If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(io9)   Sometimes the "cool" tag is astoundingly inadequate   (io9.com) divider line 43
    More: Cool, wave function, imaginary, quantum states, atoms, tags, quantum, microscopes, electronics  
•       •       •

10039 clicks; posted to Geek » on 25 May 2013 at 9:58 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



43 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread
 
2013-05-25 08:59:02 PM
Wow, that's incredible.
 
2013-05-25 08:59:11 PM
www.myfacewhen.net

OUTSTANDING.
 
2013-05-25 09:01:32 PM
Yeah, I figured the atom would need some "stimulating" to show up anywhere.
 
2013-05-25 09:37:36 PM
And then there's this.

/keep your pixels in your pants
 
2013-05-25 09:41:24 PM
Coupled with this comment...

These aren't the "first color pics of atoms", but the match up quite nicely with those big blobs that were rocking the QDP world circa 1978, and whose scooping of the pics by "Omni" introduced it to millions of readers, the younger student percentage of which went on for the next several years freaking out their teachers into thinking they were reading "Penthouse" or "Playboy" in class because the sizes of the three publications were identical.

knocks my dafuq-meter into orbit.  Who has thoughts like these in their head?
 
2013-05-25 10:07:35 PM
One moon orbits.
 
2013-05-25 10:12:16 PM
Historic moment in science.  Knowledge from this could give you that holodeck you wanted.  Or sapient computers that will take over your world, explore the galaxy and put you in the matrix to keep you from revolting.  Or just more pretty pictures to share from IFLS.
 
2013-05-25 10:12:24 PM
Oh boy. More CGI generated "images" of shiat we've already confirmed a Brazilian times.

WHERE'S MY BALDNESS CURE, SCIENCE!? And no, I don't mean just regrowing hair. I mean hair thin machines that are psychoreactive filaments that change length, color, and position surgically implanted all over my scalp.

Imagine, your hair could change to any one of a 1000 perfect dos in one thought. We could have that. Instead we've got this.
 
2013-05-25 10:14:18 PM
And just for the record:

farm4.staticflickr.com
 
2013-05-25 10:30:44 PM
It will be interesting to see the image of other atoms with multple electrons. Would the images still be as clear?
 
2013-05-25 10:36:05 PM
I love the idiots in the comments who are debating whether this should be chemistry or physics.
LOL
 
2013-05-25 10:39:27 PM
BOHRING
 
2013-05-25 10:42:00 PM

The Beatings Will Continue Until Morale Improves: It will be interesting to see the image of other atoms with multple electrons. Would the images still be as clear?


Maybe, maybe not.
 
2013-05-25 10:43:03 PM

Begoggle: BOHRING



*snert*
 
2013-05-25 10:48:40 PM

Begoggle: BOHRING


Would you please explain that Fermi?
 
2013-05-25 10:56:39 PM
One moon circles
 
2013-05-25 11:04:00 PM
There is no dark side in the Moon. As a matter of fact it's all dark.
 
2013-05-25 11:18:39 PM

acefox1: Begoggle: BOHRING

Would you please explain that Fermi?


I would but einstein-mied myself

/ im stymied
// yeah im not good at this
 
2013-05-25 11:25:37 PM

thisiszombocom: acefox1: Begoggle: BOHRING

Would you please explain that Fermi?

I would but einstein-mied myself

/ im stymied
// yeah im not good at this


That's the worst thing I've ever Hertz.
 
2013-05-25 11:30:47 PM
s15.postimg.org
s22.postimg.org
 
2013-05-25 11:32:06 PM
Neat I guess but I don't know what can be learned from that image. It's not exactly groundbreaking to know hydrogen's one electron is to be found approximately in a circle around its one proton.
 
2013-05-25 11:38:59 PM

acefox1: thisiszombocom: acefox1: Begoggle: BOHRING

Would you please explain that Fermi?

I would but einstein-mied myself

/ im stymied
// yeah im not good at this

That's the worst thing I've ever Hertz.


Be nice, it's an Ohm-age to his Curie-osity
 
2013-05-25 11:56:58 PM
OW! I think I just had a stroke.
 
2013-05-26 12:00:46 AM
"first direct observation "
"statistically average many measurements over time "

Umm, statement two directly contradicts statement one. I mean this is awesome and all but this is by no imaginative definition a direct observation.

And there there was this gem.

"The middle column shows the experimental measurements, while the column at right shows the time-dependent Schrödinger equation calculations - and they match up rather nicely. "

Matched up nicely? Are you people looking at the same graphs as me? The first one is fairly close, the second and third have significant variance, and the fourth is just flat out a mess.
 
2013-05-26 12:12:50 AM

doglover: Oh boy. More CGI generated "images" of shiat we've already confirmed a Brazilian times.

WHERE'S MY BALDNESS CURE, SCIENCE!? And no, I don't mean just regrowing hair. I mean hair thin machines that are psychoreactive filaments that change length, color, and position surgically implanted all over my scalp.

Imagine, your hair could change to any one of a 1000 perfect dos in one thought. We could have that. Instead we've got this.


I, too, would like the baldness cure.  Been on Propecia for years but it's just slowing the inevitable.
 
2013-05-26 12:35:31 AM
Stupid. That image is just the 2-D version of sinc that happens after the fourier transform of the carrier wave. This is AT LEAST 20 years old.
 
2013-05-26 12:45:10 AM

Hacker_X: "first direct observation "
"statistically average many measurements over time "

Umm, statement two directly contradicts statement one. I mean this is awesome and all but this is by no imaginative definition a direct observation.

