Alright what the hell's going on here? Going back to college chem (LONG time ago) is that electron energy states the reason for the two distinct blue rings? Regardless that's super cool
adesme ยท 1249 points ยท Posted at 18:03:32 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Look up the stark effect. The hydrogen atom is excited.
Signager ยท 1975 points ยท Posted at 18:31:18 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Maybe because its his first portrait picture taken.
Actually, the human body, being primarily composed of water, is mostly oxygen. We are about 65% oxygen, 18% carbon, 10% hydrogen, 3% nitrogen, and 4% other by mass. Because hydrogen is much less massive than any other element, hydrogen makes up 62% of our atoms. So you actually have about 4x1027 hydrogen atoms excited about this event!
Thank you for the information, but I was really just trying to make a silly little joke about excited hydrogen. I guess you could say that it was "dry" humor, because it neglected to include the water.
I know youโre probably just joking, but if my understanding of physical chemistry is right (which it likely isnโt seeing as how I just got 47 on the test I just took in there last week), then youโre actually right because the act of observing its electrons would actually excite them
I must be a hydrogen atom because I also get excited when people look at me.
D-DC ยท -13 points ยท Posted at 02:21:24 on February 22, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Tired of this quantum physics horseshit THEORY NOT PROVEN IN REAL LIFE of observing something effects it physically. It's false as fuck and the reason 45% of quantum physicists don't believe in the shrodingers cat model of quantum physics.
Youโre being a bit harsh while correcting someone who admitted to a 47% on their latest chemistry test and said they were likely wrong on the explanation.
Scientists dont try to prove their theories to be right. They try to find out what is wrong with them. Here's Nobel prize-winning physicist Richard Feynman, entertainingly explaining the concept. https://youtu.be/hz2SENYI1rE
But you have to interact with something to observe it, and energy exchanges happen on that interaction. Taking a photo in the dark doesn't interact with an object, but light it up to take a picture and you will heat it. Same happens here when you beam electrons to an atom
Exactly, what people donโt understand is that when youโre working with things this small itโs not like youโre just looking at it with your eyes. In order to analyze anything on this scale you basically have to shoot beams of light or electrons at it and then youโre measuring the way it scatters/absorbs the light/electrons. Then it takes the data it measures and performs extremely complicated math in an attempt to try and interpret the data in a meaningful way. In the experiment posted by OP this means a โpictureโ, but usually it just means a graph that chemists learn how to read.
Kinda got off topic there, but the point is that in order to view things on this level you have to shoot them with light/electrons which does actually impact the atom/molecule youโre trying analyze because of the wave-particle duality of light
D-DC ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 10:26:49 on March 2, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
You only have to interact with something to observe it if you are using matter or an electromagnetic wave to interact with it.
Stonn ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 23:49:50 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Oh, you think you make your choices? Which part of you? The part that's governened by electrochemical processes? I guess I have free will too then, lmao.
It's not alone! As someone who is incredibly fascinated by science and technology and such, this is fucking incredible! I am incredibly impressed and happy about this, you have no idea!
Ive heard its because to look at an atom it to interact with an atom, disturbing it, making it harder or maybe even impossible to see in its โtrueโ form
adesme ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 07:31:18 on July 18, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I'm not sure what you're responding to exactly, but yes it kind of works like that.
Typically particles travel as waves, but are detected as particles (particle-wave duality). The wave is more like a probability functionโ"the particle an be anywhere in this range"โbut as soon as you detect it, it becomes decided that the particle is in that one spot.
Even otherwise, detecting things typically means interacting with them, which means that you will affect them in some sort of way.
why is there a node? is the electron in a excited state? i donโt get whatโs going on at all
adesme ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 11:18:22 on February 22, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Ok so this really requires a lengthy explanation, and Iโm also not too familiar with this experiment.
Essentially hydrogen atoms are created, excited and ionized. The ionizing electrons are what we are looking atโwhen they relax, theyโre accelerated towards a positional detector. The paths of these electrons are affected by the wave functions describing their positions. These wave functions have nodes.
As to why they have nodes: the atoms were excited to states that has specific numbers of nodes. That was what they wanted to look at (basically experimental validation of theory).
They aren't. They're more like probability distributions for the position of the electron, but the highest densities do form what looks like rings in a cross section. This is all of course a simplified abstraction of something that is quite difficult to visualize.
I suppose. It's hard for a laymen to even understand that these are probability distributions and only tell you how likely hydrogen's one electron will be in that particular place at a given time, not that there's actually something there.
Well, according to my quantum mechanics professor, the electron literally is the probability distribution but Iโm not about to try and explain that to a laymen.
The electron only exists as a physical discrete particle retroactively the instant you try to measure it. Otherwise, it does not exist as a real, tangible particle, but instead as infinitely many possible particles superimposed on one another to make a probability density of possible particles.
This isnโt just a weird purely theoretical consequence of the math. This interpretation is what real world experiments have shown. This is literally true.
This IS NOT proven. This is the Copenhagen interpretation, and it is the most widely held belief by physicists. Other (currently) valid interpretations aren't any more intuitive however.
The most widely held position among working physicists Iโve spoken to is โinterpretations of QM all make the same predictions, are scientifically equivalent, so to pick one as your preferred is not a scientific exercise.โ
Yeah this one is definitely common, but I think a lot still tend to look at things from a "preferred" perspective while acknowledging that it's not some scientific fact. My problem is with people pushing one over the other possible interpretations.
Rodot ยท 6 points ยท Posted at 21:59:51 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
True, but this interpretation is the best for the layman when describing what's really going on. When you get into things like multi worlds the layman thinks you're talking about something akin to a scifi multiverse which is a completely inaccurate description.
Well, if you read the comments you're replying to, which I'm sure you did, I believe it's clear what they were claiming was proven, which is the Copenhagen interpretation, and it's not. That's all
Rodot ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 22:31:29 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I mean, if you want to be semantically pedantic, all observations show all interpretations to be true since they're just interpretations of data, or you could say all observations prove no interpretations to be true with equal merit. Interpretations themselves don't make predictions, they aren't scientific theories. Though, all interpretations must agree with observation. So you're right in a sense, the observation doesn't prove an interpretation to be true, but you can't really show an interpretation to be true anyway since they're just interpretations. They exist more in the subject of metaphysics than physics so it's more of a philosophical debate anyway.
Not quite.
Some interpretations have testable predictions, otherwise why all the debate?
Some interpretations have in fact been disproven, such as a wide class of hidden variable theories (though not all hidden variable theories!)
In any case, I think my objection was fair.
Sounds to me like the correct interpretation does not exist as a real, tangible interpretation, but instead as infinitely many possible interpretations superimposed on one another to make a probability density of possible interpretations.
Well, youโre wrong. As far as we know it is. People can hypothesize all they want but if their ideas canโt be tested and have no supporting evidence, then they are just conjecture.
The Copenhagen interpretation does not rely on any unknown or unproven physics, just like the postulates of classical physics or relativity do not rely on anything more fundamental. They only describe fundamental rules of our universe, of which there is nothing more basic. These rules just are.
Energy and momentum are conserved.
The speed of light is constant in all inertial frames of reference.
Quantum systems are inherently uncertain.
These things just are, as far as we can tell. There is no explanation why because there is nothing deeper.
You may not like this idea and you wouldnโt be alone. You may believe that there must be some underlying physics which explains the weirdness of QM. But you donโt know that and you certainly canโt prove it. So where does that leave us? Iโll tell you: uncertainty seems to be a fundamental property of the universe. To say itโs not proven is nonsense. The proof is in the pudding.
As far as these alternative interpretations, you must first provide evidence for them before you can say they hold water, to which there is none. The Copenhagen interpretation faces no such issue. It works. Period.
From what I understand, the Copenhagen interpretation is the most valid because it does not depend on any yet unproven, unknown, or untestable physics.
It is fully possible we may discover new physics one day which might unseat the Copenhagen interpretation as the concensus. However, until we do we canโt say any theory which attempts to explain quantum mechanics on a more fundamental level is more valid than the Copenhagen interpretation. For all we know, true randomness is just how things work on the quantum level.
It usually takes people awhile to digest this before they fully understand and not without diving into the experimental evidence. This cursory explanation is not enough for you to take away a working concept of a probability wave function. Not by itself, at least.
And this is where we run into a big problem with trying to explain the rest to laymen.
The bottom line is you canโt. At least, not without said laymen already possessing a strong background in physics, statistics, calculus, and linear algebra.
An introductory course in quantum mechanics starts with covering the most basic of concepts in quantum mechanics, the particle in a box.
Go ahead and review the wiki article then let me know how you feel.
Have you read A Brief History of Time by Stephen Hawking? He lays concepts out beautifully in English, no maths required. Excellent, fascinating read. Heโs probably written other books since for the layperson, I just havenโt followed up.
barkxio ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 04:46:13 on February 22, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
? Why are you being so smug towards this person? If you're actually interested you should try to ask a specific question you have in mind, instead of constantly challenging them to just give you more information randomly about a very broad and deeply technical subject. They've been very thoughtful in their responses and you're coming off as a bit of a dick that's more interested in putting others down as opposed to raising yourself up. I appreciated the first challenge when you said "try", but the rest afterwards is pretty uncool. Who hurt you?
Not proven is just saying this is an interpretation of the current body of evidence. The Copenhagen interpretation isnโt a theory in itself, itโs an interpretation of what quantum theory tells us. It is the consensus in the field of physics. It does not need to be proven because this is what quantum theory, which is proven, tells us. The proof is in the pudding.
The Copenhagen interpretation is the most valid because it doesnโt depend on any unknown or untestable physics. The interpretation just says โthis is how quantum theory works. This is why the math is what it is. This is why the experiments show us what they show us.โ
It is possible there is yet undiscovered physics which can explain quantum phenomena on a more fundamental level. Pilot wave theory is one which attempts to do so, for example. But we canโt say things exist without first having evidence of their existence.
So itโs like only a poem could explain the reality of the true characteristics of atomic structures, and this is the best poem that has been conceived.
Well, no. The Copenhagen interpretation doesnโt attempt to explain why. It just explains what is. Why things behave the way they do under the Copenhagen interpretation is not known and the concept of knowing may very well be nonsensical.
For example: why is it that the electron exists as a probability distribution?
To really grasp whatโs wrong with this question, I will draw a comparison with a postulate in classical physics: conservation of energy.
Why does energy have to be conserved? Why can it neither be created nor destroyed?
Well, there is no why. There is no explanation. This is just how things work in our universe. There is nothing more fundamental, there is no underlying physics. Conservation of energy is one of the most fundamental postulates which governs the laws of physics.
The same can very well be true with the Copenhagen interpretation and the inherent uncertainty of quantum systems. As far as we can tell, the universe is truly random on the quantum scale. Beyond that, there is nothing left to explain.
dwmfives ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 03:48:22 on February 22, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
The electron only exists as a physical discrete particle retroactively the instant you try to measure it. Otherwise, it does not exist as a real, tangible particle, but instead as infinitely many possible particles superimposed on one another to make a probability density of possible particles.
I find that silly. That to means it is always there, just impossible to predict where.
Schrรถdinger (sp?) thought so as well. The whole point of his whole "dead and alive cat" thing was to illustrate how silly the concept is.
Turns out, though, that it's currently the best model we have (most predictive power and explains the most things). It appears that this is literally what is "going on", or at least, this is the best way that we can explain it in a way both consistent with known physics and within the grasp of our limited conceptual ability.
If it helps, "measure" or "observe" to the quantum physicist implies an energy input into the system - it's not like the particle pops into existance as soon as we do some math and say it should be somewhere. It requires some sort of actual energetic interaction with the probability field.
Please note that I do chem, not physics, and this is like "studying QM for 30 years" level of material, so my word is only a bit better than a lay person. Nonetheless, I think this is pretty consistent with mainstream thought, from what I've gathered.
Thank you for chiming in. For what itโs worth, everything Iโve tried to explain here was covered, more or less, in my introductory QM course. I also was a chem student during my undergrad, but Iโve done a lot of outside reading since then purely out of my own interest.
Yes, thatโs what everyone thinks at first. That makes sense. Thatโs what many scientists thought too, so they designed experiments to test that idea.
The experiments showed the opposite. The experiments showed that subatomic particles are wave packets of probably particles, none of which can be said to exist until an interaction takes place.
First thing you need to understand about QM is that it doesnโt make sense.
It also exists as a particle every time something interacts with it. Not just when We measure it. Given most atoms are interacting with other atoms and with photons most of the time, electrons here on Earth (and in Stars and planets) exist as particles most of the time.
[deleted] ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 07:18:12 on February 22, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Why your explanation leads me to think of the universe as a simulation I have no clue.
IceNein ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 01:37:10 on February 22, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
If you think about it, the rings are just a layman aid.
Shibbi88 ยท 4 points ยท Posted at 03:08:00 on February 22, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
When you have layman, you make layman aid. But for real this is interesting sh*t.
Yes! S orbitals are the ones that resemble ring-like structures. Higher energy orbitals are more complex not to mention the complex interactions between the various orbitals.
It's a visual representation of hypothetical paths and positions of condensed energy.
What's difficult to grasp about that? /s
TravisPM ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 02:45:19 on February 22, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
"something that is quite difficult to visualize. "
But aren't we looking at an actual picture of one?
king13579 ยท 19 points ยท Posted at 18:20:30 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Technically no, but the energy levels occupied by the 1-2 electrons that a hydrogen atom are spherical in nature so it's not too far fetched that a 2D image would display them as a ring
hydrogen only has one electron. What you're seeing is the probability distributions of the excited states that electron can hold. Hence why it gets more and more disperse.
king13579 ยท 11 points ยท Posted at 19:20:41 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Well I did say 1-2 since it is possible for it to have two and I don't exactly know how the photographers prepared the atom for photographing so that was mostly me covering my bases. But yeah your description is better then mine
nusigf ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 08:44:56 on February 22, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
How? The title said hydrogen, not deuterium, so only 1 proton. Hydrogen ions are positive, so missing an electron. I've never heard of a negative hydrogen ion.
The colors stand for how many times the electron was detected at that place, there is a certain probability of detecting them at each place and trying a bunch of times gives a rough estimate of what the probability is.
