Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Researchers Take First-Ever Photographs of Molecules Forming Chemical Bonds

page: 1
23

log in

join
+2 more 
posted on Jun, 3 2013 @ 03:40 AM
link   
Hi All

For those that did chemistry at school ( I was a physics guy) you may remember drawings like this.



You all so may have wondered if it was correct well it looks like it was see link.

Molecules Forming Chemical Bonds

Picture from site taken with a technique called Non-Contact Atomic Force Microscopy.



I must admit I like to see things like this even more so when we have many members on here constantly accusing mainstream science of being misleading, telling lies and other such BS.




posted on Jun, 3 2013 @ 03:47 AM
link   
reply to post by wmd_2008
 


Cool pics. Yep, science is pretty THE most empowering tool we have for getting at truth. View the world through a scientific perspective, and conspiracy theory becomes almost unnecessary for seeing the craziness going on - all the absurdity and weirdness of it all is suddenly right in your face!



posted on Jun, 3 2013 @ 04:08 AM
link   
Wow that is pretty cool stuff actually, much closer to the diagrams than I would have actually imagined. Those types of chemical diagrams have been around for a long time, well before we were able to directly observe the chemical bonds like this. Just goes to show why our chemistry science has been so successful compared to many other areas of science where the rules aren't so clear.



posted on Jun, 3 2013 @ 04:17 AM
link   
reply to post by wmd_2008
 


Im no chemistry whix but i am aware that X-ray diffraction is used to obtain structural information about crystalline solids, and the first diffraction pattern of a crystal made in early 1900s.

The X-ray crystallography is based a method used (based on X-ray) diffraction for determining the atomic and molecular structure of a crystal. The technique was developed from 1912 to 20 according to wiki.

en.wikipedia.org...

Therefore its not like they just photographed this and now comparing it with text book as your OP implies they already had developed visual models on atomic structure of molecules using this X-ray crystallography.



posted on Jun, 3 2013 @ 04:47 AM
link   
reply to post by AthlonSavage
 


Your correct up to a point but consider this from your link.


The technique of single-crystal X-ray crystallography has three basic steps. The first—and often most difficult—step is to obtain an adequate crystal of the material under study. The crystal should be sufficiently large (typically larger than 0.1 mm in all dimensions)


0.1 mm is HUGE compared to what is shown in the OP also the technique you linked to has a few steps and a different method to working out the shape rather than showing it!
edit on 3-6-2013 by wmd_2008 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 3 2013 @ 05:11 AM
link   
reply to post by wmd_2008
 


The point i was making that ingenius technological devices were built early last century to put together painstakingly visual modules. The equipment they use is advancements of the earlier techology to improve resolution and use software to mesh the data togther which becomes the picture. There is nothing new under the sun here just better technology in use.
edit on 3-6-2013 by AthlonSavage because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 3 2013 @ 06:56 AM
link   
reply to post by wmd_2008


I must admit I like to see things like this even more so when we have many members on here constantly accusing mainstream science of being misleading, telling lies and other such BS.



 


I think the notion comes when people get confused with very basic, entry level science that essentially dumbs down things for beginners.

ie, how an electron acts in an atom. Or the electron cloud in general.

For anyone in advanced physics, the drawings and depictions of entry level learning materials are known not to be a literal depiction of the electron, but instead a general representation made easy.

In the case of the OP, I'm actually a little surprised it is so similar to what I was penning out in advanced high school chemistry. It's been years since then, but it kind of brings back fond memories. *My study partner had big (oYo)

Very cool stuff.

I can't wait until it gets so clear we can see a crystal clear difference from single and double bonds. (I realize you can see in this one, but I mean more of a close up version)

That would be cool x10.

edit on 3-6-2013 by boncho because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 3 2013 @ 09:55 AM
link   
reply to post by wmd_2008
 


You had me enthralled with the story until this last dig you had to impart:

"I must admit I like to see things like this even more so when we have many members on here constantly accusing mainstream science of being misleading, telling lies and other such BS."

My friend, science these days, is the lapdog of government. As such, it freely uses the terms you like to say they do not abide by, "being misleading, telling lies and other such BS."

I don't know about other folks on ATS, but you can't convince me, an old, UFO experiencer, with those words. In that and hundreds of other areas history has clearly shown that Science--with a big "S" has been long ago corrupted by the wishes of government and goals of industry. Pure Science--to which I guess you refer--is, indeed, the search for Truth. Maybe it once was that way. It isn't anymore. Few investigations of scientific matters anymore are done for the sake of knowledge/Truth, usually there is a profit motive hooked up to it somewhere.



posted on Jun, 3 2013 @ 11:50 AM
link   
reply to post by Aliensun
 


Well as a person who has had a lifelong interest in science/technology some on here that make claims about science being lies etc etc seem to forget the only reason they can post on here is because of science!



posted on Jun, 3 2013 @ 02:49 PM
link   
I was also surprised to actually see those bonds in the images. Interesting stuff!

