]

6:19

[@paulsmith.6677]

If you ever get a particle in your eye, you may need an optical tweezer.

[@TkyoJedi]

p(init) HAH

[@MohammedBourasEng]

I am sorry, but this was a terrible explanation.. cool animaiton tho