Electrons, being quatum particles, don't follow conventional physics. As a result, they behave in ways that seem weird.
Pictured here is a single proton (the red dot) and a single electron (the blue rings). The proton, for the most part, behaves how you would think (other than it costantly vibrates due to heat, any heat, above absolute zero).
The electron on the other hand is hard to really pick out. We can ever only know generally where it is, as it's a wave. But when it interacts with something, it can collapse into a point...maybe.
The reason there are two rings are the valence shells. These are energy states. Closer to the proton means less energy. Electrons in higher shells either fly off or give off energy as light to return to a lower energy state.
So what we're seeing is thousands of composite pictures, measuring the magnetic fields of both proton and electron, with the electron bouncing back and forth from high to low energy states seemingly like magical teleportation.
Thank you so much for this explanation. This is the first time I've actually been able to understand an explanation relating to atoms. You should be a teacher.
Hydrogen's easy because it's simple. Once you get into more complicated orbitals, molecular shapes, bonding, etc is where this stuff gets hard to explain. Especially when you have things that don't obey the rules you teach, like the octet rule.
Yea thatโs what I thought (it being a time lapse picture thing) but didnโt really want to say anything misleading as my Iโm just a highschool kid taking college chem
Think of particles like waves at the quantum level. That electron is within that wave field and you have to collapse that wave field to squeeze out the position of the electron.
I think weโre seeing multiple exposures of the same speedy electron, if this is indeed a photograph.
[deleted] ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 18:32:57 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
They're not, they're orbitals.
A radical hydrogen orbital is spherical, which is probably why it looks like a ring here.
I don't know anything about the imaging method though, so don't take my word for it.
link6112 ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 19:36:30 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Hydrogen only has 1 electron, the S orbital is, in fact, spherical. The P, D, and F orbitals are not.
Scarrzz ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 21:55:33 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Maybe the electron occupied all the spaces of the rings over the exposure time of the photo?
The outer rings are the excited states (electron energy is quantized). The highest density is the ground state, which is when hydrogen's lone electron is in the 1s orbital, which is spherical hence why the cross section is a ring.
I've been out of school for a while, but if I remember correctly from my quantum course, the electron is most likely to be found at two radii, I'm not 100% sure but I believe that's roughly the answer.
[deleted] ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 00:18:22 on February 22, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Looks like the electrons have angular momentum here. Otherwise, it would just look like a symmetric sphere.
kaaaaath ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 07:52:41 on February 22, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Excited states. Finally using my fucking masters in chem for once.
[deleted] ยท 8 points ยท Posted at 19:43:32 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I had heard of it before... in fact, before I realized that this was just the same one five years later, I was planning to link one of the relevant articles to point out that it wasn't the first such image.
But no, it is the first such image, just... way later.
I feel like it says something about society's lack of scientific literacy. We have reusable rockets and pictures of atoms, yet there are influential pop culture figures having meaningless debates over the shape of the earth.
flaim ยท 5 points ยท Posted at 19:29:39 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
No need to be rude, I'm just amused at the fact that a 5 year old image is on the top of /r/all.
JoseyS ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 21:34:51 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Sure, and there's also old photos, and all sorts of other content of all kinds. This is a thread in /r/woahdude, not /r/news or any other sub with a timeliness requirement, so I'm not sure what is supposed to be "amusing" about a photo being posted here that's 4 years old.
oishybd ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 21:44:31 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
How bigger it is in 2018?
[deleted] ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 22:44:37 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I have literally photographed quintillions of these since 2013. Fucking common everyday shit now. Maybe OP should post a picture of the first movie camera!
8r0k3n ยท 200 points ยท Posted at 18:56:37 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
What youโre looking at is the first direct observation of an atomโs electron orbital โ an atom's actual wave function!
That first article is wack, man. The wave function isn't a tangible thing. You use the wave function to figure things out about a quantum system, such as its probability distribution of certain quantities related to the system.
Isn't Gizmodo the same site that wrote that inflammatory article about Ken Bone? They're so bad at what they're supposed to do.
Actually, I don't think it's particularly misleading. According to Born's rule the probability density is simply the complex amplitude of the wave function squared. And the wave function in the Schrodinger equation simply represents position and momentum, since spin wasn't discovered at that time. Getting into particular formulations is beyond what the average reader would be expected to know.
As for whether the wave function is a tangible thing, since it represents the probability distribution of a specific quantum state if you can recreate the system you're trying to measure again and again then you can capture the average values of the wave function at particular points in space. Of course, it's impossible to clone actual quantum states, but if you're just interested in the hydrogen atom's ground state then cloning isn't necessary anyway.
dgrant92 ยท 7 points ยท Posted at 21:16:09 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
The wave function represents the probability, not the distribution. What's important about the wave function is its use in the Schrodinger equation, which they mentioned. It has applications for group theory because you can combined atomic orbitals into group orbitals and it helps you tell whether molecules are able to bond (on the basis of the interaction between the signs of their wave functions (it has to do with constructive i.e. bonding, and destructive i.e. antibonding, interference). Honestly, the math is a little over my head but that's the jist.
SayNoob ยท 10 points ยท Posted at 19:34:37 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
In quantum mechanics, the probability distribution is a tangible thing. At the smallest scales things don't have a 'shape' they have a probability distribution that tells you how likely you are to interact with the particle at certain points in space. It's the closest thing there is to a shape of a particle.
What do you even mean by "the probability and not the distribution"? The complex amplitude squared is a probability distribution function, i.e. it is unitary - the total prob sums to one.
Secondly it's not really true that any of physics has applications in group theory, since group theory is a very abstract and vast branch of mathematics this is applied to quantum physics in many different ways, particularly Lie groups and their corresponding Lie algebras.
The most important application of group theory may be the fact that all physical transformations are instances of the Poincarรฉ group and that spin-half (fermionic) angular momentums (e.g. 1/2, 3/2, 5/2...) are actually directly correspond to representations of the Lorentz group, which is a non-trivial fact and, along with the Dirac wave function equation, the reason they often say quantum spin comes from special relativity.
haharisma ยท -1 points ยท Posted at 20:29:47 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
He means that in order to have an image similar to shown (I didnโt read the original paper) a โphotoโ of many thousands atoms must be taken. Itโs like an โimage of a humanโ obtained by superimposing thousands of images. It may still be meaningful but looking as none of individuals in particular.
Actually, hydrogen atoms are different from people since they're not unique or individual. In fact unless the proton or the electron are in an excited state hydrogen atoms are indistinguishable bosons. It wouldn't be difficult to ensure with near 100% probability that the hydrogen atom being imaged is in the ground state if you cool things down to near absolute zero. It's particularly easy because hydrogen atoms are bosons and thus have a symmetric wave function.
Indistinguishability is not that important here. Electrons are also indistinguishable but, intuitively, an electron in my keyboard plays a different role from an electron in a car that just passed my window despite both electrons occupying low levels in some carbon atoms.
If I take a million hydrogen atoms reliably in the ground state and shot at them electrons with the same initial state, the results of the scattering detected by an array of detectors with sufficiently good resolution will be all over the place. When I superimpose images from individual scattering events, I'll restore a picture obtained using the wave function formalism. See, for instance, the build-up picture here.
Indistinguishability has a formal meaning in quantum mechanics. It refers to the possible symmetries of the wave function. There are two possible types of symmetry that correspond to two different types of angular momentum.
No-one is shooting hydrogen atoms at anything, instead they're the things being shot at. Usually the hydrogen atoms are part of crystals in these imaging experiments. But good luck keep hydrogen atoms in that ground state whilst you are accelerating them to shoot them at electrons. If you want to actually hit an electron you'll ionize the hydrogen so you'll really just be shooting protons.
I'm well aware of matter waves and interference. For something like hydrogen, however, it's De Broglie wavelength will be very similar to that of a proton since electrons are so light except for the contribution of the electron's kinetic energy which is a famous value - 13.6 eV.
If I take a million hydrogen atoms reliably in the ground state and shot at them electrons
I don't shoot hydrogen atoms. All atoms are in an optical lattice cooled down to millikelvins and I perform standard electron spectroscopy that people do for more than a century, if we count from the Geiger-Marsden experiment. The fact that individual measurements are random, owing to the complex mechanism of the collapse of wave functions, is well known and observed many times. As well as the fact that looking at ensembles and combining individual events will amount to the wave function prediction.
Honestly don't really know what that means. I only know enough quantum mechanics to understand some of the logic underpinning chemistry. From a quick google search that seems to be a philosophical interpretation of statistics. I haven't really thought that much about it so I'd have to think on it more.
What youโre looking at is the first direct observation of an atomโs electron orbital โ an atom's actual wave function!
The thing is that "direct observing" the wavefunction will collapse it. As you stated, you can reconstruct the original wavefunction by measuring it again and again, but I feel like the sentence is pretty misleading.
Also I can't find it now, but I'm pretty sure I've seen a "picture" of electron orbitals using AFM before.
What, you mean the rest of that first paragraph or something average readers should know??
Shit. I'm behind.
[deleted] ยท 30 points ยท Posted at 19:10:05 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Well, the wavefunction is a description of the quantum state of something as a probability wave. It's as tangible as that thing is tangible, though what we actually mean by that is a little fuzzy.
The wavefunction is about the most tangible description of things that we have.
If you are saying it's all just a mathematical model and not the reality, that's a deeper question for another thread.
8r0k3n ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 19:36:22 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
No, the wave function is reality. I'm just saying you do "stuff" to the wave function to determine the properties of the quantum system--the properties that we're actually observing in the picture. By "stuff", I mean the rich analysis that is involved in quantum mechanical study.
Permit me to address your concern with two different, tangentially related stories.
First story: I was once arguing with my research advisor about whether virtual photons are real. I kept insisting that they're just a mathematical trick to get the numbers to work out and because they're not directly observable, they don't meaningfully exist. He didn't say I was wrong and is a really patient guy, but I imagine he was getting tired of my rant so he finally asked me, "Is force real?" Well, yes, in classical systems it's directly measurable, but in quantum systems, we don't (and can't) use the concept of force. I very suddenly realized that debates over whether something is "real" are mostly pedantic.
Second story: I recently had my students conduct an experiment in freefall. They dropped a ball bearing from different heights and measured the time it takes to fall from its initial height to its landing point. They graphed their data, fit a line to the graph, and determined the gravitational acceleration on Earth, usually to within about one percent. Can my students say that they observed Earth's gravity?
More to the point, you are technically correct (the best kind of correct) that the wavefunction is the probability amplitude and the probability amplitude is never directly observed. What is observed instead is the probability, which is merely the magnitude-squared of the probability amplitude. This is a small but important distinction which I don't think is lost on you because you seem to know your physics pretty well. Having said that, I think that to the casual observer who sees the front page of Reddit and thinks, "Ooh, neat! A picture of a hydrogen atom!" it is not too far off the mark to say that the wavefunction is observed, especially since a more accurate and detailed description would be wordy and difficult for the layperson to understand and appreciate.
8r0k3n ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 20:09:23 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
But what about this bit from the abstract of the linked paper? It's nice and straightforward.
To describe the microscopic properties of matter, quantum mechanics uses wave functions, whose
structure and time dependence is governed by the Schroยจdinger equation. In atoms the charge distributions
described by the wave function are rarely observed.
And that's the picture: we are observing the charge distribution, which is really what the casual observer should be informed about in this picture. Discussions on the wave function really have no place here, which is kind of my main gripe with the article.
Is there a standard distribution of the observed state of the electrons being represented (in this wave function)? Or is this 'true random' in the sense it's all possible states unmeasured at that crystallized unobserved moment in time?
Fair enough. All probes are in some sense indirect but some are more direct that others. There's always some mathematics between what you actually measure and the wavefunction.
I don't know man according to the citation they used repeated exposures to map the location of the electrons in the ring to actually show a representation of it. That's, like facts, and measurement. Quantum mechanics is a thing, it's like one of the most economically successful scientific theories we have. I know a lot of people on reddit are doubtful about the collapse of waveforms due to observation being an actual physical occurrence, but we currently have commercial products that are on sale that make use of the actual physical existence of this effect. Quantum Mechanics (other than the Brian Green youtube videos) is an established fact we are currently basing the majority of our high-tech economy on.
8r0k3n ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 04:03:41 on February 22, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Absolutely, I agree but that's not quite what I'm arguing. See my comment here
The question of whether or not we're actually seeing a wave function is something physics cannot answer at this present time.
JJAB91 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 22:50:25 on February 22, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Its part of the Gawker Network, what do you expect?
The wave function is as 'tangible' as any other state variable for an object. But that doesn't mean it's easy to picture. Even for an object's positional wave-function, the wave function requires something like six dimensions (3 real, 3 imaginary) to 'visualize.' The probability distribution does not contain as much information as the wave-function (the probability distribution only takes 3 dimensions)
Not sure how that would be considered a joke but whatever,
so to clarify is it spinning so fast that it appears to be a solid line, or is there some sort of static shell?
Obewoop ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 19:26:06 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
It's a little complicated, but for very small things you can either know where they are very accurately or how they're moving very accurately, but not both. So when you try to find out where an electron is you will see where each electron is at one point in time, but you wouldn't be able to see them moving in a continuous line. The electron shell is the area where an electron is most likely to be found around an atom, and images like this are a buildup of lots of pictures, so you can see those shells. Those shells often have really weird shapes, and are defined as the area inside which you have over a 90% chance of finding an electron, so if you took 10 images, 9 times the electron would be somewhere within that area.
and you're sure this is a series of photographs combined into a single picture? It makes sense but it definitely changes the understanding of what we're looking at, I would have preferred to see an elongated electron than a long exposure of one, maybe it wouldn't be visible though? Thanks for doing what you could to explain.
[deleted] ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 19:12:28 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Electrons don't orbit anything though.
mikedi12 ยท 24 points ยท Posted at 18:43:42 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
See that subreddit is a self-fulfilling disappointment where because the implication is that they are "bigger than you thought" you preemptively assume that they are indeed big so instead of thinking they are bigger than you thought, instead you think "wow, that's exactly as big as I thought they would be."
creed10 ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 20:36:06 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I literally JUST got done fapping... now I have to go in again
Think of it as a part that โbridgesโ the song format between verse/verse or verse/chorus combinations (traditionally youโd think of basic song structure something like intro-verse-chorus-verse-chorus-etc.-outro/fade.) Slappinbass explained it well and an interlude is a good synonym for it but I figured the connection to the naming convention would help solidify it.