By the way: I partly have to agree with Aliensun regarding science in general: there are several economic brakes, or better channels, based on various interests (eg. monetary, political etc.) which naturally leads to certain areas of science being heavily promoted while others are lacking sufficient funding. Needless to say, in fact ...

The logistics for the predominant sectors are in place and a good deal of our society depends on the whole eco-system (eg. automotive sector). It would be difficult to apply major changes to certain industries. Sometimes it's hard to believe we still drive around in cars based on a technology that's over a century old while using smartphones in the era of geocaching and augmented reality. I guess we can't separate science and technology from political and industrial decisions & priorities.

P.S.: ... and while we're at it: where's my flying car, dammit ?!

edit on 3-6-2013 by jeep3r because: text



posted on Jun, 3 2013 @ 02:54 PM
link   
I wonder how far ahead they are in science compared to what they're telling us.... They new the shapes of atoms and molecules before ever being able to see them..... They are either very good at guessing or they know a lot more than we do....



posted on Jun, 3 2013 @ 07:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by boncho

ie, how an electron acts in an atom. Or the electron cloud in general.

I've always been taught that electrons exist in "clouds" and were essentially invisible. But a little bit of googling shows that electrons were photographed as early as 2008.


Originally posted by boncho

*My study partner had big (oYo)


I've gotta ask ... What are (oYo)s? Is it what I think it is (i.e., cajones, gonads, Prairie Oysters)?



posted on Jun, 3 2013 @ 07:22 PM
link   
reply to post by wmd_2008

I must admit I like to see things like this even more so when we have many members on here constantly accusing mainstream science of being misleading, telling lies and other such BS.

 



lol, lame stream tv dont lie either



posted on Jun, 3 2013 @ 07:41 PM
link   
reply to post by wmd_2008
 





For those that did chemistry at school ( I was a physics guy) you may remember drawings like this


Chemistry is physics! Chemists just won't admit it!



posted on Jun, 3 2013 @ 08:58 PM
link   
Awesome, they look like bubbles I used to make in my glass of milk. Life is made of bubbles!

So, how come you can see one molecule in the photo, but not have the background full of other molecules? There is a nagging suspicion these are photoshopped. How did they manage to see a molecule if even a lens is full of molecules, wouldn't that get in they way?

By the way, for all the brainyisms going around science discoveries, these are just the external skins of the atoms. We don't know what is going on underneath their shells. What if we find out atoms are alive? Yikes. If they do, I want science to name one of the living particles midichlorians.

Seeing the true design shows how sort of wrong the chemistry diagrams are while they are still reasonably correct.



posted on Jun, 3 2013 @ 09:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by Shadoefax

Originally posted by boncho

ie, how an electron acts in an atom. Or the electron cloud in general.

I've always been taught that electrons exist in "clouds" and were essentially invisible. But a little bit of googling shows that electrons were photographed as early as 2008.


Originally posted by boncho

*My study partner had big (oYo)


I've gotta ask ... What are (oYo)s? Is it what I think it is (i.e., cajones, gonads, Prairie Oysters)?


Here's the video of the electron motion from YouTube:



posted on Jun, 12 2013 @ 05:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by AthlonSavage
reply to post by wmd_2008
 


Im no chemistry whix but i am aware that X-ray diffraction is used to obtain structural information about crystalline solids, and the first diffraction pattern of a crystal made in early 1900s.

The X-ray crystallography is based a method used (based on X-ray) diffraction for determining the atomic and molecular structure of a crystal. The technique was developed from 1912 to 20 according to wiki.

en.wikipedia.org...

Therefore its not like they just photographed this and now comparing it with text book as your OP implies they already had developed visual models on atomic structure of molecules using this X-ray crystallography.


There is a very large difference between XRD and the images in the OP. Have you ever seen an image from X-ray scattering of a crystal? It looks nothing like a molecule.



We have been able to interpret these images and use their data to consistently deduce absolute structures of molecules, but this is not the same as having actual photographs of them. Though in truth, whether or not having photographs of a reaction is useful or not is a moot point, as this happened entirely by accident and is more of a novelty than anything else (we have plenty of tools to analyse reaction mechanisms and final products, all of which have been tried and tested for decades).

Personally, I think this is amazing (though I am bias) and it's sad that this thread hasn't had more attention.



posted on Jun, 13 2013 @ 04:34 PM
link   
reply to post by hypervalentiodine
 


Thanks for that!





new topics

top topics



 
23

log in

join