Photograph of single molucule now possible, Individual atomic links discerned

[Sir T]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-19584301

Atomic bond types discernible in single-molecule images

A pioneering team from IBM in Zurich has published single-molecule images so detailed that the type of atomic bonds between their atoms can be discerned.

The same team took the first-ever single-molecule image in 2009 and more recently published images of a molecule shaped like the Olympic rings.

The new work opens up the prospect of studying imperfections in the "wonder material" graphene or plotting where electrons go during chemical reactions.

The images are published in Science.

The team, which included French and Spanish collaborators, used a variant of a technique called atomic force microscopy, or AFM.

AFM uses a tiny metal tip passed over a surface, whose even tinier deflections are measured as the tip is scanned to and fro over a sample.

The IBM team's innovation to create the first single molecule picture, of a molecule called pentacene, was to use the tip to pick up a single, small molecule made up of a carbon and an oxygen atom.

This carbon monoxide molecule effectively acts as a record needle, probing with unprecedented accuracy the very surfaces of atoms.

It is difficult to overstate what precision measurements these are.

The experiments must be isolated from any kind of vibration coming from within the laboratory or even its surroundings.

They are carried out at a scale so small that room temperature induces wigglings of the AFM's constituent molecules that would blur the images, so the apparatus is kept at a cool -268C.

While some improvements have been made since that first image of pentacene, lead author of the Science study, Leo Gross, told BBC News that the new work was mostly down to a choice of subject.
Nanographene AFM image Tiny distortions to the regular hexagonal pattern of carbon bonds is what interests the researchers

The new study examined fullerenes - such as the famous football-shaped "buckyball" - and polyaromatic hydrocarbons, which have linked rings of carbon atoms at their cores.

The images show just how long the atomic bonds are, and the bright and dark spots correspond to higher and lower densities of electrons.

Together, this information reveals just what kind of bonds they are - how many electrons pairs of atoms share - and what is going on chemically within the molecules.

"In the case of pentacene, we saw the bonds but we couldn't really differentiate them or see different properties of different bonds," Dr Gross said.

"Now we can really prove that... we can see different physical properties of different bonds, and that's really exciting."

The team will use the method to examine graphene, one-atom-thick sheets of pure carbon that hold much promise in electronics.

But defects in graphene - where the perfect sheets of carbon are buckled or include other atoms - are currently poorly understood.

The team will also explore the use of different molecules for their "record needle", with the hope of yielding even more insight into the molecular world.

[Raging Turtle]

Well, my mind is blown.

[Nebu]

STM and AFM have been around for over 20 years. 

Still cool though. 

[Morat20]

I'm thinking the line between "science" and "magic" is starting to blur. :)

[Ghambit]

This is cool, but it's not really a photoimage per se.  It's basically the same thing as closing your eyes and drawing what you see through sense of touch, then colorizing the contrasty bits.  I guess it's more like a scan of an object.  The scanner in this sense it an atomic tip of carbon-monoxide that reacts to particular electron densities.  They then measure this reaction and use the contrasted datapoints to formulate a photo.

These types of imaging are cropping up all over science these days.  Scientists are learning to look for effects rather than the causes, which many times are easier to measure.

[Miasma]

It's like how almost all the photos from Hubble are actually black and white and then NASA just photoshops in some really psychedelic colours.  Except in the reverse "very small" direction.

[Ragnoros]

It's like how almost all the photos from Hubble are actually black and white and then NASA just photoshops in some really psychedelic colours.  Except in the reverse "very small" direction.

Well to be fair said photos from NASA would be naturally psychedelic if our eyes (and in general the telescope detectors) were not attuned to such narrow frequencies of the electromagnetic spectrum. (Feel free to tell me I am wrong.)

[apocrypha]

This is cool, but it's not really a photoimage per se.  It's basically the same thing as closing your eyes and drawing what you see through sense of touch, then colorizing the contrasty bits.  I guess it's more like a scan of an object.  The scanner in this sense it an atomic tip of carbon-monoxide that reacts to particular electron densities.  They then measure this reaction and use the contrasted datapoints to formulate a photo.

These types of imaging are cropping up all over science these days.  Scientists are learning to look for effects rather than the causes, which many times are easier to measure.

Anything smaller than the wavelength of light can't be photographed as what you call a photoimage. That means every electron microscope picture ever - they're just visual representations of electrons bouncing off of things.

