It's a conspiracy, that picture could've taken a 12 year old 30 seconds the make in photoshop
the government doesn't want us to know we're really made from corn and instant-microwave noodles.
You kick up the leaves and the magic is lost
Weather balloon.
Nothing to see here folks. :cop:
[QUOTE=Wakka V2;17075378][img]http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/46278000/jpg/_46278048_pentacene_anatomy.jpg[/img]
I honestly cannot think up of a good reason why the hydrogen is illuminated on the two sides. The only rational explanation I can think of is the lipid has a hydrogen bond with another lipid.[/QUOTE]
I guess they are in a bigger movement than the others.
And I'm wondering how the fuck that can work. I've never heard of a molecule spreading enough light to get a picture from it.
:science:
[QUOTE=ray243;17065002]
Now, when someone argues that a scientific theory is just a theory, or simply claming that because you have never been to the sun, you can't understand how the sun works, you can point out to them that scientific theory has actually predicited what a molecule looks like based on our scientific knowledge and understanding.[/QUOTE]
They've made photos of atoms before (specifically, gold atoms) like a decade ago. If people are still stubborn enough not to believe in science because it's a theory, they're stupid. Basically everything came from a theory rather than from direct research. (Atoms were thought of in greek times... neutrons, quasars... and lots more.)
[editline]10:16AM[/editline]
[QUOTE=rosthouse;17080209]I guess they are in a bigger movement than the others.
And I'm wondering how the fuck that can work. I've never heard of a molecule spreading enough light to get a picture from it.
:science:[/QUOTE]
... ever heard how light works?
Light goes on surface, rebounces, you see.
[editline]10:18AM[/editline]
[QUOTE=tarkio;17075714]They should have done an awesome molecule, not a boring one like pentacene.
Let's get some THC up in here
0
edit:
no wait, they should do Borax
0[/QUOTE]
They should do titin. :< = C132983H211861N36149O40883S693
[QUOTE=Kendra;17080314]... ever heard how light works?
Light goes on surface, rebounces, you see.
[/QUOTE]
A molecule doesn't have a surface, you know?
It's only held together by atomic forces.
And I bet they used another source to make that picture, not light.
What the fuck, molecular imaging has been around for quite a few years now.
My professor is using short burst technologies to image proteins a hundred ties bigger and complicated.
[QUOTE=Unreliable;17077082]He can pay off his debt.[/QUOTE]
This made me lol.
[QUOTE=Kendra;17080314]They've made photos of atoms before (specifically, gold atoms) like a decade ago. If people are still stubborn enough not to believe in science because it's a theory, they're stupid. Basically everything came from a theory rather than from direct research. (Atoms were thought of in greek times... neutrons, quasars... and lots more.)
[/QUOTE]
No only atoms were thought of in greek times, someone said "If I cut this apple and then cut it again and again and again there must be some stage where I simply cannot cut it anymore" or to that degree.
[QUOTE=rosthouse;17080209]I guess they are in a bigger movement than the others.
And I'm wondering how the fuck that can work. I've never heard of a molecule spreading enough light to get a picture from it.
:science:[/QUOTE]
Have you actually read the article? The idea is similar to a scanning electron microscope; it scans the molecule with a probe, measuring the forces, and converts the signals to light.
[quote=THE ARTICLE, YOU SHOULD READ IT]When the fork is set vibrating, the prong nearest the sample will experience a minuscule shift in the frequency of its vibration, simply because it is getting close to the molecule.
Comparing the frequencies of the two prongs gives a measure of just how close the nearer prong is, [b]effectively[/b] mapping out the molecule's structure.[/quote]
So you could argue that it's not a "picture", but it's still effectively a direct "map" of the molecule, which is cool. So far, we've just guessed what the molecules looked like by measuring the repulsion of individual atoms and electrons (VSEPR theory).
[edit]
[QUOTE=tarkio;17088356]Have you actually read the article? The technology is similar to a scanning electron microscope; it scans the molecule with a probe, measuring the forces, and converts the signals to light.[/QUOTE]
As I said, I was wondering how it works.
