Most Detailed Photos of an Atom Yet 229
BuzzSkyline writes "Ukrainian researchers have managed to take pictures of atoms that reveal structure of the electron clouds surrounding carbon nuclei in unprecedented detail. Although the images offer no surprises (they look much like the sketches of electron orbitals included in high school science texts), this is the first time that anyone has directly imaged atoms at this level, rather than inferring the structure of the orbitals from indirect measurements such as electron or X-ray interferometry."
Speaking as a chemist (Score:5, Interesting)
This is amazing. We'd theorised orbitals to exist, and they worked very well. We could calculate the shapes of molecules and make detailed predictions that came true to 10 decimal places. Quantum mechanics as applied to electrons in atoms is the most successful and the most rigorously tested theory ever developed.
And yet, to finally see a real orbital, not a simulation. Looks like a 1s and a 2p, right there for the looking!
Similar Pictures From Switzerland (Score:4, Interesting)
"Leo Gross and his colleagues at IBM in Zurich, Switzerland, modified the AFM technique to make the most detailed image yet of pentacene, an organic molecule consisting of five benzene rings"
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn17699-microscopes-zoom-in-on-molecules-at-last.html [newscientist.com]
Why is this significant? (Score:3, Interesting)
Magnification (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Similar Pictures From Switzerland (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Speaking as a chemist (Score:3, Interesting)
So, could you in any way explain how we get from "think of it as a planet with many moons" to this [wikipedia.org] or more importantly, what gives orbitals this shape?
Maybe I'm opening Pandora's Box here, but I'm intruiged.
Re:Speaking as a chemist (Score:4, Interesting)
In fact the experimental evidence showing a physical picture of these orbitals just goes to show that this is in fact a very sensible and useful way of picturing your atom.
Everything is an approximation (Score:3, Interesting)
Orbitals are not real ! They are mathematical constructs and they are not observables. People think that just because you can calculate something it is real, that is not the case.
That a derived quantity is "just" a calculated approximate model of some part of the universe doesn't mean it isn't real. Forget about orbitals and quantum mechanics, consider planetary orbits and classical mechanics. There is no such thing as a closed elliptical orbit as depicted in the textbooks. All orbits are unclosed.
Physics IS building models. Models are real even if they are incomplete:
http://www.revell.com/catalog/products/buzz_aldrin_rocket_hero.html [revell.com]
It may not be Buzz, but it shares the quality of physical existence with him. (And Buzz is himself not the man he was on the Moon.) The absurdity of Moon-landing deniers lies in the fact that each and every one of us spends our entire life embedded in outer space. Where else would be be? The evolving Earth is far more special a place than just another desiccated Moon.
Re:Speaking as a chemist (Score:2, Interesting)