APsockes ยท 5 points ยท Posted at 19:48:18 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Miss me with that gay shit.
[deleted] ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 20:37:40 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
The nucleus looks bigger than it actually is. In reality the distance from the center to the outer rim is about 3200 nucleus widths. If the nucleus was scaled up to the size of the sun, the electron would orbit about where Neptune is.
mofaha ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 18:37:32 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
If you zoom in close enough you can see the back of your head.
vmack7 ยท 701 points ยท Posted at 18:33:51 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I donโt know if this was the commenters intent, But thereโs a short story I read on here a while ago that dealt with quantum computers and eventually they became so advanced that they were able to view the back of your head on a monitor by re-creating the universe. Or something like that canโt remember
ImInPhx ยท 436 points ยท Posted at 18:49:24 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
By awesome read do you mean it made you question your very existence, because you could be the version of you in the recreation?
R34CTz ยท -5 points ยท Posted at 22:33:21 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Unfortunately no, because I absolutely do not believe in reincarnation, i just found it interesting to read and think about. It would be nice to have an entire book based off of this, or a movie series where the mc becomes a god a few episodes before the end.
GIAway ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 23:38:23 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Reincarnation?
R34CTz ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 00:01:30 on February 22, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I was preoccupied, i misread the comment, thought he said reincarnation but he said recreation. Either way, i don't believe in reincarnation, that's just me. Not sure why I was downvoted for that. It's still an awesome short story.
GIAway ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 08:26:13 on February 22, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Unfortunately no, because I absolutely do not believe in the misread comment, i just found it interesting to read and think about. It would be nice to have an entire book based off of this, or a movie series where you become a god a few episodes before the end.
R34CTz ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 19:39:57 on February 22, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
You can believe what you want, i misread it. Tbh I'm not even sure what he meant by recreation. I missed something somewhere obviously. I was eating and trying to work numbers for a bid I was writing up so my mind was elsewhere when I read the comment and replied. Doesn't matter though.
They've re-used that Simpsons opening in a few more recent episodes. The one I remember has Marge ask him when he comes on, "Did you get the milk?" and then he sighs.
[deleted] ยท 28 points ยท Posted at 18:48:43 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
You can though. It's our perception of the universe as beings stuck in the 4th dimension, which is time. Much like an ant in an ant farm only perceiving it's universe as the ant farm. Or the example of being born in a cave, only being able to face the direction of the wall with shadows being cast on it from outside. Your perception of the universe would be limited by your lack of knowledge of existence beyond the cave. To you, life only exists as the shadows.
[deleted] ยท 4 points ยท Posted at 20:01:49 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
No, you can't. Everything happening at once implies there is no time which means there is no next or there aren't any distinct moments. You can't have both things because they're mutually exclusive. If you admit a "next" possibility or another "moment" then you admit everything isn't happening at once. This is the biggest fault anyone who thinks they're clever by saying there is no such thing as time always fall down on. It's impossible to frame anything in a series or any type of temporal order. It's impossible to even discuss these things without actually implying time exists. How can you reply to my comment if there isn't time? What you write is dependent on what you read from my comment. If they happen at the same time, that doesn't work. The saddest thing we lose if everything happens at once is music. Music is the very essence of time. To say that everything happens at once and there is no time is to say that music doesn't exist.
It's our perception of the universe as beings stuck in the 4th dimension, which is time.
You may as well be trying to say there is no above or below or in front or behind or even space at all. This is largely just word salad you have going on.
Space and time aren't separate. We even use the two interchangeably as measurements for distance. ( I'll be at x in around xx minutes; it'll take be a x hour drive; star x is x light years away; etc.) Not sure which of us is more confused with the other. I'm don't think I'm "clever", I'm just a loser that watches a lot of cosmos and star trek.
[deleted] ยท 5 points ยท Posted at 20:10:57 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Sure, space and time aren't separate. That does not mean everything is happening at once. In fact, pretty much everything about relativity involves things not happening all at once.
Somewhat unrelated (maybe) but if you were to stand eye level with the event horizon of a black hole you would see light bend due to the โorbitโ of gravitationally bound photons
rayzman18 ยท 80 points ยท Posted at 17:57:34 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
STOOOOOOP
[deleted] ยท 44 points ยท Posted at 18:32:49 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
It doesn't actually make a sound, it's just some feedback that you can get from the STM (probably the changes in current measured when dragging the CO molecules) that helps them see how many spaces on the substrate that the CO has moved along. The software turns it into a sound.
Where do they get the atoms? Like... break off some pencil lead, and then just take whatever atoms they want from it?
And I thought atoms were everywhere, even empty air is full of oxygen and stuff--so why does it look like there's empty space?
So much curiosity about nanotechnology, and so little knowledge of even basic chemistry.
MazzyFo ยท 6 points ยท Posted at 18:38:14 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Atom was probably suspended in an electric field for the image. Unsure where they got the atom from, but hydrogen is in nearly everything that isnโt a pure compound, or they could have just purchased a sample of pure hydrogen if they didnโt make it themselves.
Edit: quick search indicates image was taken via a quantum microscope. This picture isnโt exactly what an atom โlooksโ like, since we canโt qualify such a thing with the naked eye. The colors are wave functions of the electronโs orbital over time (probably not very much time, electron movement happens at a quantum level, think Schrodingers Cat) whereas red is a more traveled path, and blue is less traveled. Basically this is more like a visual/ graphical representation of what the atomโs quantum properties look like in space.
As for your question about the single atom, I couldnโt find much info on that, itโs possible the diffraction (light scattering) method to detect the H were set to only encompass the size of a single atom, maybe by a B or E field spreading the atoms proportionally.
Iโm more of a biochem guy so if anyone finds errors in my assumptions feel free to correct me!
If you're asking about the boy and his atom video, I can help because I use a machine very similar to the one they use (a scanning tunneling microscope) in my PhD.
They have a very flat copper surface, which they clean inside a vacuum chamber by firing ions at it (usually a noble gas) to 'sputter' material off (basically firing something with lots of energy at the surface and blasting stuff off at an atomic level), then heating it up to reform the flat surface.
They then leak some carbon monoxide gas into the vacuum chamber, which then sticks to the copper surface (forming a kind of bond with it). The blobs in the video are not actually single atoms, but CO molecules that sit with the carbon sticking to the copper and the oxygen pointing up.
They then use something called a scanning tunneling microscope (STM) to drag the molecules around on the surface to the places that they want - this is because the molecule can feel an attraction to the tip. An STM is a machine for imaging conductive surfaces to a very small level, with resolution below 1nm. It works by something called quantum tunneling. Basically, a sharp metal tip is held very close (but not touching) to a surface. When it gets close you can get a current flowing between them via some quantum mechanical magic. This current is very sensitive to the height of the tip above the surface (and other things, which make the explanation more complicated than I want), so you can use it to map out surfaces and see where all the 'bumps' are.
The grey around the CO molecules is just the surface. You can't see the surface atoms properly there because you have to use different tunneling currents/voltages to see those usually, which involves the tip going close to the surface. This would start moving the CO molecules around so they don't image it like that. Here is an example of a copper (111) surface atomic resolution:
You would not see the nucleus. The imaging technique used in the image is Scanning Tunneling Microscopy, which is the highest resolution imaging technique available to our species at present. This microscope moves a needle across a surface and essentially (very simplified picture) squirts electrons either at the sample or sucks one from the sample. Depending on the amount of electrons it gets from that spot, it can determine the distance away from the sample, creating a topological map. Considering the very low energy levels required for this technique to work, it can not probe into the nucleus.
rebelx ยท 25 points ยท Posted at 18:47:04 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
That's thinking on too small a scale. On Earth? Yea "probably not". But keeping in mind a universe of billions of galaxies that are each full of billions of stars and trillions of planets I'd imagine their answer is "probably yes".
If you pressed them, I think most would say "probably yes"/ "quite likely".
The universe is a really big place. Even if life is rare, multicellular even rarer, and technological civilization truly scarce ... the numbers are still likely quite large by our reckoning. That said, we don't know.
I suppose for it to have such a precision when shooting the 'electron ray', it uses something with electromagnetic fields?
The needle either has a positive or negative voltage bias relative to the sample surface. This creates a lowered barrier for electrons to pass between the tip and sample. However, the potential barrier is still greater within the tip to confine the local electrons. But that barrier is small enough that a quantum tunneled electron current is detectable. This is the signal that is seen. The amount of tunneled current then becomes a function of the material's work function (look up photoelectric effect for more details) and the distance between the tip and surface. Generally speaking, the function of signal is far more sensitive to the distance between the tip and sample than different materials' work functions, so this technique is more useful for microscopic topology than for nanoscale spectroscopy. I don't know of people using it for the latter purpose specifically, but I am sure people do it.
I don't see how they would be able to make a pen so thin and place it so precisely that it will shoot the electrons at one specific atom only.
I am loving your questions. Your curiosity makes you a prime candidate for STEM. The tip process totally blew my mind with how simple it is. You cut a wire at an angle with wire cutters and use the sharp end as your tip and start taking some of the highest resolution images in our species' history. That's literally it. It's fucking crazy, right? If your tip sucked, your images suck and you have to cut another. You would agree that the closest distance between two points is a straight line, correct? What about the shortest distance between a point and a plane? A straight line from the point to the plane directly beneath it. Because the amount of current of this technique is dependent on the distance, a vast majority of your signal is coming from the point directly beneath the tip. If, however, you have a large surface rise to the side of the tip, you will start getting signal from over there and not directly below the tip. How that would manifest itself in the image is a brighter pixel than it should be. This is a common type of imaging artifact with the probe microscopy techniques. This problem is one factor that contributes to the limitations of the technique.
So from my basic understanding of how the LHC works, I suppose the needle puts an electromagnetic field around the electrons to position them exactly in the middle, then shoots the atom that should also be exactly in the middle of this field. Not that I'm aware of how they make such a stable field anyway.
This technique is very unlike particle accelerators (LHC). In that case they create a beam of subatomic particles zipping around at something like 99.9999% the speed of light and use external magnetic fields to curl the beam around the track and magnify the beam to a small interaction cross-sectional area at the detectors to increase the rates of collision. One in every perhaps quadrillion particles from one beam actually make contact with a particle in the beam going in the opposite direction. Because the the particle is moving so fast, they are essentially pancaked versions of their resting geometry (look up special relativity's space contractions for more details) and they almost never strike perfectly and are almost always a glancing blow. The energy of that collision is so god damn high (we're talking temperatures like 100000000000000000000000 degrees C) that matter involved in the collision decays directly into energy, cools down, and then coalesces back into matter. But the matter that it returns to may not be something that we are familiar with, so that is why we study it -- to see what particles pop out of the collision. So, you can see that this is quite different from Scanning Tunneling Microscopy.
The field of Physics contains the answers to the questions you seek. It is very rewarding.
[deleted] ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 12:04:18 on February 22, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I am a current PhD student. I specialize in solid state physics, which makes use of various microscopy techniques, including of the probe microscopy variety. My understanding of particle physics comes from coursework and I have almost no hands-on experience in the field.
This is just off the top of my head but, Hydrogen is made up of 1 proton. Thus it has 1 electron in a neutral configuration. The ring you see around the massive internal blob is the electron orbital 1s.
As for what appears to be an inner ring, I suspect is still just the nucleus. Remember this is a picture of a quantum system meaning it has an exposure time to gather information. This fact illustrates the concept of electron orbitals well, since when we consider the electron as a particle with mass it has a probabilistic density of where it physically is. The flip side of this is that it will also capture the much more massive particle's (the proton's) energy. However a proton isn't really just a single particle, it is comprised of 3 known particles and that likely contributes to the blob in the image. Honestly could be way off here.
With the context it seems more likely he meant of the same element when he said the same type. Maybe he meant to include isotopes with that wording but then those are still different from the hydrogen atom pictured.
And the atom is just an excitation of proton, neutron, and electron fields. Like the C note on a guitar exists due to an excitation of the 3rd fret on the A string.
[deleted] ยท 32 points ยท Posted at 18:23:15 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
bruh
Turence ยท 8 points ยท Posted at 18:29:47 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
And those are just excitations of quark fields! And quarks are just excitations of string fields! (Maybe). But that's maybe definitely as deep as it goes
Depends on your frame of reference. Field theory is a bit abstract for most people and atomic models do well to explain general particle physics.
While I agree field theory is far closer to an explanation of nature, most people don't have the time to put into understanding it to actually bennefit from it.
imGnarly ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 19:29:53 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
just excite the G-Spring
tias ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 21:54:00 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
But the guitar string itself consists of atoms, which are excitations of particles. So the C note is a wave of vibrating waves. It's waves all the way down, man.
And secondly, if you were curious enough, youโd ask me why rubber bands tend to pull back together again, and I would end up explaining that in terms of electrical forces, which are the very things that Iโm trying to use the rubber bands to explain. So I have cheated very badly, you see.
I would like a scientist to weigh in on this: is there a difference between atoms of the same element?
Edit: Guys I know what an isotope is
dalr3th1n ยท 25 points ยท Posted at 18:18:21 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I'm surprised nobody's really answered this. The answer is no, there is no difference! People correctly point out that an isotope like Hydrogen 2 is different than regular Hydrogen, but isotopes are different types of atoms. Two given atoms of the same isotope are completely identical.
Yes, but if you charged the other atom to match, they remain indistinguishable.
Affugter ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 19:23:28 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
They will never have the same state. Or am I misreading Pauli?
dicemaze ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 19:35:04 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
IIRC, location is a part of the โstateโ of a particle, and from the conversation going on in this thread it seems like people are using โindistinguishableโ to mean โindistinguishable besides for the obvious fact that one atom is right here while the other atom is right thereโ. So if 2 electrons are identical in energy/spin/etc but not location, they still have 2 different states.
