I dont know if this is a stupid suggestion, but what if they used a hydroxide ion rather than a carbon monoxide molecule? I thought it may work better, what are the Professor's thoughts?
I remember seeing that IMB picture way back in the days when I was doing some research about nanotechnology. I remember thinking "Yeah, they'll never go to the atom scale with a needle like that.". Then some guy thinks it would be cool to attach something smaller to it.
Moral of the story? We need way more people thinking outside the box.
@Adrenalinism It seems as though you haven't. A troll wouldn't do it's job well simply by making a vote. Here, in the comments section, where emotions can be stirred, is where a troll would be found.
@ZenithPlacidity Because they have you, him, and me all talking about trolling, they have therefore trolled us all.
But think of it this way: they disliked the video just to get you worked up. And you did get worked up. You felt so strongly against the thumbs down that you wrote a comment about it.
wooooaaah i never thought in my lifetime that i would acually see experimental proof of the geometry of molecules, or the fact that matter exsisted in this way that was forever taught to us, its just insane
The temperatures the professor is talking about I believe are really low (comparable to the absolute zero imho) and at those temperatures pretty much all the reactions are impossibile since the energy of the system isn't enough to start the whole thing.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
The energies of atoms on the atomic level are naturally fuzzy. The very act of trying to measure them changes them.
The difficulty of measuring molecules isn't due to technology but the stubborn nature of man to refuse to accept the the universe isn't black and white but a multicolored rainbow(philosophically speaking of course).
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
why in the world do these people have no idea about barbers? are they all trying to look like einstein? don't they know that looking like einstein doesnt make you as smart as einstein. please for the love of people viewing go to a hair cuttery closest to you ASAP. interesting otherwise about the atoms and molecules.
nice! these videos never fail to amaze me! You should aee if you can maybe get little shorts on the Science channel and put these videos on, they are so very informative.
This was precisely the question I had when I read about this the day it came out. I am not a scientist, but I am guessing--and only guessing--that the force of the bonds is strong enough that the tip of the probe rides over/around them. I would be very interested to see this question answered by an expert.
A proton's diameter is on the order of 10^-15 meters. The diameter of a hydrogen atom, for example, is on the order of 10^-10 m. In other words, the hydrogen atom is 100,000 times larger than it's nucleus. Atoms are mostly empty space, so it's not the mass that interacts with other masses, it's the electric force of the electron cloud that repels other electron clouds. I believe it is the shape of this cloud that the stylus is able to measure. Finally, in covalent bonds, atoms share their clouds
if the problem is that the atom used to "see" molecules is too big , why not use a really really small atom ? say a hydrogen atom for example ? its size is about 1/16 the size of an oxygen atom .
the radius of a hydrogen atom is approx 25 picometres, and an oxygen is 60pm. The size of an atom doesn't come from the nucleus, but rather the orbitals of electrons surrounding the nucleus, as atoms are mostly empty space. So a hydrogen atom would be ideal but they most likely could only use a CO molecule as their tip, which isnt too great of a difference considering the incredible precision of these experiments
Wow this is soo amazing. Yea imagining seeing reactions that would be a paradigm shift for chemistry. I could finanally see what I'm doing in the lab. This would be a good confirmation technique when doing analysis for compounds. I'm not to sure how expensive it is but it seems like it would make it a good reference. Well in a way but cool nonetheless.
Brandon how about something that fluoresces? As for the breaking apart why not video the act of breaking apart. Or maybe thats just as impossible as imaging a molecule.
I heard something about atoms being pyramidshape like, and their seems to be some animo around it.
I mean, thinking about it, round atoms,.. where would they get such a complex structure from? You cant draw a circle with only 4 pixels on a computer program, the raster doesnt allow such smooth complex shapes.
Or is it meant to be a visual tool to help us imagine the atom? Wich might also be a bit misleading?
haha,.. i just tried a 2 by 2 image,.. its not a triangle, but i guess i'm limited by the square shape of the pixel, so it isnt a very good example after all. But the argument still kinda stands.
Watching graphs of atoms is like watching graphs for organic cells, but for cells we can explain their round shapes, their structure complexity allows it to be that way. It just doesnt seem right to view the particles as little balls.
Atoms are spherical for the same reason fluids become spherical in space. It's actually the most efficient shape to be when you account for surface tension (and internal gravity). Same reason why planets and stars are spherical, it's the most natural shape in the universe.