Actually "photoimages" are the same, but using light instead of electrons. Once you start analysing exactly what we mean by a photograph then things get increasingly abstract and meaningless in terms of the concept of an image.

[angry.bob]

No wonder the world is such a messed up place. God is having to spend more and more time faking these things to test our faith. Used to be he just had to put some fake dinosaur bones in the ground here and there to trick us into thinking the earth is more than 6,000 years old. Now he's got to fake all these atoms and whatnot. Please, for the sake of God, stop doing science before God has to make fake electron shells inside of these fake atoms that are inside these so-called "molecules".

[Fordel]

I can't even wrap my mind around how precise this thing must be to work.

[ajax34i]

Could get an idea if they ever release how long it takes to calibrate vs. how long it takes to actually take a snapshot.

[Lantyssa]

I can't even wrap my mind around how precise this thing must be to work.

Angstrom-level of accuracy.

[bhodi]

These types of imaging are cropping up all over science these days.  Scientists are learning to look for effects rather than the causes, which many times are easier to measure.

This is very true, but it's not a new thing. We have been doing it for centuries. It was ultimately what allowed for the success of the transatlantic cable. Once the first complete cable was completed in 1857, they discovered it had an enormous amount of line noise and they couldn't get a clear signal. No one really understood electricity or it's implications, so they just bumped the voltage up from 600v to 2000v which melted the outer insulation of the cable within hours. Scratch one undersea cable and a whole lot of money.

A year later, something called a mirror galvanometer was invented. Instead of detecting the electric current directly, you instead suspend a magnet-backed mirror inside a coil and watch the reflected lightbeam on the wall some distance away. Current goes through the coil, which deflects the mirror, which moves the spot of light. This amplifies the sensitivity by several orders of magnitude, which was enough to make the second, lower voltage cable an unqualified success.

[Pennilenko]

Can we trade the politics board for more threads like this?

[angry.bob]

Can we trade the politics board for more threads like this?

No. All that will do is make more threads like the politics board here.

[Ghambit]

What we need is a STEM board to post in.  That'd be quite awesome.  Definitely smart enough folk in here to keep the thing threadworn.

[WayAbvPar]

No wonder the world is such a messed up place. God is having to spend more and more time faking these things to test our faith. Used to be he just had to put some fake dinosaur bones in the ground here and there to trick us into thinking the earth is more than 6,000 years old. Now he's got to fake all these atoms and whatnot. Please, for the sake of God, stop doing science before God has to make fake electron shells inside of these fake atoms that are inside these so-called "molecules".

 

[Kail]

No wonder the world is such a messed up place. God is having to spend more and more time faking these things to test our faith. Used to be he just had to put some fake dinosaur bones in the ground here and there to trick us into thinking the earth is more than 6,000 years old. Now he's got to fake all these atoms and whatnot. Please, for the sake of God, stop doing science before God has to make fake electron shells inside of these fake atoms that are inside these so-called "molecules".

 

I don't get it, is there some religious controversy over this I haven't heard about or something?

[Yegolev]

No, it's just that angry.bob likes fulfilling his own prophecies.

Can we trade the politics board for more threads like this?

No. All that will do is make more threads like the politics board here.

[Murgos]

I can't even wrap my mind around how precise this thing must be to work.

Angstrom-level of accuracy.

I think much more than that.  If it were only Angstrom (1E-10) the images above would just have looked like pixelated blocks, or maybe a single large block as a carbon atom is only 1.54 Angstrom in diameter.

[Fordel]

The engineeeeeering involved in things like this.


"God dammit Steve, you exhaled, SIX MONTHS OF MEASURING RUINED  "

[Raguel]

No wonder the world is such a messed up place. God is having to spend more and more time faking these things to test our faith. Used to be he just had to put some fake dinosaur bones in the ground here and there to trick us into thinking the earth is more than 6,000 years old. Now he's got to fake all these atoms and whatnot. Please, for the sake of God, stop doing science before God has to make fake electron shells inside of these fake atoms that are inside these so-called "molecules".

 

I don't get it, is there some religious controversy over this I haven't heard about or something?

There seems to be some religious controversy over just about anything, if you look hard enough. I think there's some Chick tract about Jesus/angels being the reason why atoms stay together, but I can't be bothered to find it or know if it was a Poe or not.