I'm realizing that I've gotten beyond my level of expertise.
n1ywb ยท -1 points ยท Posted at 18:39:19 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
they could have differing numbers of electrons IN THE VALENCE SHELL depending on their charge
adding or subtracting one electron from the valence shell doesn't generally affect chemical or physical properties though, only electrical. The number of electrons overall is determined by the number of protons.
you can also have electrons at different energy levels and by energy level I mean different electron shells; e.g. when an atom is excited one of the electrons can jump to a higher level/shell
*edited for clarity because pedants
Dalroc ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 18:53:54 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Uhhm, the electron configuration of an atom is what decides the chemical properties of elements so it very much affects chemical properties.
Also all atoms are neutral, otherwise it's an ion.
And electrons have to exist in different energy levels as they are identical fermions and thus abide to the Pauli exclusion principle.
The electrons determine the chemical properties, but the allowable electron states is determined by the protons in the nucleus. So really it's both.
Dalroc ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 19:52:42 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
You're not wrong, but that isn't really relevant here as the atom is the nucleus and the electrons combined, so the nucleus charge is not the same as the atoms charge as /u/n1ywb seem to think, and it's the electrons that do all the work in chemical processes so.
n1ywb ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 19:54:47 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
so the nucleus charge is not the same as the atoms charge as /u/n1ywb seem to think
I do not think that. What did I say that sounded like that?
Dalroc ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 20:08:29 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
they could have differing numbers of electrons depending on their charge
It's unclear what you actually think though, because you're mostly rambling and spouting nonsense
n1ywb ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 19:26:19 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
the electron configuration
is determined by the number of protons in the nucleus
Dalroc ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 19:40:54 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
is determined by the number of protons in the nucleus
Yeah, so? It's still the electron configuration that decides the chemical properties of elements.
You're just being a pedant. GTFO
No. And actually I was being nice, but since you're an asshole, let me be frank.. you don't know shit about what you're talking about. Your first comment sounds like a high school student who haven't paid adequate attention but still wants to sound smart.
Nice how you cut that right in the middle of a sentence. The language isn't perfect, no.
"The general formula is that the nth shell can in principle hold up to 2(n2) electrons"
Being in the same shell is not the same as being in the same energy level. But you are a little correct, an energy level can carry two electrons with opposite spins (in the absence of an E- or B-field), but I didn't want to go into that as that would obviously be way over your head and unnecessary.
n1ywb ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 19:42:15 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
An atom is the smallest constituent unit of ordinary matter that has the properties of a chemical element. Every solid, liquid, gas, and plasma is composed of neutral or ionized atoms.
In chemistry and atomic physics, an electron shell, or a principal energy level, may be thought of as an orbit followed by electrons around an atom's nucleus.
Yes and shells beyond the first begin to contain sifferent orbital geometries, like p, d or f orbitals.
Then in a molecule, these orbitals begin to hybridise to form single, double or triple bonds without violating the pauli principle.
It's turtles all the way down man.
Dalroc ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 20:07:05 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
You're really embarrassing yourself dude.. Stop it.
As I said, the language isn't perfect, especially when trying to talk about it with laymen like yourself, which is exactly what Wikipedia is all about so try looking up some better sources than Wikipedia.
An electron shell is not the same as an energy level, which is why they specify it with the "principal" epithet. (Is that the correct usage of the word "epithet" btw? Grammar is not my best subject, especially not when it's not in my native language.)
n1ywb ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 20:09:03 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Dalroc ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 20:14:27 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Look dude... I tried to point out that you were wrong without being an asshole, but you still had to bitch about it. It's obvious you lack any education within either physics or chemistry so wouldn't it just be better if you admitted to being mistaken? There's nothing wrong with being wrong.
n1ywb ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 19:40:06 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
doesn't say anything about two electrons not occupying the same energy level. it says
In the case of electrons in atoms, it can be stated as follows: it is impossible for two electrons of a poly-electron atom to have the same values of the four quantum numbers: n, the principal quantum number, โ, the angular momentum quantum number, mโ, the magnetic quantum number, and ms, the spin quantum number. For example, if two electrons reside in the same orbital, and if their n, โ, and mโ values are the same, then their ms must be different, and thus the electrons must have opposite half-integer spin projections of 1/2 and โ1/2.
so it says right in the friggin example that two electrons can be in the same energy level
Properties of particles such as spin and quantum numbers are sort of "energy levels". They are not exactly energy (as I understand it) but neither are they an angular rotation (spin).
Hence, two electrons in the same locatioj can never have the same "energy levels" - location, quantum numbers, spin.
n1ywb ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 19:57:02 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
In this context I'm using "energy level" as a synonym for "electron shell".
chemistry and atomic physics, an electron shell, or a principal energy level, may be thought of as an orbit followed by electrons around an atom's nucleus
known elements have up to 32 electrons in one electron shell/energy level
Dalroc ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 20:11:47 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
An electron shell is still not a synonym with energy level no matter how much you want it to.
Dalroc ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 19:58:04 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
As I told you in another comment, two electrons can exist in the same energy level (when no magnetic field is present so there is no Zeeman splitting).
I didn't go into this because you show incredible ignorance on this topic and a huge hubris.
n1ywb ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 20:00:19 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I read your comment history. I encourage anybody else with any doubts about this discussion to do the same.
Dalroc ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 20:09:53 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Uhh, okay? Nice attempt at derailing the discussion mate.
[deleted] ยท 24 points ยท Posted at 18:01:47 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
[deleted]
ebquick ยท 7 points ยท Posted at 18:38:52 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
There are plenty of hydrogen ions that exist in nature as well. Which is literally just a proton
No, the joke whyโre trying to make was that the title implies thereโs only one hydrogen atom in the universe
Dalroc ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 18:49:08 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
What are you talking about? Neutral atomic hydrogen is very common throughout the Universe..
VanceIX ยท 6 points ยท Posted at 18:05:03 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Yes, you can have isotopes. Hydrogen, for example, has three relatively stable isotopes: protium (1 proton, 0 neutrons, most common by far), deuterium (1 proton, 1 neutrons, about 5000x as rare), and tritium (1 proton, 2 neutrons, only trace abundance, radioactive).
Not exactly. Hydrogen-1 (protium) has no neutrons, Hydrogen-2 (deuterium) has one neutron and Hydrogen-3 has two. The isotope number refers to the total number of nuclear particles (i.e., protons + neutrons). There are also Hydrogen-4 through Hydrogen-7, but they have decay rates far too fast to actually be found in nature and have only been produced artificially by bombarding lighter isotopes with neutron beams.
VanceIX ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 18:31:09 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
My bad, you're right. That's what I get for not checking my numbers before posting haha
protium (1 proton, 1 neutron, most common by far), deuterium (1 proton, 2 neutrons, about 5000x as rare), and tritium (1 proton, 3 neutrons, only trace abundance, radioactive
noxumida ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 18:15:55 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Only if they have different numbers of neutrons (we call these different forms "isotopes"). Other than that, all neutrons are identical to all other neutrons and the same is true of protons and electrons.
A lot of people are responding 2 atoms of the same isotope and charge would be completely identical, but that's not entirely true.
A proton is made up of 2 up quarks and 1 down quark, however, simply and technically, you can add as many quarks onto those 2 ups and 1 down, as long as the charge cancel out.
For example, a charm quark has a charge of +2/3, while a strange quark has a charge of -1/3. A proton could be 2 up quarks, 1 down quark, a charm quark, and 2 strange quarks. It's still a proton, just heavier.
Now, this is temporary, but still, it stands that not every atom of the same charge and isotope are necessarily the same. The proton and neutrons could have temporarily fluctuating weights with more quarks as long as their charge is constant (and the necessary quarks for a proton/neutron are still there)
Yes. Elements are families of atoms that have the same number of protons. Carbon can exist as C-12 and C-14 in nature. Those differ in the number of neutrons. We can also have things like H and H+, which are still hydrogen, however behave very differently because of differing electron count.
Yes, that's the current theory. A hydrogen atom has a nucleus made of one proton and one neutron, which are orbited by one electron. You can have different isotopes by adding or taking away neutrons, for instance the hydrogen atom I just described is called deuterium, but if you took away the neutron, it would be a different isotope called protium. You can also give atoms a different charge by adding or taking away electrons. In the future we will likely discover new states that an atom can be in, but scientists currently believe that every atom of the same isotope and same charge are identical.
I'm not a scientist but from college chem classes, isotopes are different forms of the same element. There are i think 3 isotopes (or at least prominent ones) for hydrogen. But all "normal" hydrogens should have the same form.
99.98% of hydrogen on earth is protium (hydrogen-1). 0.02% is deuterium (hydrogen-2), and then the tritium (hydrogen-3) that exists on earth is almost entirely man-made in nuclear reactors as a byproduct from other reactions.
You can go on to stick more neutrons to your hydrogen atoms, we've created up to hydrogen-7, but above tritium they're so unstable they only live a few septillionths of a second before decaying.
mallchin ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 18:08:43 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Yes, electronsโ orbits are unique; no two atomโs electrons share the same orbit.
n1ywb ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 18:45:46 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
they don't really orbit though, at least not in the sense that planets do. within a particular shell they are more like a standing wave. I don't think that quantum mechanics would permit you to differentiate two atoms based on the positions of the electrons in their "orbits" but I could be wrong. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_orbital#Electron_properties
mallchin ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 21:03:22 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I think youโre missing the point โ they do โorbitโ the atomic nucleus and their โorbitsโ are โhigherโ in higher energy states.
Planets are massive objects bedridden in spacetime.
n1ywb ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 21:16:44 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I know that
this whole thread should die in a fire; what a clusterfuck
An isotope is a particular type of an element, like Carbon-12 or Carbon-14. Both are carbon, but they are different atoms for sciencey reasons. But two atoms of the same isotope are identical.
To me, all the faces of my mice look the same, but I bet there are vast differences in their eyes.
As for the atom of hydrogen, maybe they have some kind of character like how their quarks spin and vibrate to make up their protons and neutrons. Maybe something unique about how their electron flies about.
I'm just not sure if its an answerable question. If I recall mostly how we see small stuff is by looking at crystals or using particle accelerators to smash them and look at the resulting signatures. But, I didn't read the article, maybe that could offer insight into your question.
noxumida ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 18:15:15 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
maybe they have some kind of character like how their quarks spin and vibrate to make up their protons and neutrons. Maybe something unique about how their electron flies about
That's really not how it works. All protons are made from the same kinds of quarks and are identical, and the same is true of neutrons. You could switch out the neutrons and protons in an atom and it would not change anything. Electrons are also not unique. The only thing that could really vary between atoms (of the same element and charge) is the number of neutrons, which creates different isotopes.
I can't comment with perfect knowledge for a system like an atom, but fundamental particles at least are indistinguishable in principle, and that fact has observable consequences like the Pauli exclusion principle. I assume that should extend in some sense to composite systems of fundamental particles, like atoms.
But even particles are contextual, they exist in a certain place and have forces acting upon that are different than even the particle right next time them.
It doesn't matter, though. This is very clear at least in the case of bosons, where you can show that if you had boson A and boson B and you swapped their roles, nothing would change. And this has measurable effect (in comparison to say, fermions, where interchange picks up a minus sign).
So you may think there's a philosophical difference, but if nothing would change physically even in principle if the roles of two particles were swapped, those particles are indistinguishable in all ways science concerns itself with (measurable ones).
There's a good quote to this effect in Griffiths' quantum mechanics textbook:
The fact is, all electrons ate utterly identical, in a way that no two classical objects can ever be. It's not just that we don' t happen to know which electron is which; God doesn't know which is which, because there is no such thing as "this" electron, or "that" electron; all we can legitimately speak about is "an" electron.
EDIT: This is all half-remembered from undergrad quantum though, so I'd point to the wiki page for likely more accurate information than I could give.
If you were to take a picture of a hydrogen atom their location and forces would be controlled for
yatea34 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 18:34:33 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
You joke, but isnโt that the point of atoms?
Indeed - there have been serious theories from serious physicists (Feynman) that there may just be One Electron that moves forward and backward through time:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One-electron_universe
Fickr ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 21:07:54 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Did you just assume the atom's appearence without its consent?
Jeramiah ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 18:34:56 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I think what he was getting at is that there exists no hydrogen atoms by themselves. They are always bonded to something else.
Affugter ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 19:12:43 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Wolfgang Pauli would like a word with you.
c3534l ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 23:25:47 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
All atoms of the same type are identical.
Unless you count properties like, you know, where they are. That's usually what people use to distinguish between similar things. If I have something in my left hand, and something in my right hand, then I have two things. What an odd sophism.
An important detail is that they aren't identical, because they aren't in te exact same location!
Fleckeri ยท 17 points ยท Posted at 17:56:19 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Yeah, shouldnโt it be H2?
cynian ยท 7 points ยท Posted at 19:11:09 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
H2 is the form Hydrogen naturaly occurs in as atoms always seek the state in which they have the smallest ammount of energy. A bond between two hydrogen atoms has a smaller ammount of energy than a single atom would, but that does not mean that Hydrogen only exists in pairs. Its only the default configuration in which it can be found in nature. It is possible to break up the bond between them by putting the energy which the system emits during bonding back into the system,thus making the option of two separate atoms the energy-poorer of the two.
(termiology might be off, I ain't no native speaker)
Dalroc ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 18:58:11 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Atomic hydrogen is very common throughout the Universe, just not so much naturally on Earth.
Fleckeri ยท -1 points ยท Posted at 18:59:31 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Oh sorry, I didnโt know this picture was taken in space.
Dalroc ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 19:31:57 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
It's taken in a lab, not out in nature. Are you deliberatly acting this stupid? The fuck are you so salty for?
Fleckeri ยท -1 points ยท Posted at 21:32:08 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Dalroc ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 21:45:57 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Yeah that was a little over the top, sorry. Was worked up from discussing with this other dude in this thread and that snarky comment kind of rubbed me the wrong way, but yeah.. A bit too much from my side there, sorry.
xkcd1234 ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 18:45:17 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
not to worry, it is not an image of the hydrogen atom. the title implies that the center is the nucleus and it is simply wrong. This is a velocity map image of electrons ionized from Hydrogen, see more discussion here ...
Obviously this is a false-color image but that has me wondering, would a particle that small even be large enough to be capable of giving off a color assuming we could somehow detect it with human eyes?