[QUOTE=rosthouse;17088383]As I said, I was wondering how it works.[/QUOTE]
Well, advice for the future: read OP completely (and any linked articles) before posting when you're in the "In The News" section.
[QUOTE=tarkio;17088477]Well, advice for the future: read OP completely (and any linked articles) before posting when you're in the "In The News" section.[/QUOTE]
I'll take that advice and will do better next time. Thank you very much.
[QUOTE=rosthouse;17088527]I'll take that advice and will do better next time. Thank you very much.[/QUOTE]
The pleasure is mine. Have a good day, sir.
[editline]rosthouse[/editline]
If you really want to read about the nitty-gritty details of it, I find IBM's own article to be the best source on the subject.
[url]http://www.zurich.ibm.com/news/09/pentacene.html[/url]
Also, I must correct myself; the technology more closely resembles the scanning [i]tunneling[/i] microscope, rather than the scanning [i]electron[/i] microscope, although both microscopes use methods other than light reflection.
[QUOTE=tarkio;17075714]They should have done an awesome molecule, not a boring one like pentacene.
Let's get some THC up in here
[img]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/e/ef/Delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol-from-tosylate-xtal-3D-balls.png/800px-Delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol-from-tosylate-xtal-3D-balls.png[/img]
edit:
no wait, they should do Borax
[img]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/a/a8/Borax-unit-cell-3D-balls.png/794px-Borax-unit-cell-3D-balls.png[/img][/QUOTE]
How about some hemonglobin
[img]http://www.greeennotebook.com/images/hemoglobin.png[/img]
Looks tasty !
[img]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/37/Cullinanroughpieces.jpg[/img]
How about some molecules in a picture, guys?
[QUOTE=Maucer;17088875]How about some hemonglobin
[img]http://www.greeennotebook.com/images/hemoglobin.png[/img][/QUOTE]
Holy crap.
[QUOTE=Smirnoff Joe;17065021]A fuzzy view of the atomic level... Fascinating, yet also not too much to see. Which both increases and decreases the mystery.[/QUOTE]
It's fuzzy since the electrons are waves at this level which's partial distribution is spread over space.
[editline]01:37PM[/editline]
[QUOTE=Beafman;17065106]The top picture just looks like it is a very blurred version of the lower picture.[/QUOTE]
The lower version is just a visualisation to show someone how the atoms are bond.
Actually, atomic bonds caused by electrons are spread in space (because of electrons wave-nature).
[editline]01:38PM[/editline]
[QUOTE=Canned Induvidual;17065230]Left and right end seems to be shiny...the magnetic poles?[/QUOTE]
No. As lighter the picture is, as higher is the spatial propability-density of the electron.
[editline]01:42PM[/editline]
[QUOTE=Wakka V2;17075378][img]http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/46278000/jpg/_46278048_pentacene_anatomy.jpg[/img]
I honestly cannot think up of a good reason why the hydrogen is illuminated on the two sides. The only rational explanation I can think of is the lipid has a hydrogen bond with another lipid.[/QUOTE]
Well, do the quantum mechanical calculation, solve Schrödingers Equation for the electrons and find out the same picture :)
Isn't in chemistry a task called "Quantum Chemistry"? They might know more.
source? cause that would be intresting if it were true but you cited no source.
HOLY MOTHERFUCKING SACRED MOTHER OF JESUS CHRIST FATHER OF ALL TREES WITH DICKS
This is neat.
let's see em take a pic of an atom stripped of its electrons, so we can see a clearer image
If we can call that blurry crap a molecule, than we can call my ten second photoshop real Ozone.
[img]http://img269.imageshack.us/img269/8719/ozonephotochop.png[/img]
[QUOTE=ButtsexV2;17131181]If we can call that blurry crap a molecule, than we can call my ten second photoshop real Ozone.
[img]http://img269.imageshack.us/img269/8719/ozonephotochop.png[/img][/QUOTE]
You just mirrored the steam logo ya silly goose
I hope this technology is getting more precise. :iia:
[QUOTE=rosthouse;17080698]A molecule doesn't have a surface, you know?
It's only held together by atomic forces.
And I bet they used another source to make that picture, not light.[/QUOTE]
It's mass and energy being hold together. Mass is the keyword.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
