> Remarkably, Jiang et al. gave themselves a huge handicap with regard to beating the resolution record. For any given microscope lens, the best resolution is achieved by using the shortest possible wavelength of the radiation or electron beams concerned. However, the authors used relatively low-energy electrons, which have twice the wavelength of those used in the highest-resolution lens-based microscopes9,10. Using low-energy electrons for microscopy is good because it greatly reduces the damage inflicted on the specimen by the electrons. But in this case, it also meant that the resolution of the lens used by Jiang and colleagues was reduced by a factor of two. To beat the resolution record, the authors had to process a particular subset of the ptychographic diffraction data (the high-angle data), thereby obtaining an image with a resolution 2.5 times better than would otherwise have been possible.<p>Nice. It looks like this is a fresh gateway breakthrough with low hanging fruit on the other side. It's always exciting when it's not just eeking out a small increment gains blown up by University Press.
What I want to know is, on the sample image of molybdenum disulfide (b), there is one atom on the right near the vertical center, that is noticeably dimmer than the rest. What could account for that?
<p><pre><code> The basic principle of the technique was
proposed almost 50 years ago by the physicist
Walter Hoppe, who reasoned that there should
be enough information in the diffraction data
to work backwards to produce an image of the
diffracting object.
</code></pre>
This kind of statement just absolutely cracks me up, because it's a clear reveal that between this sort of awareness of diffraction principles, and concepts like pilot wave theory, that double slit experiments and entanglement haven't been mysterious for decades.<p>It's all just media manipulation. There are very firmly understood concepts backing all the mechanics of quantum effects, and the journalists that push the ambiguities are simply trolling would-be amateurs for to fan the flames of confusion as a sort of outsider performance art.
Does anyone else here get slightly annoyed when Nature articles are shared here? It would be nice if there was a bot that tried to find a mirror/alternative source to the same paper. There's something incredibly disappointing and frustrating about paywalled scientific research.