Edit: I am getting two very different equally in-depth answers to this question and am now more confused
At the most basic level, photons arise from a need to conserve energy. They are produced when particles have to change direction suddenly, mass is reduced in some particle decay/annihilation, when a particle's energy is reduced to a less energetic state, etc.
In large materials, these things randomly happen all the time - especially if they are hot - hence why everything emits some light.
A hydrogen particle is different. Something about its state would have to change (ie: its subatomic particles would have to do something interesting) then a photon will be released with the energy that was lost in that event. That energy will determine the photon's color.
It's like a flat pond. You have to drop a stone in to make a ripple.
What you're seeing in the image is the field around the atom, rendered in color. It's essentially just a graph but that's really no different from taking a photo.
Hardly anything spontaneously emits light... 99% of the photons you see are from absorption and scattering, and come from specific light sources (light bulbs, the sun, etc). What you're talking about is blackbody radiation, which doesn't get into the visible spectrum until it's heated to hundreds of K.
herywort ยท 15 points ยท Posted at 19:06:55 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Visible light doesn't give off until around 5000k according to the graph on Wikipedia. I believe everything at room temperature just gives off IR radiation. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black-body_radiation
herywort ยท 7 points ยท Posted at 19:50:38 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Visible light is emitted at all temperatures, but under like 800 K it's negligible, while at around 5000 K it's at maximum. This 800 K point is called Draper point and above that almost all solid materials visibly glow
That make sense. I didn't really think about it much at first, but light bulbs definitely don't need to get anywhere close to 5000k to work so I'm not sure why I thought it wouldn't start until 5000k
cure1245 ยท 5 points ยท Posted at 20:06:43 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Also, to be fair, the bulb doesn't have to get that hot: only the filament does. The rest of the bulb appears to glow because of the scattering caused by the powder coating on the inside of the glass.
I assume so. There's some wet and wild stuff at the quantum level, though, and some very clever ways of observing it that I won't pretend to be knowledgeable about.
Wait, I'm a layman but I thought when we see light you are talking about a electromagentic field wave that has encountered something which then gets reflected of that something and enters your eye. Green objects are green because the the non green frequencies get "absorbed" by the object and a frequency which we see as green gets reflected towards you.
Isn't he asking if you could hit the atom with a photon to see if something gets reflected back? Rather than the atom emitting a photon?
As far as I understand, color is purely dependent on wavelength. There is a visible spectrum, which is what we see, but it's just a very small sample of the possible lengths light can be.
Atoms can actually release photons, or light, when their electrons gain enough energy. I think what he's asking is what color that would be, if a color at all, if we were to actually record the photons being released.
The issue is resolution. What you're talking about is a single photon emitted from the entire atom, after which the atom would not be around to emit another one. That's like trying to take a picture of a gun by measuring the bullets it fires.
So basically one atom isn't enough to encapsulate all of its potential wavelengths? A fluorescent tube of many hydrogen atoms should solve that issue though right?
Also doesn't the electron just dispel it's excess energy and return to ground state when emitting the photon, so you could feasibly capture one atoms emission spectrum over time by constantly bombarding it?
If you consider the visible light is violet at the smallest wavelength and then to ultra-violet, then a wavelength small enough in the context of an atom could be described as some abstract mega-purple.
[deleted] ยท 865 points ยท Posted at 17:59:40 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
[deleted]
JamesR624 ยท 1583 points ยท Posted at 18:13:13 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Q: What color is an atom?
A: No.
karmisson ยท 157 points ยท Posted at 18:16:16 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
y2k2r2d2 ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 20:13:16 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Pedantry Pedantry.
DrRakdos ยท 5 points ยท Posted at 19:08:20 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
However I literally stated from the south pole.
You took what I said and changed the nature of what I said.
It's like responding to "can I breathe under water if I have human lungs and do not possess gills or any machinery to aid me?" with "only if you have gills or an oxygen tank."
Atoms do emit visible light, though the colour has generally little to do with the colour we normally associate with the substance
Edit: colour, not Colorado
A: You could classify an atoms colour by its spectral profile. The colour produced from the photons made by the atom as a result of various physical processes.
I don't think it's an actual color but more of a different detection areas from the machine and to make it useable and "simplier" we add the color to the areas
Seakawn ยท 46 points ยท Posted at 18:36:05 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
How many atoms do you need until they exhibit color to a human eye (assuming such eye is capable of seeing it)?
Nelyeth ยท 109 points ยท Posted at 18:53:21 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Enough to reach the wavelength of visible light (380-800nm). Carbon atoms (to pick a common one) are 1.7 angstrรถm (0.17nm) wide, so you'd a surface of 2236x2236 atoms (380/0.17), so the end result would be a square, mono-atomic layer of 4999696 atoms. If you make that a cube instead of a square, that's 11179320256 atoms.
That said, you'd probably need something a bit bigger than this though, since light is diffracted by smaller objects/slits, which'd distort what you see, so by my calculations, "a fuckton" would be a more accurate answer.
Edit : apparently, colour doesn't work like this, and you can have much smaller objects that still display a colour. So now this post is just about how many atoms you need to reach the wavelength of visible light.
ultralame ยท 35 points ยท Posted at 19:03:07 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Why did you choose a square? Why not a disc with r=lambda/2?
EDIT: Also, what about polarized light aligned with a strip of atoms? Damn. Now you got me going down the rabbit hole.
Nelyeth ยท 43 points ยท Posted at 19:36:21 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
XkF21WNJ ยท 7 points ยท Posted at 19:15:51 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Of course by this logic no molecule with less than 5·106 atoms would have a colour.
Edit: Just to highlight a particular counter example, chlorophyll has an atomic weight below 900u. It's also around 20 angstrom long. Yet if it wasn't capable of absorbing visible light all plants would die.
Nelyeth ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 19:44:35 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Good point. This is absolutely not my field of expertise, and I'm much more comfortable talking about molten metal than light physics, so I might be wrong about it all. If anyone knows better, I'd love to hear a conclusive answer.
XkF21WNJ ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 19:54:42 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Well, if the only criterion is whether it can absorb light of a particular wavelength then a single atom is enough to 'exhibit colour'. Even if you restrict this to visible wavelengths.
If you're also willing to accept light emitted after the atom is excited by lasers then a single atom is enough for it to be 'visible' (you still need a long exposure to photograph it, but I think it counts).
Hatzn ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 20:03:44 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
If something has a colour or not is determined by the atoms of a molecule and how they are connected. You excite the electrons in the atomshells with the electromagnet wave (light) into a higher state of energy and if the difference in energy between high and low state is equal to the wavelength of visible light (E=hv) the molecule absorbs some colour of the visible light so in consequence not all wavelengths are reflected and the thing/molecule gets a colour. The size of a molecule doesnt really matter. For lightscattering on the other hand it does...
I hope this made atleast a little sense.
Seakawn ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 20:57:46 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I'm much more comfortable talking about molten metal than light physics
I feel like it's so complicated just because it's not only light physics, but also seems to involve the psychology of sight as well. That all makes for a lot of variables to consider.
(Objects much smaller that the wavelength of light can absorb and scatter that light, leading to observable color.)
wende11 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 00:56:26 on February 22, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Nope, that's not how that works. Any atom can give off photons. Whether you can see it, and what color it is depends on the wavelength of the photon being emmitted and the total amount of photons per second being emmitted. Which is around 5-9 photons every 100 ms for the human eye.
XkF21WNJ ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 19:14:16 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
The answer to that particular light bulb joke is somewhere in the order of 1027.
wsupduck ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 18:59:56 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
The color something "is" is a bit complicated. It's related to the the wavelengths of light the object doesn't absorb because it is reflected then absorbed by our eye. As far as I understand, a single molecule can have a color as long as it has the necessary electronic transitions (electrons moving from one orbital to another). Actually observing that absorption/reflection might take more than one molecule but it occuring is individual.
Seakawn ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 20:58:53 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Actually observing that absorption/reflection might take more than one molecule but it occuring is individual.
This is something that I expected and seems like a pretty relevant nuance. But it definitely makes the question/answer pretty complicated.
Rigo2000 ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 19:03:30 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
They wouldn't have colour. When the atom is energised it sends of electrons that vibrate at a certain frequency which corresponds to a colour on the electromagnetic spectrum. Depending on which kind of atom it is, it gives of different colours. This is also used to figure out the molecular composition of far away planets.
[deleted] ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 18:48:06 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
The length of them would have to be at least the wavelength. So ~2236 long for carbon (~.17nm wide). And I am not sure how wide the strip would have to be, assuming you used polarized light.
stanhhh ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 18:53:24 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
And just like life, the correct answer ends up at the bottom.
[deleted] ยท 6 points ยท Posted at 19:43:26 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Just to be pedantic, light doesn't "reflect" in the normal sense of the word, but gets absorbed and re-emitted. I can't speak to the size of objects that this happens with, but if a hydrogen atom can be hit with light, absorb it, enter a different state, decay and release a photon, then it's reflecting the light.
bubbaa11 ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 19:59:17 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
That's not how reflection works. According to your definition, shining light onto something and heating it up is a form of reflection. Also, that's not really what was being said. The point here is that you can not image an atom with visible light. It is too small. You can see the visible light they emit but you can not see them in the traditional sense of forming an image of the atom with visible light.
[deleted] ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 20:07:33 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
That's exactly how "reflection" of light on an object works. A photon hits something, that something absorbs the photon, enters a metastable state, that state decays and then a new photon is released. The only time where this sort of gets fuzzy is in single photon electron interactions where it just sort of becomes an irrelevant discussion.
Sure, you can't "image" an atom (to be fair, partial wavelength particles are a thing so I don't completely buy into your hand waving, but I'm not informed enough about our best of the best imaging techniques to really care to disagree), but like I said, I was being pedantic.
Ross302 ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 20:46:04 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
It's not that wrong
xDuffmen ยท 5 points ยท Posted at 19:36:29 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
and people wonder why every comment on /r/science is deleted
Paz_50 ยท 17 points ยท Posted at 18:34:15 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
So how is color decided in such a small level. Eg. you have 2 rectangles touching one black one white. At the place where they are touching if you were to โzoomโ in how far could you get before they lose the color?
Liamb2179 ยท 17 points ยท Posted at 18:44:52 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Probably about 200-800nm which is about the wavelength of visible light
jessbird ยท 21 points ยท Posted at 18:46:26 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
i mean...so is it just black?
whatcolorisit
Dazaer ยท 39 points ยท Posted at 18:51:18 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
that's like asking what colour are radio wavelenghts... it's not on the visible spectrum; there is no colour
Yeah I've always understood the idea that there's a spectrum of light and we can't see wavelengths of a higher and lower frequency. I guess I'm asking about the size factor as well. Is the smallest object we can see (with the naked eye) also the smallest object that can "pick up" color?
No, not necessarily. Anything that has enough molecules to perturb the EM spectrum to the point that it produces wavelengths that correspond to visible light would technically "pick up" a color, and we wouldn't necessarily be able to see it with the naked eye because it's too small. There's a threshold and it's not necessarily visible to the naked eye.
To add to this, there is a fundamental limit (Abbe limit) to how far we can zoom in on something. Point sources of light eventually become blurred, overlapping blobs. Using some fancy techniques (electron microscopy, super-resulution microscopy), we can break this limit in the lab, but the idea of color doesn't make sense in these contexts.
No, anything capable of producing a photon in the visible spectrum can essentially have "color". The ability to produce a photon is not based on the size of the object.
[deleted] ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 19:56:50 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Bingo
Thereโs probably all sorts of weird shit around us that we can never be aware of. Like the Loch Ness monster, just swimming around your living room, chilling in its non-visible spectrumness.
jessbird ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 20:06:35 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
so how did they โphotographโ it? if itโs akin to photographing radio wavelengths...
Dazaer ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 21:37:33 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
No clue, but a quick google search says:
"The quantum microscope utilizes photoionization microscopy to acquire the nodal structure of the electronic orbital of a hydrogen atom. (...) In this experiment, a hydrogen atom is placed in an electric field and is excited by laser pulses. The excited electron then escapes from the atom and follows a trajectory to a dual microchannel plate detector perpendicular to the electric field. Since there are numerous trajectories that may reach that same point on the detector, the interference patterns created by the phase differences between these trajectories were observed, which were then magnified by more than 20,000x using an electrostatic zoom lens that would not disrupt the quantum coherence. The interference pattern observed revealed the structure of the wave function"
It doesnโt have a color, thatโs the weird part. Color is based on the wavelength of photons released or reflected off substances. However, the wavelength of visible light is too big to reflect off atoms. Thus, you can only image it with some kind of magnetic/ultraviolet light thatโs small enough in wavelength to reflect. Those wavelengths that it does give off are outside our eyesโ visible light range, so no color.
[deleted] ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 19:37:51 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I think it moreso has to do with the "systems" ability to absorb the light since light almost never "reflects" like bouncing a ball, but rather gets absorbed and then re-emitted.
Paz_50 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 18:56:53 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
So is there some underlying โlawโ that says when X amount of atoms group it will reflect blue or green ect
[deleted] ยท 4 points ยท Posted at 18:52:12 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Wavelength determines hue; itโs the amount of light shapes brightness. So the color could be anywhere on the visible spectrum, but our eyes would never differentiate it from black.
There is no color. What you're looking at is a false-color image of electron density. The colors are only there to show you how intense the density is, i.e. how probable the electron is of being there.
jessbird ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 20:05:08 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
but what did they photograph if thereโs nothing visible to document :/
sidepart ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 19:04:24 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
To answer this, try to conceptualize what it's like for a person with no eyes. They don't see black. They just don't see, period.
In this case, the atom is smaller than any visible wavelength of light. It has no color.
jessbird ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 20:04:21 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
that makes sense in theory, but if we can see the atom...what..color are we seeing
sidepart ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 21:20:40 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Well the simple answer is still nothing.
In order to see a color, the following needs to happen:
Visible light needs to hit the object.
The electrons of that object need to absorb some light.
The electrons of that object then emit some light.
Now, if the light that is emitted is exactly the same as the light absorbed, then what you're looking at is clear. Colorless. If you were to just get a bunch of H2 gas and look at it, it's colorless. In fact if you burn hydrogen, the flame is also clear. If you want to get more complicated, I think it's a pinkish color in its plasma state.