Yes, but stars, planets, fluids exist from atoms,... lots and lots of atoms.
A perfect round droplet in space can account for it shape because of the huge amount of atoms. An atom cannot account for its round shape, because its particles dont exists of huge amounts of other particles.
Let me put it like this.
You can draw a circle with pencil (complex structure), or you can make a single dot, i know the dot looks round, but its not.
Its held together through electromagnetism the nuetrons glue the nucleus together hence the round shape, the electrons orbit the center much like a planet's moon and the distance is usually the same in the s orbital, this is of course different once you get into p orbitals and so on.
lets stop comparing houses with bricks ok, bricks dont look like houses.
even though people can spot a resemblance between an atom and a moon orbiting the earth, there are totally different things happening there. Graphically its only a cosmetic relationship to the eye.
So instead of a little hand drawn round little ball, what is the real shape of a neutron, proton or electron.
cool, thats how the t1000 imitates objects and substances, by sliding his fingertips over the surface of somthing, so there is some science truth in films!
Trying to take a two dimensional snapshot of a three dimensional molecule. Really awesome work nonetheless. I guess that's why the ends are a little brighter in the image? The three inner rings are a slightly lower than the outer two rings? It's only a matter of time before we get a clearer imagine, really exciting stuff!
Very interesting but I just can't get over the guys hair! He looks like the english mad scientist version of Phil Spector. Maybe he can find the atoms for a comb, LOL
Wow. I honestly probably wouldn't have heard about this for a while if it wasn't for these channels. And it was explained in a very clear manner(the basics at least, rather than the technical aspect). And yeah, that's definitely an awesome step for science, especially with nano technology I would imagine. Not to mention verifying the structure of a molecule and possibly seeing something totally unexpected in the future.
Scientists were extra clever in the 80's it seemed. I'm currently fine tuning my artificial intelligence machine but I can't decide on a manly celebrity voice to use for it's speaking voice.
Ah ha !! That is a much better choice than my Paris Hilton prototype. It was too vapid. It was all " Umm ... like .. my .. uh sensors ?Are detecting .. like .. some ..uh .. interference, I think ?"
I like your hair.
tjpld 5 months ago
Now THAT was cool!! Thanks!
punishedexistence 7 months ago
Simply the best 'classes' on physics anywhere on the Internet, bar none.
Urbino237 8 months ago
I dont know if this is a stupid suggestion, but what if they used a hydroxide ion rather than a carbon monoxide molecule? I thought it may work better, what are the Professor's thoughts?
EyItsKimron 8 months ago
I remember seeing that IMB picture way back in the days when I was doing some research about nanotechnology. I remember thinking "Yeah, they'll never go to the atom scale with a needle like that.". Then some guy thinks it would be cool to attach something smaller to it.
Moral of the story? We need way more people thinking outside the box.
adelisletust 1 year ago
a blind scaner, interesting.
panzarw 1 year ago
Comment removed
ZenithPlacidity 1 year ago
@ZenithPlacidity I see you have never encountered internet "trolls". Search it up mate. :)
Adrenalinism 1 year ago
@Adrenalinism It seems as though you haven't. A troll wouldn't do it's job well simply by making a vote. Here, in the comments section, where emotions can be stirred, is where a troll would be found.
ZenithPlacidity 1 year ago
@ZenithPlacidity Because they have you, him, and me all talking about trolling, they have therefore trolled us all.
But think of it this way: they disliked the video just to get you worked up. And you did get worked up. You felt so strongly against the thumbs down that you wrote a comment about it.
Troll -1
ZenithPlacidity - 0
sabaths1fan 1 year ago
wooooaaah i never thought in my lifetime that i would acually see experimental proof of the geometry of molecules, or the fact that matter exsisted in this way that was forever taught to us, its just insane
darcynshit 1 year ago
very understandable
Dave8800x 2 years ago 3
This video explained it all. It achieved education for all. A perfect educational and informational video.
cray725 2 years ago 12
Comment removed
cray725 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
A very, very basic explanation.
fokGoogol 2 years ago
My organic chemistry professor at Purdue showed the lecture class this picture, really cool stuff.
gonya33 2 years ago 3
could you do a cold reaction? I don't know much about chemistry but like a endothermic reaction?
