# Hijack ultrasound-what-is-the-size-of-the-smallest-feature-observable

## Recommended Posts

I speculate that you can unlock all pathways and receptors with nanometer resolution. And from the math it seems a 10GHz ultrasound would do? Keep in mind I am a noob at ultrasound and I am not quite sure how tranducer(ultrasound producing device) works or if you can create a sound of that wavelength. Let me know, thanks.

So the question is:

1. I want nanometer resolution of the tissue, if I can see DNA, sure.

2. Has a 10GHz/Tetrahertz ultrasound been done before with nanometer resolution? Let me know

##### Share on other sites

I speculate that you can unlock all pathways and receptors with nanometer resolution. And from the math it seems a 10GHz ultrasound would do?

Show the math

##### Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
22 hours ago, swansont said:

Show the math

Swanson sir, based on the thread "The speed of sound in human tissue is 1,540 m/s." and therefore 1540/10GHz = 140nm resolution for the ultrasound. But coming from my background I am not sure how tranducer works in comparison to light waves. We know speaker generates sound and it seems the transducer does something similar to a membrane that I read on Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capacitive_micromachined_ultrasonic_transducer

I also found this which is pretty cool https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/3D_ultrasound

I have no idea what this is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acoustic_microscopy

##### Share on other sites

P.S. But sir I am not saying I achieved a nanometer resolution with the ultrasound. I am just asking if it is a possibility.

##### Share on other sites

Swanson sir, based on the thread "The speed of sound in human tissue is 1,540 m/s." and therefore 1540/10GHz = 140nm resolution for the ultrasound.

Then your first question has been answered. nanometer resolution is not achieved with 10 GHz ultrasound. You would need more than 100x higher frequency, and you’d need to establish that it’s possible to have sound waves at that frequency.

##### Share on other sites
3 hours ago, swansont said:

Then your first question has been answered. nanometer resolution is not achieved with 10 GHz ultrasound. You would need more than 100x higher frequency, and you’d need to establish that it’s possible to have sound waves at that frequency.

SASER. The link is 10 years old.

Quote

Scientists develop saser--an acoustic laser--that produces terahertz sound waves
Scientists at The University of Nottingham, in collaboration with colleagues in the Ukraine, have produced an acoustic laser device called a saser that is the first to emit in the terahertz range. While a laser (Light Amplification by the Stimulated Emission of Radiation) uses packets of electromagnetic vibrations called photons, the saser uses sound waves composed of sonic vibrations called phonons.

##### Share on other sites
1 hour ago, StringJunky said:

SASER. The link is 10 years old.

OK, sound waves in a non-lattice structure, if you’re wanting look at DNA. (i.e. how does a 1 nm sound wave propagate, if the atoms are, say, 10 nm apart, and not in a lattice?How does thermal noise impact this propagation?)

##### Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
10 minutes ago, swansont said:

OK, sound waves in a non-lattice structure, if you’re wanting look at DNA. (i.e. how does a 1 nm sound wave propagate, if the atoms are, say, 10 nm apart, and not in a lattice?How does thermal noise impact this propagation?)

You know better than I do. I just looked to see if there was such a thing as terahertz sound.

Edited by StringJunky
##### Share on other sites
8 hours ago, StringJunky said:

You know better than I do. I just looked to see if there was such a thing as terahertz sound.

There is @@?

10 hours ago, StringJunky said:

SASER. The link is 10 years old.

They seem to be able to pinpoint this saser just about anywhere

##### Share on other sites

There is @@?

They seem to be able to pinpoint this saser just about anywhere

What part of the article leads you to this conclusion?

##### Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, swansont said:

What part of the article leads you to this conclusion?

Because I can hear ultrasound, well, at least during its activation. I just proved nanometer resolution is possible with 10GHz, you should recheck the math.

##### Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Because I can hear ultrasound, well, at least during its activation. I just proved nanometer resolution is possible with 10GHz, you should recheck the math.

Ultrasound is sound waves with frequencies higher than the upper audible limit of human hearing. There may be individual differences, an approximate upper limit is 20kHz.  10 GHz is pretty far above that limit so you probably mean something else?

Edited by Ghideon
format
##### Share on other sites

Because I can hear ultrasound, well, at least during its activation. I just proved nanometer resolution is possible with 10GHz, you should recheck the math.

You can't, by definition, hear ultrasound

It was your math that said 10 GHz gives 140 nm resolution in tissue, which means that you do not have 1 nm resolution. This is science, not magic. You can't just conjure up an answer out of thin air.

The wavelength you can get depends on the speed of sound in the medium, so any calculation for one medium will not work for another medium in which the speed is different. IOW, THz might work in what the article says is the application, e.g. in silicon or other semiconductors (checking for defects in circuits), while not working in e.g. water or air. You have to show it, i.e. do some science.

##### Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, Ghideon said:

Ultrasound is sound waves with frequencies higher than the upper audible limit of human hearing. There may be individual differences, an approximate upper limit is 20kHz.  10 GHz is pretty far above that limit so you probably mean something else?

It sounds like a capacitor charging in the defibrillator. I did not say I hear 10GHz, I said I heard the sound as it charges up probably from some KHz as you have mentioned. I am not sure the source because it seems like a household object is generating it = =, so I was wondering if you can just pinpoint ultrasound at a location and fires it, and goes through walls.

1 hour ago, swansont said:

You can't, by definition, hear ultrasound

It was your math that said 10 GHz gives 140 nm resolution in tissue, which means that you do not have 1 nm resolution. This is science, not magic. You can't just conjure up an answer out of thin air.

The wavelength you can get depends on the speed of sound in the medium, so any calculation for one medium will not work for another medium in which the speed is different. IOW, THz might work in what the article says is the application, e.g. in silicon or other semiconductors (checking for defects in circuits), while not working in e.g. water or air. You have to show it, i.e. do some science.

Ya, I did not say I want a 1 nm resolution nor did I say I want to image the DNA @@, but well, a cell receptor is a few nanometers in range. I was ticked off by the word saser, apologies.

P.S. Well the important point is the method of generating tetrahertz ultrasound as I have mentioned. Math is just math. I can say giga-hertz, tetra-hertz at ease but it does not contain any scientific application in building this apparatus. But anyway, thanks for checking my math.

P.S. And I did not get defamed. I feel happy about this. I feel depressed seeing a red mark sometimes.

##### Share on other sites

It sounds like a capacitor charging in the defibrillator. I did not say I hear 10GHz, I said I heard the sound as it charges up probably from some KHz as you have mentioned.

Than you aren’t hearing ultrasound, as you had claimed.

Quote

Ya, I did not say I want a 1 nm resolution nor did I say I want to image the DNA @@, but well, a cell receptor is a few nanometers in range. I was ticked off by the word saser, apologies.

Yes, you did say this.  “I want nanometer resolution of the tissue, if I can see DNA, sure.” Right there in the OP

The hubris of claiming you did not say things when there’s a written record in plain sight is astounding

Quote

P.S. Well the important point is the method of generating tetrahertz ultrasound as I have mentioned. Math is just math. I can say giga-hertz, tetra-hertz at ease but it does not contain any scientific application in building this apparatus. But anyway, thanks for checking my math.

Tera, not tetra

And there is scientific application here, if you had any interest in learning the science.

Quote

P.S. And I did not get defamed. I feel happy about this. I feel depressed seeing a red mark sometimes.

That’s not defamation. That’s feedback for lazy thinking.

##### Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, swansont said:

Yes, you did say this.  “I want nanometer resolution of the tissue, if I can see DNA, sure.” Right there in the OP

The hubris of claiming you did not say things when there’s a written record in plain sight is astounding

Yes I know, I am bad/liar for saying I want nanometer resolution which does not apply for 140nm, but sure, DNA is less than 140nm. This is a thread about discussion of ultrasound not "catching Fred's logical fallacies". You could provide some basic working mechanism of the ultrasound membrane or transducer if not provide an ultrasound image at its best resolution. But I suppose I should fix my logical errors first.

##### Share on other sites

P.S. With the issues resolved, hopefully @@, I would compare a 10GHz ultrasound with 10GHz radio wave to see which has a better resolution.

##### Share on other sites

This showed up when I was looking into acoustic imaging. If anyone is knowledgeable with photoacousting imaging as the video shown below let me know.

##### Share on other sites

P.S. With the issues resolved, hopefully @@, I would compare a 10GHz ultrasound with 10GHz radio wave to see which has a better resolution.

What have you concluded?

##### Share on other sites
On 4/7/2021 at 10:17 PM, swansont said:

What have you concluded?

Hmm, the ultrasound is a different aspect then light. From that video(photoacoustic) in that one sentence they mentioned the sound wave produced from laser(yes laser), does not scatter as much as light and therefore making it a more accurate instrument(speculation)? But that also depends on the accuracy of the transducer on the receiving end. The light wave uses raman spectroscopy as measurement based on the reflection. But if you got time you should check out the photoacoustic device, it seems they've matured and is shipping medical devices.

In conclusion, the point I am stuck on is:

1. Do they use a single laser for this apparatus?

2. How do they measure the sound with a transducer?

P.S. Anyway, haven't got much time to look into this because of work and need a life outside of forum.

P.S. The ultrasound is a new find. I mean I did not think of it because sound does not propagate in a vaccum.

P.S. If you do know the answer you are free to enlighten me. I will check the post over weekend.

## Create an account

Register a new account