Unless your name is Loretta, you don’t know me that well.
That’s extremely cool! Obviously the visible dot is fantastically bigger than the actual atom.
For some reason the first time I clicked on that I got only part of the article and the rest was paywalled, so I saw the pic of the apparatus but not the actual image of the dot. Now I can see the whole article, but in any case, this is a sharper version of the picture (click for full size):
It was probably the much larger rocket booster; not Sputnik. (See Post 9).
ETA: The rocket booster was a first magnitude object and the satellite only sixth magnitude which generally requires binoculars.
Wow, that’s interesting… and very cool! Kind of the Dreadnoughtus of the prokaryotic organisms.
.
Respectfully disagree. There is no distinction - it’s all a matter of degree. Where’s the cut off point? As Napier pointed, if you can grant being able to see planets, you must allow the ISS. If you are with friends in a rural setting on a moonless night and point to that pinpoint of light and ask what it is, they will more than likely say it’s the International Space Station.
Anyway, if it qualifies for Space.com, it’s good enough for me. Now take your nitpick and be gone with you! 
It was a dark and chest night. Suddenly a shirt rang out!
As awesome as that is, it is kind of out of bounds to this thread. The part where it says “the lasers make it visible” means you are not seeing it with the naked eye, per se. It would not be visible without the aid of a device.
Although naked and nude are synonyms, you would never say, “see with the nude eye”.
The cutoff point for me is as you can easily see any light source in the sky given sufficient brightness and an an unobstructed line of sight, whether it is a star, planet, satellite, or the ISS, seeing the ISS as a bright point of light in the sky is neither surprising or all that astounding. Whereas seeing something a small as a tardigrade or single bacterium without the aid of magnification is a bit surprising. I guess everyone has a different opinion on what’s considered surprising!
Stage separation of a Space X rocket, roughly 100km up & launched roughly 1000 miles south of me
Foramniferans are microscopic single-celled organisms. Except for the ones that used to get as big as small potato chips. The giant ones are extinct, but they left behind lots of fossils.
(The mention of potato chips isn’t entirely out of left field. They are very thin and often undulating and really do make me think of potato chips made out of rock.)
Those are cool!
And by “lots of fossils”, I meant “build the pyramids out of them”.
https://ucmp.berkeley.edu/science/fieldnotes/casazza_0711.php
I wish to acknowledge both of these excellent additions to the thread. Thank you for your service. 
Nice!
Ha! I meant clear.
Andromeda is 2.5 million light years away. Triangulum Galaxy is 2.73 light years away, and it is claimed that you can just barely see it under perfect conditions.
Indeed–but the same is true for stars. And as it happens, by a similar amount! If you view from 50 cm away, the strontium atom above has an angular size of about 5e-10 radians.
The star V762 Cas, about 16,300 light-years away, is also visible by the naked eye and has an angular size of 8.7e-10 radians.
The laser is just illumination, though. There are lots of things you can only see when illuminated in a particular way. As long as it’s photons coming off the object and going directly into your eye, I’d say it counts.
Let me offer a diplomatic solution and suggest that you’re both right. Yes, the resolution of any given imaging technique is a matter of degree, but only within certain limits. Beyond those limits the resolution is precisely zero. It isn’t “poor” resolution, it’s zero resolution.
One might think that the picture at least tells us that the strontium atom is round. It tells us no such thing. The problem being that the physical properties of light and of the image detection device render any such resolution completely impossible, if indeed a word like “resolution” is even meaningful for an object in which quantum superposition is a dominant effect. Furthermore, the wavelength of light is about three orders of magnitude greater than the diameter of a strontium atom, so it’s a bit like trying to produce an image of a housefly by bouncing sound waves off it.
The picture of a strontium atom is still remarkable because it actually visibly tells us whether the atom is there or not. But that’s all it tells us about it.
Has anyone mentioned Uranus? Normally, it cannot be seen, but under the right circumstances, it can be viewed without a telescope.
Cue Beavis and Butthead laughing sequence.
I kindly direct your attention to post 21. 