Someone with more knowledge on this subject might need to continue on this discussion, but I'm fairly certain all atoms are clear if they're just by themselves. Like, you need to have a gold ingot to see gold but 1 gold atom by itself is just clear. This would be because the light emitted by the 1 atom's electrons would be the same light that was absorbed. If there are more than 1 atom though, there are more electrons, they can jump around and then emit color.
BoJacob ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 19:15:59 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
So there isn't really such a thing as color as humans see it past that size scale of visible light (400 - 800 nm). Something's color is defined as what wavelength of light it either reflects or emits.
Something reflects light because of its complicated electronic structure and how it interacts with incoming light. For example, a metal like copper (edit: the green line in this graph is copper) strongly reflects light from ~600+ nm which is the red side of the visible spectrum. Notice how it also reflects a little bit below that as well, which is why copper isn't a pure red color, more of a mix of colors but mostly red. This only really happens with large amounts of atoms, enough to generate this complicated electron-light behavior. If you have a single atom of something, this doesn't really happen. This is where emission comes in.
Emission is more complicated because it is described by quantum mechanics. A specific atom has a very exact electron structure, meaning all atoms of an element are exactly the same (atoms of the same isotope and ionization at least). If you can give an atom some energy (shoot a photon at it, basically shine light on it) one of its electrons can absorb that photon and jump to an excited state, the area where the next electron would go if it had one. The original electron state is left empty, and the electron now sits in a higher energy state. This isn't really stable, so after a while the electron "falls" back down into it's original state. But that higher energy state contained more energy, and the original state is at a lower energy, so that energy has to go somewhere (conservation of energy). The energy goes into emitting a photon. The energy that this photon has is exactly the energy of the excited electron state minus the energy of the original electron state. Through some simple unit conversions energy can be represented as wavelength. So since these original and excited electron states are very exact and always the same, the light that an atom can emit is always at the same wavelength or color. Whether or not this wavelength is in the visible spectrum that humans can see depends on the specific atom. Keep in mind, this isn't really the color of the atom, just what color of light it emits when it is excited and decays.
Since those are really the only ways to give something "color", the atom as a whole doesn't really have a color. Atoms are around 0.1-0.5ish nm, more than 1000x smaller than our color spectrum.
Think of it as being ultra-ultra-ultraviolet, to talk very generally, small things correspond to high frequencies and high energies and conversely large things correspond to low frequencies and low energies. Note large means spatially large, not more massive.
Color is determined by what wavelength is bounced back.
wsupduck ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 19:01:38 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
It's a color humans can't see because it's outside the visible spectrum
coffca ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 18:50:09 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Color is not a property of objects, is light bouncing off of it what we see
[deleted] ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 19:40:55 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Well, color is a property of objects in some sense, but it's also related to light coming out of the object. When light hits an object, it doesn't bounce off like a ball. It gets absorbed, and what absorbs it enters a metastable state that eventually decays and emits another photon. The physical structure of the object in question determines how the light gets re-emitted and also the energy of the re-emitted photon.
coffca ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 19:55:07 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Visible light run from about 380 to about 750 nm. Anything smaller than that size can't be seen using visible light, you need light with a smaller wavelength or something else entirely like electrons.
edit: to clarify - there's no difference between radio waves and visible light except for wavelength and frequency (which are related to each other by the constant 'c' - which incidentally is also the speed of light). Radio waves can have wavelength in the range of metres to kilometres - which is why they don't 'see' buildings and walls and rather pass straight through. Microwave wavelegnths are in the order of centimetres - which is why they don't 'see' the grating on the microwave oven door - the holes are too small and they simply reflect off of it.
wsupduck ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 19:02:41 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
They used color on their measurements the same way 100% high school graduation is green and 80% is red
But the color of an object is just based on what wavelengths the atoms absorb or emit. You would not be able to color the image like it's done here, but technically the atom as a whole would have a color.
It's wrong to think about what "color" the atom is. The atom can release a photon of a specific color wavelength. But a hydrogen atom can release different colors of photon depending on the state its electron. There is no specific color that a hydrogen atom has.
I know this, but that's how it works in all objects, large or small, down to a single atom. Nothing has a color. They all release photons. An objects color is just the sum of all the photons it releases, so why is it wrong to think about what color the atom is? This is how we identify what atoms are present in stars, we look at the color (wavelength) of the light they emit.
Yes and no. When it comes to "macro" objects, obviously the simplistic conceptual idea of absorbing and releasing light (or scattering) is kinda still at play. Really only kinda, though. There is far too much going on in a macro object composed of interacting molecules for the simple point about differences in the energy of incident light leading to different colors of light being released to turn out to be true.
I get the whole compulsion to assume that a composite object should just function that same way as its individual parts do. But individual atoms vs complex "macro" objects is a perfect real-world case of the fallacy of composition. They really aren't the same, even at a fundamental level.
I know it's not what OP asked but it would still give off light. The photon emitted when a H- atom becomes H would have an energy of 13.6eV, correlating to a photon wavelength of ~91 nm, which lies in far ultraviolet. This is the maximum energy a H atom could give off from electron interactions. If it were simply shifting orbitals or something it would be a longer wavelength.
uxl ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 18:55:10 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
The ability of an atom or molecule to absorb light has nothing to do with its size relative to the absorbed wavelength, just has to do with the relative energy of the excitation to the energy of the incoming photon.
That isn't actually true, the color an element gives off is due in part to their atoms, it's what makes the band gap.
There was a wiki article with a picture of a bunch of different elements burning and showing their band gap I read a while ago, but I can't refind it.
boog14 ยท 76 points ยท Posted at 18:10:07 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Interestingly, yes. The emission spectrum of hydrogen is typically red although this color comes only from the electron emitting photons to change energy states so the circles around the nucleus would have the color of hydrogen's emission spectrum but I'm not sure what color the nucleus would be.
pwrpfgrlz ยท 15 points ยท Posted at 18:28:19 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
the nucleus is very extremely tiny compared to the electron shell, if i recall correctly. also light spectroscopy is in some places called electron spectroscopy, because color comes from interaction with electrons. so maybe no color from nuclei?
n1ywb ยท 16 points ยท Posted at 18:37:30 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
when nuclei undergo fission they give off gamma-ray colored photons :P
stanhhh ยท 14 points ยท Posted at 18:56:26 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
X-rays on the 5nm wavelength is my fav color. I find ฮณ-ray to be a bit too vulgar, aggressive even like "heeeyy yall look at me! hey! Bam!: You don't have eyes anymore haha!" really not my style .
Nuclei will emit electromagnetic radiation (light) but at a very high energies. These are called gamma rays. A hydrogen nucleus is made of only one proton though so it won't emit anything.
It's the same scale as putting a golf ball in the middle of a football stadium. The ball being the nucleus, and the the stadium walls being the electron cloud.
goody863 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 22:10:22 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Electron spectroscopy is actually a specific subset of spectroscopy where you detect electrons ejected from an atom. But you're right, in standard absorption spectroscopy, specific wavelengths of light are absorbed because they match the evergy required to excited an electron into a higher energy state. They photons don't interact with the nucleus of the atom
The color of the nucleus would be gamma radiation because the energy involved in the nuclear forces is much higher than the atomic forces governing electron interactions.
Please explain as I don't know exactly what you're getting at. The strong nuclear force is indeed higher than the electromagnetic force at small distances but I'm not seeing how this leads to a release of gamma radiation without matter conversion (a hydrogen atom is incapable of fission) or bremsstrahlung which doesn't occur without acceleration of a charged particle.
My knowledge is not comprehensive so I'm probably ignorant of the mechanism or just not looking at the situation correctly.
A bit facetious, but the idea is that "color" is determined by the wavelength of the photon, which is related to its energy, which is set by the energy of the transition that created it. Nuclear transitions would involve much higher energy levels, which would release higher energy, shorter wavelength photons whose spectrum would be more in the x-ray to gamma ray range.
I understand the relationship between wavelength, energy and color. What I'm not getting is how a single hydrogen atom generates a photon. What mechanism occurs to release a photon?
You'd have to talk to a dedicated particle physicist to get a precise answer on exactly what happens in the interchange, and even then it's more on the level of "this is what the math says should happen" which then matches with observations we make with experiment.
But on a more conceptual level, the idea is that on the atomic scale, energy is discretized. An electron orbiting a nucleus cannot be located just anywhere; it is defined by a wave function that can only take the form of discrete configurations, and each of those configurations will be associated with a specific amount of energy. An electron in one configuration can move to another by either gaining or losing an amount of energy equal to the difference. For instance, it can move to a higher energy level by absorbing an incoming photon, or it can move to lower level by releasing energy in the form of an outgoing photon. The key is to simply think of photons as little packets of energy that can be absorbed and emitted by particles.
When you see something like a glowing neon tube, what you're witnessing is the process of trillions upon trillions of neon atoms having their electrons put into an excited state through the use of a high voltage, and then those electrons making discrete jumps back down to their ground state and releasing the difference in energy as photons. Since they're all the same atom, and therefor they all have the same energy levels, you see the same colors coming from each of them. And if you look at the emission spectrum of neon, here, for instance, you see that its spectrum is predominantly red and yellow which is why neon has its characteristic neon orange glow. There are a lot of different lines there because neon has a lot of electrons which allows for a wide range of energy shifts. If you look at something like hydrogen you see that there are much fewer lines, because with only one electron, there are far few discrete energy configurations that it can assume.
EHNIGMA ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 18:37:32 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
A single hydrogen atom would never be able to produce enough photons to be detectable by the human eye.
boog14 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 18:41:34 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
True, but we could detect it with equipment.
yoku651 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 19:11:07 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Is this the hyperfine transition or that that something else?
boog14 ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 19:49:52 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Yessir. The hyperfine and fine structures both will do this although the hyperfine structures have drastically less energy change associated with them, hence the names.
yoku651 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 19:52:41 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Sweet. I have a very basic understanding of it so Iโm glad I was able to recognize it.
[deleted] ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 19:11:32 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
That's the emission spectrum though; I don't think it really lines up with our common notion of "colour". If you were to ask, what is the colour of a hydrogen flame, then yeah. But the atom (and of course the nucleus) itself can't reflect any light as it's too small.
People have also talked ITT about light scattering through a cloud of hydrogen, but this also doesn't really work as you need way more than one atom. It's colourless, basically.
nucleus is too small to interact with visible light photons. Also, the nucleus is not visible in this picture because it's way too small compared to the rings.
What we perceive as color is nothing but the photons emitted from electron interactions in an atom or molecule, so as another response said, yes, it absolutely does have a color, and that color is comprised of hydrogen's emission spectrum. It's just that a single atom would only be generating a single photon per transition, so it would take a very long time with an efficient sensor to collect enough of them to generate the spectrum.
[deleted] ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 19:10:46 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Yes, a single atom can emit/reflect/scatter light. However (i) the intensity/brightness is limited as there is only one atom emitting/reflecting/scattering photons. And (ii) the color of light propogating from the atom can be at a variety of wavelengths which are dependent upon external stimuli. Emission for example, is dependent upon the speed and radius of the electron traveling in its orbit; even then, the light from this electron will be polarized along the plane in which said electron orbits. Alternatively, if a laser is used to excite the state of the hydrogen atom where the electrons orbit changes you can change the color/brightness of the emitted light.
To be fair electromagnetic waves are both (thanks Einstein) but my question was more about whether this particular particle would be capable of emitting wavelengths in the color spectrum if excited
Yes, single atoms can absorb and emit light. What we typically think of as 'color' is just the light that's remaining after absorption. Things that absorb light in the visible spectrum have a color. But the absorption cross section of atoms is so small that you probably won't 'see' it in the conventional sense. You can also see things that emit light, or in this case with the hydrogen atom, electrons. You can see single fluorescent molecules by eye (through a microscope).
Nope. The HUP puts bounds on the uncertainty of complementary variables, of which the position and momentum pair are one example.
In the image you see emission from an atom. You can use that information to put bounds on the position and momentum, but those uncertainties will be much larger than the Heisenberg limits.
bert0ld0 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 19:05:16 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Youโll get much better answers in ask science. I wouldnโt trust any of these jabronis.
kalenxy ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 19:15:20 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
The color of something is determined by wavelengths of EM emitted in the visible spectrum. Rough examples are Violet (420 nm), Blue (470 nm), Yellow (580 nm), and Red (680 nm). A particle that small still emits EM, but not in these ranges of the visible spectrum, so it does not have a color.
JcmNOOT ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 19:24:52 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Well every atom emits a very specific wavelength when excited. So yes, technically atoms have a colour. By the way, that the way LASERs work; you see the light emitted by atoms.
The "objects must be above the wavelength of light" statement only refers to attempts to see that object in a microscope (and even then the statement is approximate at best, there is a rigorous form you can look up). If you try to focus a super high end microscope on an object that is too small you will begin to observe what's known as the airy disk. No matter how much you fiddle with your optics you will never be able to focus on it. However, that notion doesn't preclude you from seeing light scattered or emitted from very small particles. It's just that you would be unable to use that light to focus your microscope on that particle. If you tried to focus down on that light source you would find yourself looking at the airy disk again.
[deleted] ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 19:34:06 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Particles, under certain circumstances, can give off photons, but they do not reflect photons so wouldn't appear a color.
Vipitis ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 19:49:03 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
every element can reduce it's energy level by giving away photons, there is porbabilities for every wavelenghts, for Hydrogen you get 4 spikes inside the visible spectrum
moschles ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 19:59:36 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
This is NOT a photograph of an atom...repeat... NOT a photograph.
This is a 'reconstruction' of the atomic structure that is created by knocking off the electron from a hydrogen atom and seeing where it lands on a collection plate, after being magnified by 20,000X. Scientists knock the electrons off by zapping the hydrogen with an ultra-fast laser pulse. After many repeated trials, the locations of hits on the collection plate form a pattern. Those patterns are then overlapped and averaged (in some funny way) and the locations of the knocks are deduced from those patterns.
The "patterns" are actually interference fringes from waves. The calculations from the interference fringes back to the original electron locations cannot be done with paper and pencil. Only a computer can do it.
Basically, the question of "what colour is it" is not a well-formed question when we're talking about individual hydrogen atoms.