MoreVinnie 2 years ago
The temperatures the professor is talking about I believe are really low (comparable to the absolute zero imho) and at those temperatures pretty much all the reactions are impossibile since the energy of the system isn't enough to start the whole thing.
Shannariano 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
The energies of atoms on the atomic level are naturally fuzzy. The very act of trying to measure them changes them.
The difficulty of measuring molecules isn't due to technology but the stubborn nature of man to refuse to accept the the universe isn't black and white but a multicolored rainbow(philosophically speaking of course).
525047 2 years ago
Fun and educational, as always. Brilliant! Keep it up!
johnclavis 2 years ago 12
@johnclavis: Thanks for that and thanks for watching!
periodicvideos 2 years ago
awsome im in chemistry next semestor so i hpoe to learn alot more abot it
jordanmjk0 2 years ago 3
i like the hair man keep it growing!
ironlionkalo 2 years ago 4
This comment has received too many negative votes show
why in the world do these people have no idea about barbers? are they all trying to look like einstein? don't they know that looking like einstein doesnt make you as smart as einstein. please for the love of people viewing go to a hair cuttery closest to you ASAP. interesting otherwise about the atoms and molecules.
the1tigglet 2 years ago
Comment removed
HLSDK 2 years ago
This sounds like an older fashion record player stylus... Soon we may have the equivalent of a CD player then a DVD player for moving atoms
Films4You 2 years ago
lol. only the professor would have a hammer and a rubber ball on his desk...
mistermuffin420 2 years ago 5
I thought it was a grandma from the snapshot.
xmlsbsd 2 years ago
Science hair.
Pedophiliac 2 years ago 6
Good job copying what cunnelatio said
gr3ff3n 2 years ago
I had been reading the news about this and am glad that y'all made a video on it. The hydrogen bond view is a really amazing thing!
pepsibookcat 2 years ago
Great video, I'm sure I wouldn't have heard about this if it wasn't for you guys, thank you!
matthew623210 2 years ago
Cool video but what is with that guy's hair?
thealexbaron 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Your dad's cock is a molecule.
drdawkins87 2 years ago
science hair
cunnelatio 2 years ago 6
I was promised free pizza
chauss513 2 years ago
How did they pin the molecule down on the table to image it?
desiredusername 2 years ago
Froze it.
mendelbot 2 years ago
Cool as
Intervene 2 years ago
Exciting!
how nice would it be to chemists to actually see the molecules instead of having to deal with tricky spectra
Tetsuwan3000 2 years ago
Is that a 550 piece puzzle of the periodic table I spy in the background?
tzone92 2 years ago
Hahaha I saw that too!
matthew623210 2 years ago
Great video, makes me excited to think what the future may bring us in terms of our ability to see molecules.
XioNilrem 2 years ago
wow!!
melodysweet731 2 years ago
OMG)) Professor owns. Great vid !!!!! :) 5 stars!
diogenden 2 years ago
I could listen to this guy forever
ZackTheMysterious1 2 years ago 7
I love this videos! Please keep them comming!
noblessus 2 years ago 4
A good video giving the history of imaging of atoms.
andrebrannan1953 2 years ago
I bought my baby daughter that same colorful toy in the foreground! She has considerably less hair...
I love the videos, hope you can keep them coming.
amygdala42 2 years ago
I used to play with that toy when I was a wee child...
Jiraya12345 2 years ago
The camera loves Professor Poliakoff and his wonderful hair!!!
gruelin1 2 years ago 2
this channel made my chemistry class fun
therealsporadicaarmy 2 years ago 2
Wow o.o This is amazing!!
ZenityChenity 2 years ago
nice! these videos never fail to amaze me! You should aee if you can maybe get little shorts on the Science channel and put these videos on, they are so very informative.
juggliac 2 years ago 3
Wow, i'm surpised they look like the models... i thought youd only be able to see the atoms, and the bonds would be invisible
pHzerodotcom 2 years ago 2
This was precisely the question I had when I read about this the day it came out. I am not a scientist, but I am guessing--and only guessing--that the force of the bonds is strong enough that the tip of the probe rides over/around them. I would be very interested to see this question answered by an expert.
