IBM takes first 3D image of atomic bonds

Gizmodo ^ | Aug 27, 2009 | Jack Loftus

[wastedyears]

I'm going to leave this as link-only.

[wastedyears]

http://gizmodo.com/5346964/ibm-takes-first-3d-image-of-atomic-bonds

[guitarplayer1953]

Darn I thought you said Atomic Bomb......

[Cold Heart]

Wow

[American Constitutionalist]

Orions Belt ( i.e. Men in Black )

[smokingfrog]

Well, first I was thinking of financial bonds, but couldn't figure out why they would be called "atomic" or why you would want to take a picture of them.
Maybe some kind of new bond cooked up by 0bama, Bernanke and Geithner? That would blow up for sure.

[BradyLS]

What kind of molecule is it? I’m amazed that it appears to teselate (sic) like those textbook molecules.

[Telepathic Intruder]

I could swear there’s no more than 2 dimensions there.

[Talisker]

What kind of molecule is it? I’m amazed that it appears to teselate (sic) like those textbook molecules.

From the article: "...a 1.4 nanometer-long pentacene molecule comprised of 22 carbon atoms and 14 hydrogen atoms."

[Steve Van Doorn]

not sure of this one. But here are some pics of salt.

http://www.zurich.ibm.com/st/atomic_manipulation/orbitals.html

And the source site.

[PureSolace]

Does that mean photons are smaller than atoms since we can now “photograph” atoms... or is this some new science to take pictures of atoms? Someone explain to us who have been out of the science loop for years.

[Ditto]

From the article: "...a 1.4 nanometer-long pentacene molecule comprised of 22 carbon atoms and 14 hydrogen atoms."

Oh no!!! The dreaded Hydrocarbon. We must sequester it or all the polar bears will die.

[Cyman]

How can you take a picture of a “bond”? Isn’t that like taking a picture of “gravity” or “love”?

[Telepathic Intruder]

I assume you’re talking about the wave amplitude, and not the size of the photon itself? (the photon has no size, per se). A lower amplitude will result in a finer image, and that can be done by lowering the intensity, or number of photons, as unintuitive as that sounds. It has something to do with the wave function. The amplitude gets lower as the square root of the intensity, so it’s unproportional. You have to lower the intensity a lot to get only a slight reduction in amplitude, in other words. That’s probably why it took 20 hours to image the molocule, even though it was at very close range, according to the article.

[wastedyears]

I could swear there’s no more than 2 dimensions there.

That's what it looks like to me.

[Telepathic Intruder]

I mean I tried my 3d glasses but...nothing.

[my_pointy_head_is_sharp]

Pentacene

The picture looks exactly as described.

[my_pointy_head_is_sharp]

Also here.

[canuck_conservative]

Pentacene has potential use as an organic semiconductor, which is probably why IBM is studying it so closely.

[count-your-change]

This is not optical magnification wherein light is passed through lens to enlarge an image but rather a probe is brought very close, only a few nanometers, to the specimen, which had to be cooled to slow down it’s movements.
Then an electrical current is applied to probe and specimen and the probe can “feel” the shape of the individual atom’s electron “cloud”.
A computer then turns that information into an image. I think that I’ve described the process roughly. If anyone can help correct me, please do so.