And there there was this gem.

"The middle column shows the experimental measurements, while the column at right shows the time-dependent Schrödinger equation calculations - and they match up rather nicely. "

Matched up nicely? Are you people looking at the same graphs as me? The first one is fairly close, the second and third have significant variance, and the fourth is just flat out a mess.


That's because you looked at it, dumb ass. You single handedly ruined the hard work of over 50 quantum physicists, and laid low at least 3 Nobel Prize aspirants. Way to go, jack ass. Didn't you know that observing it would change the results?
 
2013-05-26 01:05:15 AM
"while the column at right shows the time-dependent Schrödinger equation calculations - "

That's spacial dependence morons
 
2013-05-26 01:39:16 AM
 bits.wikimedia.org
  |

Egyptian hieroglyph meaning "sun".
 
2013-05-26 01:46:46 AM

The All-Powerful Atheismo: "while the column at right shows the time-dependent Schrödinger equation calculations - "

That's spacial dependence morons


It is the commonly used name for the form of the Schrodinger equation which predicts the shape of a wave function over time.   The "time dependent Schrodinger equation" .
 
2013-05-26 01:59:47 AM

ThrobblefootSpectre: The All-Powerful Atheismo: "while the column at right shows the time-dependent Schrödinger equation calculations - "

That's spacial dependence morons

It is the commonly used name for the form of the Schrodinger equation which predicts the shape of a wave function over time.   The "time dependent Schrodinger equation" .


Which is not what the graph is.
 
2013-05-26 02:08:24 AM

Ghost Roach: acefox1: thisiszombocom: acefox1: Begoggle: BOHRING

Would you please explain that Fermi?

I would but einstein-mied myself

/ im stymied
// yeah im not good at this

That's the worst thing I've ever Hertz.

Be nice, it's an Ohm-age to his Curie-osity


Now you're just Bragg-ing.

For that we make ya walk the Planck.
 
2013-05-26 02:22:31 AM

The All-Powerful Atheismo: Which is not what the graph is.


I don't think that changes the name of the equation used to predict the distribution, though.  It is the equation which is called time dependent, not the graph.
 
2013-05-26 02:27:51 AM

Hacker_X: "first direct observation "
"statistically average many measurements over time "

Umm, statement two directly contradicts statement one. I mean this is awesome and all but this is by no imaginative definition a direct observation.



It is as direct as most observations.  After all, when you look at something with your eyes, you aren't "directly observing" the object, only an average of the radiation reflected off of it.  Same idea here.  This is similar in basic concept to shining a flashlight on something in the dark.  The difficulty here was to invent a flashlight with a very tiny wavelength, yet at low energy that wouldn't completely disturb the object being observed.
 
2013-05-26 03:05:39 AM

acefox1: Ghost Roach: acefox1: thisiszombocom: acefox1: Begoggle: BOHRING

Would you please explain that Fermi?

I would but einstein-mied myself

/ im stymied
// yeah im not good at this

That's the worst thing I've ever Hertz.

Be nice, it's an Ohm-age to his Curie-osity

Now you're just Bragg-ing.

For that we make ya walk the Planck.


That Meitner be such a good idea... I'd think about if Faraday if I were you.
 
2013-05-26 04:20:33 AM
si0.twimg.com
 
2013-05-26 05:54:33 AM
2.bp.blogspot.com
 
2013-05-26 06:06:42 AM

Hacker_X: "first direct observation "
"statistically average many measurements over time "

Umm, statement two directly contradicts statement one. I mean this is awesome and all but this is by no imaginative definition a direct observation.



The article is contrasting the two quoted phrases, not equating them.

"Up until this point, scientists have never been able to actually  observe the wave function.... What's been required to capture a full quantum state is a tool that can statistically average many measurements over time."
 
2013-05-26 06:54:45 AM
First ever image of a hydrogen atom's orbital structure, and io9's first idea is to cover it with little comment bubbles?
 
2013-05-26 11:46:58 AM

serial_crusher: First ever image of a hydrogen atom's orbital structure, and io9's first idea is to cover it with little comment bubbles?


Not only that, but really stupid comment bubbles..

// cool story anyway
 
2013-05-26 12:46:57 PM

acefox1: Ghost Roach: acefox1: thisiszombocom: acefox1: Begoggle: BOHRING

Would you please explain that Fermi?

I would but einstein-mied myself

/ im stymied
// yeah im not good at this

That's the worst thing I've ever Hertz.

Be nice, it's an Ohm-age to his Curie-osity

Now you're just Bragg-ing.

For that we make ya walk the Planck.


I'm getting beyond the Poin of Care-ing, personally. I wish these puns could be more Dirac, and less conceptually Thorne-y.
 
2013-05-26 04:12:11 PM

acefox1: Begoggle: BOHRING

Would you please explain that Fermi?


Down to the smallest element if possible.
 
2013-05-26 08:08:30 PM

SevenizGud: Stupid. That image is just the 2-D version of sinc that happens after the fourier transform of the carrier wave. This is AT LEAST 20 years old.


Clearly the editors and reviewers at Physical Review Letters should have contacted you before publishing this, so you could explain to them what 'newsworthy' means.

I mean really, who the fark do they think they are, putting out such an ignorant journal without even asking a real expert?!

For chrissakes, even freakin' Time magazine does a better job covering science news. I'm canceling my subscription to this rag immediately.
 
Displayed 43 of 43 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report