captaintupelov 2 years ago
A proton's diameter is on the order of 10^-15 meters. The diameter of a hydrogen atom, for example, is on the order of 10^-10 m. In other words, the hydrogen atom is 100,000 times larger than it's nucleus. Atoms are mostly empty space, so it's not the mass that interacts with other masses, it's the electric force of the electron cloud that repels other electron clouds. I believe it is the shape of this cloud that the stylus is able to measure. Finally, in covalent bonds, atoms share their clouds
Floop1492 2 years ago
Amazing. Thanks for the video
cthulhex 2 years ago
if the problem is that the atom used to "see" molecules is too big , why not use a really really small atom ? say a hydrogen atom for example ? its size is about 1/16 the size of an oxygen atom .
solomsolomol 2 years ago
the radius of a hydrogen atom is approx 25 picometres, and an oxygen is 60pm. The size of an atom doesn't come from the nucleus, but rather the orbitals of electrons surrounding the nucleus, as atoms are mostly empty space. So a hydrogen atom would be ideal but they most likely could only use a CO molecule as their tip, which isnt too great of a difference considering the incredible precision of these experiments
Sharkness77 2 years ago 2
As a chemist, this is off the charts. I thought it would be years before we got an actual 'snapshot' of a molecule. Awesome...
Corrup7file 2 years ago 2
atomic force microscope.
colinstu 2 years ago
Wow, great find, Professor. :)
JonatanGronoset 2 years ago
AMAZING
LokkenJester 2 years ago
Cool!
jacoman1234567 2 years ago
I just showed the picture to my 9-year-old. I think his "Woah!" pretty much sums it up. :-D
IsawaMitaka 2 years ago 2
This is just too cool for words!
IsawaMitaka 2 years ago 2
Wow this is soo amazing. Yea imagining seeing reactions that would be a paradigm shift for chemistry. I could finanally see what I'm doing in the lab. This would be a good confirmation technique when doing analysis for compounds. I'm not to sure how expensive it is but it seems like it would make it a good reference. Well in a way but cool nonetheless.
farhmoha 2 years ago
A picture of a molecule...on the internet?
That's nothing. I once saw a picture of a naked woman on the internet--they have LOTS of molecules :D
GetMeThere1 2 years ago
I fucking love science!
Gichnni 2 years ago 2
This is very exciting! Thank you, professor Poliakoff for a clear explanation of what occurred!
gruelin1 2 years ago 4
That's awesome, I wonder what ionic bonds look like.
dbc616 2 years ago
That is really a nice breakthrough. Now if they could only find a way to "see" organic molecules in solution my life would be A LOT easier. :)
buzzausa 2 years ago
Really interesting stuff! Why not try imaging something that is already emitting some kind of energy like say Radium? Really cold Radium.
blinking801 2 years ago
blinking801, each time Radium radiates, it breaks apart the atam. This wouldn't make for the type of image you're thinking of.
BrandonFurtwangler 2 years ago
Brandon how about something that fluoresces? As for the breaking apart why not video the act of breaking apart. Or maybe thats just as impossible as imaging a molecule.
blinking801 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
this is so cool :)
padime 2 years ago
I wish i had a cunning system of lasers...
Keylimedelight 2 years ago
Imagine the possibilities!
DG121480 2 years ago
I heard something about atoms being pyramidshape like, and their seems to be some animo around it.
I mean, thinking about it, round atoms,.. where would they get such a complex structure from? You cant draw a circle with only 4 pixels on a computer program, the raster doesnt allow such smooth complex shapes.
Or is it meant to be a visual tool to help us imagine the atom? Wich might also be a bit misleading?
Whatta ya think people?
Kaandorpius 2 years ago
I don't think you could make a pyramid/triangle with 4 pixels either :P
colinstu 2 years ago
haha,.. i just tried a 2 by 2 image,.. its not a triangle, but i guess i'm limited by the square shape of the pixel, so it isnt a very good example after all. But the argument still kinda stands.
Watching graphs of atoms is like watching graphs for organic cells, but for cells we can explain their round shapes, their structure complexity allows it to be that way. It just doesnt seem right to view the particles as little balls.
Kaandorpius 2 years ago
Atoms are spherical for the same reason fluids become spherical in space. It's actually the most efficient shape to be when you account for surface tension (and internal gravity). Same reason why planets and stars are spherical, it's the most natural shape in the universe.
christopherawesome 2 years ago 4
Yes, but stars, planets, fluids exist from atoms,... lots and lots of atoms.
A perfect round droplet in space can account for it shape because of the huge amount of atoms. An atom cannot account for its round shape, because its particles dont exists of huge amounts of other particles.