[Lantyssa]

Are you thinking of them proving the existence of the God Particle (take that aetheists)?

[Raguel]

Are you thinking of them proving the existence of the God Particle (take that aetheists)?

nah, I'm talking about "strong force = Jesus"  

eta: found the tract:

http://www.chick.com/reading/tracts/0055/0055_01.asp

[Paelos]

I will never understand how some Christians believe that a better understanding of the Universe somehow threatens a belief in God.

Then again, I understand very little about this conversation because my scientific background sorta sucks. I do enjoy knowing more about our surroundings though, and knowing how and why a system works doesn't suddenly make me believe nobody built it.

[ghost]

I will never understand how some Christians believe that a better understanding of the Universe somehow threatens a belief in God.

Well, because when you understand enough science you start to realize what an utter crock of shit most religious beliefs are.  For instance, there's the belief that there were no dinosaurs and that it is some sort of evil plot.  Or the belief that hell actually resides under the crust of the earth.  Or the belief that the sun actually revolves around the earth (yes, some idiots still believe this). 

[Kail]

I will never understand how some Christians believe that a better understanding of the Universe somehow threatens a belief in God.

Well, because when you understand enough science you start to realize what an utter crock of shit most religious beliefs are.  For instance, there's the belief that there were no dinosaurs and that it is some sort of evil plot.  Or the belief that hell actually resides under the crust of the earth.  Or the belief that the sun actually revolves around the earth (yes, some idiots still believe this). 

Those aren't really religious beliefs, though.  They're idiotic beliefs that are sometimes held by religious people.  Scholars in the middle ages (most of whom were religious, since reading was a thing priests did) knew the world was round, it just wasn't something the average dirt pushing serf could wrap his head around.  Jesus doesn't, as far as I know, have a whole lot to say about the existence of dinosaurs, pro or con, and anyone who uses that as crucial validation or irrefutable condemnation of his philosophies is completely missing the point (on either side).

[Merusk]

Jesus didn't but some religious scholars of the 17th century did have a lot to say about the age of the earth (5-6,000 years!).  Which is in conflict with the whole Dinosaurs thing.   Plus the belief that all animals were created at once and dinos only died in The Great Flood is in direct contrast.   

These are central tenants of  a large group of people, despite having tons of science to debunk them.   Usually with tenuous logic rooted in a complete misunderstanding of terms like, "well that's only a THEORY."  I live at the home of the Creation Museum, I've heard and seen a lot of the nonsense just through their billboards. 

[Lantyssa]

I will never understand how some Christians believe that a better understanding of the Universe somehow threatens a belief in God.

I don't either.  Were I a believer, it'd only enhance my amazement at the systems God wrought.

[ghost]

Those aren't really religious beliefs, though.

Sure they are.  Maybe they aren't your religious beliefs, but they sure are for a lot of folks. 

[Paelos]

Those aren't really religious beliefs, though.

Sure they are.  Maybe they aren't your religious beliefs, but they sure are for a lot of folks. 

Not really. I think you'll find that the majority of Christians don't believe the world has only been around 5,000 years, or that there was an actual flood of the entire world, or that the allegories of the Bible of 100% fact. Jesus did the majority of his teaching through parables, many like the stories of the old testament. It was and is an effective method of teaching, because these stories span the tests of time, rather than the simplistic rules of 2,000 years ago.

I certainly don't hate science, or learning, or education. I do very much dislike when people hold up ignorance, in any community, as a glorified virtue. I do very much dislike when people also want to beat people over the head with their intelligence, in any community, as a replacement for other people's faith in a higher power.

[ghost]

Edit:  Nevermind.  This is so going to politics.....

[Merusk]

What % of Americans believe in "Young Earth" creationism. "Young Earth" typically means it's only 10k years old.  The 5k number is for those who believe that each reference to time in the Bible is a literal 1:1 corollary to our current understanding of time. i.e. the entirety of the Universe was literally created in 7  24-hour periods.

[Paelos]

What % of Americans believe in "Young Earth" creationism. "Young Earth" typically means it's only 10k years old.  The 5k number is for those who believe that each reference to time in the Bible is a literal 1:1 corollary to our current understanding of time. i.e. the entirety of the Universe was literally created in 7  24-hour periods.

Looks like it's about half and half with the margin of error. Certainly higher than I expected. I certainly fall in the guided evolution theory.