When we're talking about large objects (like a green apple), what we see as colour is really just the predominant wavelength of light that is not absorbed by the object. When we're talking about individual hydrogen atoms, we're really talking about basic nuclear physics. And what happens with an individual hydrogen atom is that when a photon hits it, the atom absorbs the energy of the photon and the electron in the hydrogen atom moves to an outer "shell". That electron can then fall back down to a lower shell and release a photon of a specific wavelength. But the hydrogen atom doesn't have just one transition that it can do (and corresponding wavelength of light that it can release). It can absorb a range of specific energies. So there isn't one single colour that hydrogen will always release.
I would believe the answer to be yes, however Iโm doubtful it would look exactly like this. Electrons for example absorb and discharge photons in order to increase and decrease energy levels respectively. The nucleus may be able to do something? As Iโm not a nuclear physicist but a chemist Iโm mostly aware of how the electrons of atoms behave. And since photons arenโt exactly a full particle they dinโt really have a set size but I believe if they were to be quantized like that they would probably be on par with an electron or smaller. (Thatโs mostly a guess if anyone knows that better feel free). But I believe a single atom could produce multiple photons, maybe not all at once but perhaps with enough exposure time a more complete image comes into frame. As for colors Iโm willing to bet they would have no color. Energy is โquantizedโ meaning it comes in specific amounts, atoms can only absorb and release very specific wavelengths of light. Depending on energy level and type of atom. Theres a good chance the photons released my be somewhere in infrared so unless you are secretly a lizard person you wouldnโt be able to see it. However Iโm not an expert in that and itโs very possible that hydrogen can absorb and release something in the same range of violet in terms of wave lengths which would allow it to release a similar color, in which case it may appear purple at that scale.
Again, Iโm not exactly a physicist so a lot of this could be incorrect completely or partially.
If 95% of the people here read the abstract of the paper that's posted just below, they would say,
It is Photoionization Microscopy. In layman's terms, they shot a super precise laser at the area where a hydrogen atom was, and measured the change in ionization of the reflected light.
More simply, they shined light at the atom, and it shined something back.
its not false color. Color represents the time the atom/ electron was in that position. the redder the color, the more time in that position. Its proportional to intensity in heat maps.
Eikonals ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 02:13:49 on February 22, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
This is quite a deep question you've stumbled onto :p I'll try my best to explain the different moving pieces.
From the replies I've seen, everyone is giving you part of the answer based on the particular definition/manifestation of color which they are familiar with, but what makes this question complex is that there are many ways to get color.
a bunch of atoms together, when they are opaque to that emitted light, can shift that light around and the overall effect is a smooth white light (blackbody) spectrum composed of many photons. Like we see from an incandescent light bulb, the sun, or a hot stove coil. Here is an example of such a spectrum
Most objects are too cold to produce light of their own (except in the infrared), so the color that we see from them is instead the white light from some light source (a lamp, the sun) minus those colors which the molecules/atoms in the object absorb, and then scattered towards our eyes. Here is the spectrum of light which our atmosphere absorbs (itโs opaque too)!
Humans don't have a built-in spectrometer in our eyeballs, so the light we see is based off of a composite of 3 receptors, which are sensitive at 3 different color/wavelength bands. Here are the sensitivity curves for cones/rods in the human eye.
Long form explanation:
Join me on the journey of a photon packet!
I'll start from the bottom and work my way up. At the most basic level, light is emitted by the electrons in an atom/ion transitioning from an excited state to a less excited state (high energy to low energy). Because energy is conserved that difference in energy as the electron drops in orbitals produces a photon. The energy of photon is basically its frequency/wavelength, and the frequency/wavelength of a photon is what we perceive as color! The visible range of light for humans is 390 to 700 nm in terms of wavelength or 430โ770 THz in terms of frequency.
So a single atom can indeed produce light/color. In fact it produces the most fundamental unit of light/color, the photon (and yes we have single photon counting detectors which can measure this emission). Because atoms have many energy levels, they can produce many different photons. Here is a simple case of the Hydrogen Balmer series. More complex atoms (more electrons/protons meaning further down on the periodic table) have many more energy orbitals and can therefore produce many more frequencies of photons. The places where you see this kind of pure emitted light, largely undisturbed by other processes, are mainly in neon signs (where we use different gases, not just Neon, to get different colors). plasma ball toys, and certain true color pictures of nebulae. But most objects in our everyday lives aren't glowing, so this isn't the color that we perceive from them. But it is the first step to what we see!
At this point you should have a couple questions. How do we get from single distinct emission lines to a smooth, white light spectrum as is produced by the sun or by a heated tungsten filament in an incandescent light bulb? What is the color that we perceive from everyday objects?
Now we move from considering a single atom to a whole collection of atoms/molecules interacting with large numbers of photons.
Atoms/electrons don't just produce light, they can also absorb it and even shift it in complex ways. The atoms in a blackbody (like a heated tungsten filament or a stove top coil) emit light that they themselves are opaque to. So for the light produced inside of a tungsten filament to get to the surface and escape to your eye, it must go through a number of random shifting/scattering events. The sum effect over many photons and many atoms is the smooth blackbody (white light) spectrum.
side note: In experimental plasma physics we design/use objects called hohlraums, which are like this idealized picture of a blackbody. The heated inner surface of this "oven" produces photons, but the oven is opaque to those photons, so they keep bouncing around from atom to atom, getting scattered and shifted, until they can finally make their escape. At large facilities like NIF (National Ignition Facility), these hohlraums are used to bathe a target experiment in a broadband of x-rays.
So now that this packet of white light photons has escaped from the sun, it now hits an everyday object!
This everyday object is also made of molecules/atoms and also absorbs/scatters light. So the light emerging from household objects are the white light from the light source, minus the light absorbed by the object. Here is an example of absorption spectra from chlorophyll. Note how there is little/varying absorption from green to orange. This is why plants have colors varying from green to orange, they tend to absorb blue light!
The final stop for our packet of photons is the human eye, where they meet our photoreceptors, the rods and cones. Most humans have 3 different cones which enable us to distinguish colors. Each of these cones is sensitive to a different wavelength band.
The light is then converted into a chemical signal, and the composite chemical signal from these receptors is then perceived as color by your brain.
So there you have it! The entire trip for a packet of photons, from the transition of an electron in an atom, to scattering through and out of a heated piece of metal or ball of plasma, to scattering/absorption off of a household object, and finally ending at the photoreceptors in your eyes.
Looks like it's a mapping of the electron density would be my guess. The essentially spherical shape would be a result of a hydrogen atom having just one electron and therefor only (half) filling the 1s shell. Not sure why there is more structure to the image, anything you use to measure at that scale will disturb what you are trying to measure though so perhaps it's an artefact of that promoting the electron to higher orbitals.
You should think of this image as a sort of time time-laps, we don't know where the electron is at any one point, but there are certain defined regions in which it will be 99% of the time. What we are seing is a record of all places the electron was and the associated density.
Some of these defined spaces (electron orbitals) are bigger than others and more likely to be occupied than other orbitals so that's why the graph isn't uniform.
Kmart999 ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 04:18:04 on February 22, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
It is mapping the electronโs (and protonโs) wave function while in a quantum state. So all those light blue dots represent, as a whole, the state of the electron prior to collapse. The actual hydrogen atom would never look like this at any instant, this is just a representation of many states over time to help visualize what is going on behind the curtain.
Gilgamesh, a king. Gilgamesh, a king. At Uruk. He tormented his subjects. He made them angry. They cried out aloud, "Send us a companion for our king! Spare us from his madness!" Enkidu, a wild man... from the forest, entered the city. They fought in the temple. They fought in the streets. Gilgamesh defeated Enkidu. They became great friends. Gilgamesh and Enkidu at Uruk.
The... the new friends went out into the desert together, where the Great Bull of Heaven was killing men by the hundreds. Enkidu caught the Bull by the tail. Gilgamesh struck him with his sword.
They were... victorious. But... Enkidu fell to the ground, struck down by the gods. And Gilgamesh... wept bitter tears, saying, "He who was my companion through adventure and hardship, is gone forever."
balls4xx ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 20:30:42 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Everyoneโs been amazing seeing some of the lessons to learn in that game....
Anyway, any other combo deck, only deck I've bothered to include a paid-off house if a mortgage/rent is factored into the popularity of its charactes), and Riot's got the money, yet still loved the story of her death they wouldn't get it so why not have the core problems we have and of course with strippers and prostitutes and of course endless wars of expansion because THEY felt that communism would work for 4-5 hours tops before I wake up sarnt canโt do nudity then I could see myself in you, historical knowledge of this subject. It mentions how so many well-meaning people mess each other up in a Great Depression. Gambled all its money from Disney? Does it even occur to you to find your classes. All of whom claimed to be done months ago, lost a 1v1 to it. What sucks is when people of all sizes. As a joke btw. I hope Steam will get a roping effect from the fabric bunching up and twisting, which I'm not arguing to change the subtitles without leaving the comfort of his billionaire lifestyle where he was essentially god emperor. Sometimes things really are, a bag of bread and milk
This was the first episode of TNG I saw when it was new on the air. I was probably 7 or 8 years old. The scene in the cargo bay when all of the covered bodies sat up freaked me the fuck out.
Doesn't it come flying through the explosion they create?
[deleted] ยท 7 points ยท Posted at 18:32:01 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Yup. It zooms by very briefly.
robodrew ยท 16 points ยท Posted at 18:20:21 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Gotta love the creepy episodes of TNG... like when the parasitic insect species tries to infiltrate the Federation high command, or when Dr. Crusher gets trapped in a collapsing warp bubble, or when the crew starts to devolve
But I'm not sure if anything tops the scene with Crusher in the morgue as far as being hair raising.
The aliens from subspace kidnapping, experimenting on the crew, then erasing their memories was really creepy.
"I've been in this room before"
"We have all been in this room before"
robodrew ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 18:49:24 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
YES how could I possibly forget about this one.
click click click click click click
sidepart ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 19:09:34 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
click-click-clack-click-click-clack
[deleted] ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 18:32:39 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
"Schisms" is a good episode, too.
mcc5159 ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 21:50:43 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Gotta love the creepy episodes of TNG
The episode where Worf spews acid into Dr. Crushers face, Troi turns into an amphibian, and Riker becomes a caveman was one of the most "What the fuck?!?!" moments of the series.
Sindawe ยท 9 points ยท Posted at 18:09:33 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
As a 20-something that episode gave me the creeps Still a might bothersome...
[deleted] ยท 4 points ยท Posted at 18:25:07 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
For me itโs the one where thereโs those things living in their chest that comes out of their mouth. Picard saw it heading to that guy, going up his arm, heโs freaking out but the guy is like, oh, hello, then opens his mouth to let it in.
How come the picture look just like the most famous atom model (you know the one with KLM-layers) but every time the model gets brought up I also get to hear "but this is just a model and not how the atom really looks like"
king13579 ยท 55 points ยท Posted at 18:17:12 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Well, generally the accepted model of the atom is the "quantum" model that, in the case of a small atom like hydrogen, may look like that older model. However when you start to deal with more complex atoms the similarities break down and the KLM layers are just too simplistic to actually model what the atom looks like.
That's not the nucleus, the red bit is just where the electron wants to be the most.
It wants to be inside the nucleus so it can be as close as possible to the positive charge of the proton. But its low mass leads to it spreading out due to Heisenberg uncertainty. It's "too fat" to actually fit in the nucleus, because of its low mass.
xu85 ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 21:33:28 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
So if the nucleus is the tiny core and the electrons are existing in a probability cloud around it attracted to the positive proton charge, what is holding up the outer โshellโ of the electron, at rest?
It's unlikely that the model will be overturned for small atoms, but this is literally the simplest possible atom. Larger atoms have have more complex orbital structures and interactions. Then the orbitals distort and change as they bond and interact with other, nearby atoms. Covalent bonds have atoms sharing 1 or more electrons in their outer shell. How that looks gets more complex still. And we're trying to make more bigger and bigger atoms, which could lead to entirely new shapes of orbitals being discovered.
So, it's possible that there'd be a major shift in our idea of how atoms look at the most fundamental level. But at the same time, we arrived at the point that we're at right now with a lot of data, reasoning, and effort, by a lot of people smarter than I. We think we're right, but we'll never know for sure.
ahmvvr ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 20:32:54 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
If we can get a photo like this of a small atom, are large atoms even easier to photograph?
812many ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 18:32:57 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
A couple lines from the article:
Whatโs been required to capture a full quantum state is a tool that can statistically average many measurements over time.
researchers managed to do so by using an electrostatic lens that magnified the outgoing electron wave more than 20,000 times.
Basically, they mapped it over time, which comes out looking exactly like the model. Which is a good thing! The fact that it looks just like the model means that the model is correct. What's truly amazing is that human beings were able to figure out what atoms looked like without actually seeing them.
[deleted] ยท 5 points ยท Posted at 18:53:16 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
So the image in the OP does match both the current understood orbital model and the bohr model, but in actual fact it only matches the bohr model by coincidence.
hydrogen is the simplest element. It only has one electron so it's very easy to represent visually compared to heavier elements. What you're referring to is Bohr's atom. Also, as your quantum level increases you get more and more different types of orbitals i.e. p, d, and f which have different shapes from the s orbital. They're much more difficult to visualize, especially when you're applying them to molecules vs elements and to bonding.
I don't get it. Didn't we just see that photo that said "first ever photo of an atom?" And now there's this from 2013. What is the truth?
[deleted] ยท 6 points ยท Posted at 21:15:06 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
That new one is genuinely a photo i.e. taken with a light detecting camera. This is just an electron density map. In fact, we have been recording 'images' of atoms since the invention of scanning tunnelling microscopy in the 90s.
[deleted] ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 06:43:44 on February 22, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I think so, yes. But that shows you lattice points rather than electron density. It has atomic resolution but images 'gaps' between atoms using an external electron source by transmissive diffraction. Whereas STM measures the electron density of the material directly, which allows you to image a single molecule rather than a crystal.
After zapping the atom with laser pulses, ionized electrons escaped and followed a particular trajectory to a 2D detector (a dual microchannel plate [MCP] detector placed perpendicular to the field itself). There are many trajectories that can be taken by the electrons to reach the same point on the detector, thus providing the researchers with a set of interference patterns โ patterns that reflected the nodal structure of the wave function.