Let me put it like this.
You can draw a circle with pencil (complex structure), or you can make a single dot, i know the dot looks round, but its not.
The same goes for atoms.
Kaandorpius 2 years ago 2
Its held together through electromagnetism the nuetrons glue the nucleus together hence the round shape, the electrons orbit the center much like a planet's moon and the distance is usually the same in the s orbital, this is of course different once you get into p orbitals and so on.
andyrussell 2 years ago
lets stop comparing houses with bricks ok, bricks dont look like houses.
even though people can spot a resemblance between an atom and a moon orbiting the earth, there are totally different things happening there. Graphically its only a cosmetic relationship to the eye.
So instead of a little hand drawn round little ball, what is the real shape of a neutron, proton or electron.
Kaandorpius 2 years ago
I think atoms are nothing like pixels on a computer screen.
Jawalabang2 2 years ago
cool, thats how the t1000 imitates objects and substances, by sliding his fingertips over the surface of somthing, so there is some science truth in films!
tobie1 2 years ago
Trying to take a two dimensional snapshot of a three dimensional molecule. Really awesome work nonetheless. I guess that's why the ends are a little brighter in the image? The three inner rings are a slightly lower than the outer two rings? It's only a matter of time before we get a clearer imagine, really exciting stuff!
aadoza 2 years ago
That's why they picked Pentacene. acene's are pretty flat.
colinstu 2 years ago
why didn't i hear about this on newspaper ? ;p
Kanashto 2 years ago
does this old/new microscopy technic has a catchy name yet?
to search for photos of nuclear bonds
Chavalierdeon 2 years ago
Very interesting but I just can't get over the guys hair! He looks like the english mad scientist version of Phil Spector. Maybe he can find the atoms for a comb, LOL
jdc395 2 years ago
make 5 prof poliakoffs stand next to each other, and take a black and white photo from above. i bet it'd look a lot like that photo of the molecule.
reinux 2 years ago
Thank you for a very clear expostition of the techniques employed to 'feel' the shapes of molecules.
MichaelKingsfordGray 2 years ago
it was on some of the social network (link aggregate) media sites last week. very cool that the professor followed up with a video on it.
lvecsey 2 years ago
This is really mind blowing.
culwin 2 years ago
Why hasn't this been in the news. . . .oh yer they've got to many "celebrity" storys to cover
L0VEgun 2 years ago 14
indeed, why nobody has come with this yet? well of course, besides the internet,(but the internet is mostly luck anyway)
Chavalierdeon 2 years ago
''They'' don't think people will be interested in science. :|
QuintonCharles 2 years ago
It's probably too complex for the news to cover... (eye-roll)
jonnysmpr 2 years ago
It's possible to get some idea of how molecules react by using a laser which sends out pulses of light, on the order of a few femtoseconds 10^-15s)
andersvj 2 years ago
Nicely described Proffessor, an excellent and fascinating video.
anothergazman 2 years ago 2
Wow. I honestly probably wouldn't have heard about this for a while if it wasn't for these channels. And it was explained in a very clear manner(the basics at least, rather than the technical aspect). And yeah, that's definitely an awesome step for science, especially with nano technology I would imagine. Not to mention verifying the structure of a molecule and possibly seeing something totally unexpected in the future.
prisoner1138 2 years ago
And I agree, they definitely should have made the test blind and had them guess what it was based on the image, heh.
prisoner1138 2 years ago
I saw an article on this image, and the first thing that came to my mind was, "The professor is absolutely going to talk about this."
sliver321123 2 years ago
Scientists were extra clever in the 80's it seemed. I'm currently fine tuning my artificial intelligence machine but I can't decide on a manly celebrity voice to use for it's speaking voice.
ThermostatAgreeable 2 years ago 2
sean connery perhaps
FraGGenstein330 2 years ago 2
Surely you would want James Earl Jones.
Cobicles 2 years ago
Ah ha !! That is a much better choice than my Paris Hilton prototype. It was too vapid. It was all " Umm ... like .. my .. uh sensors ?Are detecting .. like .. some ..uh .. interference, I think ?"
ThermostatAgreeable 2 years ago
what does vapid mean?
GerardLover91 2 years ago
Dog hair.
scottycatman 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
In this case it's dull, uninteresting.
MastermindRX78NT1 2 years ago