 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Hubble deep field image
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fgg2tpUVbXQ
The fact that we know stuff like this, and how it looks
http://multimedia.mcb.harvard.edu/anim_innerlife.html
That we can photograph individual atoms and electrons
http://blogs.nature.com/news/thegreatbeyond/2009/09/electron_clouds_seeing_is_beli.html
http://gizmodo.com/5346964/ibm-takes-first-3d-image-of-atomic-bonds
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
I ordered stamps from Zazzle that read "Place Stamp Here".
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New <dne### [at] san rrcom> wrote:
> Hubble deep field image
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fgg2tpUVbXQ
>
> The fact that we know stuff like this, and how it looks
> http://multimedia.mcb.harvard.edu/anim_innerlife.html
>
> That we can photograph individual atoms and electrons
>
http://blogs.nature.com/news/thegreatbeyond/2009/09/electron_clouds_seeing_is_beli.html
> http://gizmodo.com/5346964/ibm-takes-first-3d-image-of-atomic-bonds
They're all pretty incredible. I'm most interested in 1, 3, and 4, but I don't
think you can rank them, since any ranking would only reflect your personal
interests. That said, I also found this pretty incredible (46a/08):
http://www.eso.org/public/outreach/press-rel/pr-2008/phot-46-08.html
- Ricky
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"triple_r" <nomail@nomail> wrote:
> http://www.eso.org/public/outreach/press-rel/pr-2008/phot-46-08.html
It seems the video links have gone bad. How about this instead:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Hmv-6qLM8Y
- Ricky
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> Hubble deep field image
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fgg2tpUVbXQ
>
> The fact that we know stuff like this, and how it looks
> http://multimedia.mcb.harvard.edu/anim_innerlife.html
>
> That we can photograph individual atoms and electrons
>
http://blogs.nature.com/news/thegreatbeyond/2009/09/electron_clouds_seeing_is_beli.html
> http://gizmodo.com/5346964/ibm-takes-first-3d-image-of-atomic-bonds
Let's face it, while Hubble kicks much ass, it's pretty much just a huge,
close-to-perfect lens. In other words, a device to form images by capturing
light and expanding it. Not nearly as awesome as a device to measure particles
much smaller than lightwaves and translate those measurements into images... :D
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"nemesis" <nam### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
> Let's face it, while Hubble kicks much ass, it's pretty much just a huge,
> close-to-perfect lens. In other words, a device to form images by capturing
> light and expanding it. Not nearly as awesome as a device to measure particles
> much smaller than lightwaves and translate those measurements into images... :D
I guess you can look at it in a number of ways. I was thinking about the
physical processes and our knowledge of them. From that standpoint, they're
pretty equally awesome, if you ask me. From an engineering standpoint, though,
I would agree. Atomic force microscopes are a lot cooler than a big,
imperfectly polished mirror. It's pretty incredible that atoms can image atoms
at a subatomic level.
- Ricky
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New wrote:
>
http://blogs.nature.com/news/thegreatbeyond/2009/09/electron_clouds_seeing_is_beli.html
>
> http://gizmodo.com/5346964/ibm-takes-first-3d-image-of-atomic-bonds
That first link is totally awesome! The second one is very cool, too.
But to actually "see" the orbitals of an atom is incredible.
--
~Mike
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New wrote:
> http://multimedia.mcb.harvard.edu/anim_innerlife.html
This makes my AthlonXP 1700+ cry.
> That we can photograph individual atoms and electrons
>
http://blogs.nature.com/news/thegreatbeyond/2009/09/electron_clouds_seeing_is_beli.html
Uh... why are the orbitals such weird shapes?
> http://gizmodo.com/5346964/ibm-takes-first-3d-image-of-atomic-bonds
Mmm, blurry. :-D
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
triple_r wrote:
> They're all pretty incredible. I'm most interested in 1, 3, and 4, but I don't
> think you can rank them, since any ranking would only reflect your personal
> interests.
Well sure. #2 amazes me not so much because that's how it works (altho
that's pretty awesome), but that we can figure out how it works, and what it
looks like. It's not like you can actually see it going. You have to have
enough theory to deduce this by (say) mixing chemicals together and seeing
what color they turn, and stuff like that.
> http://www.eso.org/public/outreach/press-rel/pr-2008/phot-46-08.html
I'm pretty amazed it only takes 16 years to watch long enough to see
something orbiting the galaxy. :-)
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
I ordered stamps from Zazzle that read "Place Stamp Here".
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New wrote:
> I'm pretty amazed it only takes 16 years to watch long enough to see
> something orbiting the galaxy. :-)
On what day of the week did God create black holes? :-)
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
I ordered stamps from Zazzle that read "Place Stamp Here".
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Invisible wrote:
> Darren New wrote:
>> That we can photograph individual atoms and electrons
>>
http://blogs.nature.com/news/thegreatbeyond/2009/09/electron_clouds_seeing_is_beli.html
>
>
> Uh... why are the orbitals such weird shapes?
>
Wave functions. The orbital isn't where the electron actually is, just
where it is statistically likely to be. For the math that just goes
right over my head, I found
http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/Atomic_orbital to be readable.
I still am not sure which stuns me more: that those pictures come out
looking close enough to the existing models, suggesting that we got it
right; or that there are just enough things wrong that we may have to
replace the whole model. Either way, the pictures are amazing.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