[ghost]

Looks like it's about half and half with the margin of error. Certainly higher than I expected. I certainly fall in the guided evolution theory.

There are more crazy fuckers out there than you can possibly imagine.  But you're educated and rational.  Most people who believe this cockamamy shit are not (or they are delusional). 

Also, this guy's answers are awesome:

I do.. and have at least 12 reasons why.. would ya like to know them? well ok twisted My arm..enjoy

1. Comets disintegrate too quickly.

According to evolutionary theory, comets are supposed to be the same age as the solar system, about five billion years. Yet each time a comet orbits close to the sun, it loses so much of its material that it could not survive much longer than about 100,000 years. Many comets have typical maximum ages (on this basis) of 10,000 years.

Evolutionists explain this discrepancy by assuming that (a) comets come from an unobserved spherical 'Oort cloud' well beyond the orbit of Pluto, (b) improbable gravitational interactions with infrequently passing stars often knock comets into the solar system, and (c) other improbable interactions with planets slow down the incoming comets often enough to account for the hundreds of comets observed. So far, none of these assumptions has been substantiated either by observations or realistic calculations.

Lately, there has been much talk of the 'Kuiper Belt', a disc of supposed comet sources lying in the plane of the solar system just outside the orbit of Pluto. Even if some bodies of ice exist in that location, they would not really solve the evolutionists' problem, since according to evolutionary theory the Kuiper Belt would quickly become exhausted if there were no Oort cloud to supply it.

2. Not enough mud on the sea floor.

Each year, water and winds erode about 25 billion tons of dirt and rock from the continents and deposit it in the ocean. This material accumulates as loose sediment (i.e. mud) on the hard basaltic (lava-formed) rock of the ocean floor. The average depth of all the mud in the whole ocean, including the continental shelves, is less than 400 meters.

The main way currently known to remove the mud from the ocean floor is by plate tectonic subduction. That is, sea floor slides slowly (a few cm/year) beneath the continents, taking some sediment with it. According to secular scientific literature, that process presently removes only one billion tons per year. As far as anyone knows, the other 25 billion tons per year simply accumulate. At that rate, erosion would deposit the present amount of sediment in less than 12 million years.

Yet according to evolutionary theory, erosion and plate subduction have been going on as long as the oceans have existed, an alleged three billion years. If that were so, the rates above imply that the oceans would be massively choked with mud dozens of kilometers deep. An alternative (creationist) explanation is that erosion from the waters of the Genesis Flood running off the continents deposited the present amount of mud within a short time about 5000 years ago.

3. Not enough sodium in the sea.

Every year, rivers and other sources dump over 450 million tons of sodium into the ocean. Only 27% of this sodium manages to get back out of the sea each year. As far as anyone knows, the remainder simply accumulates in the ocean. If the sea had no sodium to start with, it would have accumulated its present amount in less than 42 million years at today's input and output rates. This is much less than the evolutionary age of the ocean, three billion years. The usual reply to this discrepancy is that past sodium inputs must have been less and outputs greater. However, calculations which are as generous as possible to evolutionary scenarios still give a maximum age of only 62 million years. Calculations for many other sea water elements give much younger ages for the ocean.

4. Earth's magnetic field is decaying too fast.

The total energy stored in the Earth's magnetic field has steadily decreased by a factor of 2.7 over the past 1,000 years. Evolutionary theories explaining this rapid decrease, as well as how the Earth could have maintained its magnetic field for billions of years, are very complex and inadequate. A much better creationist theory exists. It is straightforward, based on sound physics, and explains many features of the field: its creation, rapid reversals during the Genesis Flood, surface intensity decreases and increases until the time of Christ, and a steady decay since then. This theory matches paleomagnetic, historic, and present data. The main result is that the field's total energy (not surface intensity) has always decayed at least as fast as now. At that rate the field could not be more than 10,000 years old.

5. Many strata are too tightly bent.

In many mountainous areas, strata thousands of feet thick are bent and folded into hairpin shapes. The conventional geologic time-scale says these formations were deeply buried and solidified for hundreds of millions of years before they were bent. Yet the folding occurred without cracking, with radii so small that the entire formation had to be still wet and unsolidified when the bending occurred. This implies that the folding occurred less than thousands of years after deposition.

6. Injected sands