812many ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 18:37:24 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
What's actually pretty cool is that our best pictures of some of the smallest objects is very near our best pictures of the largest objects, namely, this is the level of detail we can get if we take our best telescope and point it at our nearest star.
Just FYI, you canโt see the nucleus in this image. The electron cloud of a hydrogen atom has a radius of .5 angstroms, whereas a hydrogen nucleus radius is 1 femtometer. Approximately 1/5000th in length. That red in the center is the electrons wavefunction at the nucleus.
They're better than it looks in this image. It's zoomed way in so you can see the pixels. Zoom back out a bit and it's so life-like you'd swear it's real
n3onis ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 11:28:50 on February 22, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
it's on low ok?
ayyyybro ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 18:36:35 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Doesnโt this picture defy Heisenbergs law? Because we now exactly know where this atom is and we probably know that it wasnโt moving because if it was the image would pretty sure be blurred... Can somebody explain this to me ๐ค
beehphy ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 18:51:30 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
It is the averaging of millions or billions of individual scans. They are finding the location of the electron in its' various orbital shells only, not sensing the nucleus at all. And they are only sensing location in this test, not momentum. The Heisenberg Principle still applies.
812many ยท 4 points ยท Posted at 18:39:35 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Before this picture was taken we were only mostly sure what a hydrogen atom looked like. Visually confirming it looks just like our models is actually pretty cool.
What is stopping one thing is not stopping the other. What do you think the maximum resolution of a light microscope is. Beyond that is an electron microscope. How are you going to resolve electrons using electrons?
adanipse ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 20:27:16 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Iโve seen older AFM images of hydrogen atoms before.
. . . she and her team mapped the nodal structure of an electronic orbital of a hydrogen atom placed in a static (dc) electric field.
After zapping the atom with laser pulses, ionized electrons escaped and followed a particular trajectory to a 2D detector (a dual microchannel plate [MCP] detector placed perpendicular to the field itself). There are many trajectories that can be taken by the electrons to reach the same point on the detector, thus providing the researchers with a set of interference patterns โ patterns that reflected the nodal structure of the wave function.
So what are we looking at here? what is that outer ring? I thought the electron proportionately is supposed to be miles from the nucleus, is this just the nucleus or are we seeing the electron spinning around it too?
I have a degree in chemistry and am curious as to what I am seeing. Is this H2 or a single H atom? Why does it appear that electrons are occupying orbitals higher than 1s? Is that 2s orbital and the probability of an electron occupying it is much smaller so thatโs why it appears to have lower density than the first ring?
Oh, you think you make your choices? Which part of you? The part that's governened by electrochemical processes? I guess I have free will too then, lmao.
[deleted] ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 18:35:25 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
So, can someone explain to me: Is this a long exposure mapping the probable position of electrons over time? Or Is this just what the atom looks like in a single frame?
manubfr ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 18:39:03 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
An hydrogen atom has one electron, yet you can clearly see the Schrรถdinger cloud depicting where the electron could be according to quantum mechanics. However, this image leaves me puzzled because taking a picture of the atom would show only one electron in one location and not a cloud. Considering an electron is a much smaller than the nucleus, I suspect this picture is a superposition of thousands of pictures taken of a single atom. If a real scientist could jump in and give their opinion?
[deleted] ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 18:59:29 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
It's definitely a combination of several instances in time. I pulled this from someone else's comment so I don't know if it's true or not but they said the article claimed:
Whatโs been required to capture a full quantum state is a tool that can statistically average many measurements over time.
researchers managed to do so by using an electrostatic lens that magnified the outgoing electron wave more than 20,000 times.
manubfr ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 19:13:40 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Thanks that makes perfect sense!
m0gul6 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 18:39:14 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
So the outer ring of "dots" are actually an electron in multiple states, correct?
[deleted] ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 18:39:59 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
It's... naked!
[deleted] ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 18:41:03 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
What are those concentric rings?
haywoodg ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 18:41:29 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
[deleted] ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 18:42:41 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I always chose the Hydrogen Atom ship character on my Intellivision.
xkcd1234 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 18:42:55 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
sorry, but it is not. the title implies that the center is the nucleus and it is simply wrong. This is a velocity map image of electrons ionized from Hydrogen, see more discussion here ...
The fact that the light blue light is grainy and random - are we looking at probability here? Does that represent the location of the elections in the probability distribution?
Zoots_ ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 18:44:02 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Wait compared to a Hydrogen atom how large is a photon?
What youโre looking at is the first direct observation of an atomโs electron orbital โ an atom's actual wave function! To capture the image, researchers utilized a new quantum microscope โ an incredible new device that literally allows scientists to gaze into the quantum realm.
[deleted] ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 18:53:12 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
How can we see an individual proton, and are we seeing an electron cloud s orbital? Idk what that blue is. I'm so mind blown that we can even see something this small?
So im thinking about the space around the atom, its just empty space right? Like it will never move or do anything, its just space, almost like a blank canvas and the atoms are paint spots on the canvas?
Baltej16 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 19:01:41 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
the actual particle is a tiny fraction of the center dot, the rest is where u can find electrons
This reminds me of our archaic pictures of the planets a few decades ago. I can only imagine the advances that will be made in the years to come. This makes me happy :)
JWAxeMan ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 19:06:41 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I remember when this was published! Probably about 5 years ago now. It was a very impressive image and remains so but I think it's been supplanted as my favorite quantum-scale science picture by the recent fluorescent strontium atom at Oxford.
The first picture even taken period was the first picture of the hydrogen atom. It just wasnโt increased in size for human eyes.
CCNNCCNN ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 19:14:58 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I just got back from an absolutely brutal chem exam, open up reddit so I can try to think about literally anything other than chemistry, and this is the #1 post right now on r/all. The whole universe just conspired to fucking play me.
I cant help but think about the pixel density in video games 20 years ago compared to now. And invision how this image will be upgraded in 20 years from now
dnick ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 19:24:00 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Guessing it has to be to scale, but possibly difficult to tell the perspective because the different โpartsโ are seen as ranges...itโs not like weโre seeing an electron or the proton, just the interference they produce which is more of a wave than what we expect when looking at a picture.
So a proton? As I understood it the space between the nucleus and electrons in an atom is relatively large and considering the size and density(if that is the correct word) of each particle. So considering the rendering of the photo am I correct? Asking for a friend.
Wait, isn't the core of an atom (which contains almost all of its mass) supposed to take only a very minute part of its volume? In that case the core shouldn't even be visible without zooming in.
[deleted] ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 19:39:31 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Can someone please explain how they were able to do this?
You are not actually seeing any particles in this image. You are seeing residual ionization of path of the electron as it orbits the proton.
There is no matter in this image. Most people will think "Look at that proton in the middle and the electron in the outer ring." That's not what you're seeing.
You're looking at the orbital "waves" of the electron traveling around the proton, which would be smaller than a fraction of a fraction of a fraction of a pixel in this image.
The smaller orbital rings are shown in the red/orange, and the rings become darker the further out from the proton the waves are.
To say this is a hydrogen atom is like saying the path light takes from our star is the sun.
cloop417 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 19:47:54 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
So like, did they hire a camera guy/astronaut,
SHRINK DOWN HIS AND HIS CAMERA'S ACTUAL ATOMS, then put him and A SINGLE HYDROGEN ATOM into a box of space/anti-matter?
What I mean is how can you take a picture of an atom if the camera and the area around it consists of atoms themselves?
I was going to suggest that they ask it to sit still for the photo but I'm confident it would cease to exist at that point since matter is simply a description and in fact it is illusory.
Correct me if im wrong, but that ring I assume is the outer shell of electrons. If that's the case, then is it just literally empty space between the outer shell and the nucleus itself? It's weird for me to think about because when I think of something in a given area, if nothing is there, there is usually air filling gaps. This is so small that I feel like its weird to even consider it being say in a vacuum or something, how are those particles there if there isn't anything else besides the electrons and the protons/neutrons. I guess I'm just rambling incoherently for most people at this point, but it fascinates me.
I'm wondering what the rings represent. Shouldn't hydrogen only have one electron in the 1s orbital? Or do the rings represent probabilities of an electron being at different energy levels?
I often wonder of these so called scientist arenโt just trolling us with these low res, pixelated, easy to photoshop and fake images to keep their financial backers satisfied and fool the rest of us.
I can make an image like this in 2 minutes in photoshop. Its not very hard.
[deleted] ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 23:17:38 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Sure, having/publishing a theory on how something works and how a machine or device achieves that goal is on thing. Proving it works is another. Science results with crappy 240p images dont really prove anything. Its just hard to buy.
Im not a science guy so i wont claim this isnโt genuine or real.
I feel as though in 20-30 years time this will be the comparison photo of then and now on atomic photos, just like those photos you see of Jupiter and Pluto.
It's so weird if you think about it. We've been making models of atoms, and models are meant to represent the world in a way so that we can work with it. But the model (based on this picture) seems really close to what it looks like in reality.
I always have a fear that the smallest particle we can find will be just a bunch of binary, and in trying to find out more about the universe we will realise life is pointless.
eastkent ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 20:48:09 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
What if they discover that a hydrogen atom is in fact a whole universe with billions of galaxies inside it?
Art3sian ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 20:48:11 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I wonder what produces the colour at this magnification, and why these colours? Or is this the result of equipment taking the image?
Iโm pretty proud of this bad boy, check it out! I I put a spatially tessellated void inside a modified temporal field until a planet developed intelligent life. I then introduced that life to the wonders of electricity!
Doesn't every photo contain many hydrogen atoms? Not impressed.
bubbaa11 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 21:07:55 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
No. Thatโs not how reflection works. The light emitted by the atom is isotopic. Once it absorbs the light it emits the photon in a random direction. Maybe your definition of reflection is different than mine, but reflection seems to me to imply that there is a correlation between the incoming photon and the outgoing photon. Your definition of reflection includes the emission of a different frequency of light in a random direction on an arbitrary timescale, since the lifetime of the excited state could have a lifetime of thousands of years if you pick the right state. Iโm sorry but I donโt agree that that constitutes a reflection of the light.
My understanding of reflection of light at the macroscopic scale i that it is the interference of many atoms absorbing and reemitting the light, resulting in the typical reflection we see off of normal surfaces. I don't think that reflection really makes sense on the single atom scale. You can have scattering but again i don't agree that that is reflection.
B-Knight ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 21:09:17 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Maybe I'm being an idiot but surely there should be other atoms in view here? If atoms make up absolutely everything and we've got a 'camera' which can take a photo of atoms then surely we should see the atoms that form the object/item/thing in the background too?
As a chemistry student, I am therefore an expert in the field and can confirm these findings, even though I have never achieved anything like this before
So I'm assuming that the photo sensor that took this photo is sensitive to electrons, does that mean that a higher resolution photo can't possibly be taken?
[deleted] ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 21:21:19 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
This is a map of the electric field, taken using a scanning tunnelling electron microscope. To put in perspective, a single particle of blue light has a wavelength 4000 times bigger than this atom.
piisfour ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 21:58:32 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Aaaahhhhhh thanks.
What do the colors red and blue stand for?
[deleted] ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 01:59:54 on February 22, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Iโm not 100% but the ST electron microscope maps how many negatively-charged electrons are pulled from its tip to the surface at each point, as it moves along. The nucleus (in red) is positively charged so there would be a surge in electron flow here, while those circular ripples are the electron shells where there would be very little flow due to electron-electron repulsion.
Hydrogen normally only has 1 shell occupied, not 2 as it seems to have here. The nucleus (one proton) can just about afford to hold onto one electron. If any more are added they are, in a millionth of a billionth of a second, dumped back out. So I wonder if the electron microscopy itself - in delivering so many electrons per second in an unnatural way - is responsible for filling up the 2nd shell. In either case, this isnโt how hydrogen normally looks.
tl;dr red positive charge, blue no charge, green negatively charged.
piisfour ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 16:55:11 on February 22, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
So in any event this is not a picture of a normal hydrogen atom.
[deleted] ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 17:20:52 on February 22, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I donโt think so. It has one shell. If this is a weird way of representing one shell then Iโm an idiot.
And bombarding it with electrons and energy will certainly get the 2nd shell occupied, if not filled.
Oddly enough thereโs probably no way to โseeโ a 1 shell Hydrogen atom because itโs so easily excited into higher shells.
How come this thread isn't full of conspiracy theorists saying this is fake news? Why isn't anyone arguing about its validity? How come no one is correlating this image with funding? No one is even questioning the motive here! C'mon people!
Now seriously, why don't the intelligent people rise up? Could that even happen? I wish it would.
stwillyb ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 21:25:31 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
mmm tide pod
owzleee ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 21:26:20 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Are those sp3 hybrid orbitals? They look weird.
piisfour ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 21:57:15 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I would have liked some more info, such as what do those colors represent?
What's awesome to think about is that someday in the future we'll get a crystal clear view of this shit. And it's probably not too far off the way imaging is evolving.
Scope_20 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 22:02:55 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Nice electron if you'll pardon the scientific parlance! I have no idea what this means.
fongaboo ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 22:40:31 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Objects in the microscope may be smaller than they appear
[deleted] ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 22:49:53 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
For those of you wondering why there are rings, it is because some electrons are being intentionally excited to higher energy levels by the experimenters. We would normally see just a cross section of a sphere (a circle) of electron density for hydrogen (as they also confirmed), but in this case we see a cross section of a few such spheres (the circle and some rings)
I thought Trumpโs hands were the smallest thing ever photographed. Science has out-done itself again.
cgw3737 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 23:30:09 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Nice picture, but it's not the whole atom. If it were, it would be blank. Your mind is now blown.
Earguy ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 23:38:29 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
"It's all pixelated! Enhance! Enhance!"
Asrivak ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 23:41:07 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Whats with the second ring? Doesn't hydrogen only have an s orbital? Or does this atom have an extra electron? OR is that an electron from a lower energy level jumping to a higher energy level as its being measured?
BrewHa34 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 23:41:37 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I swear the more you get images of things like this the more it resembles space and planets.
What's up with all these quote un quote photos of atoms? An atom is smaller then the wave length of light, you can't see an atom or even photograph them for that matter
They0001 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 00:01:32 on February 22, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
That doesn't look like a hydrogen atom.
I think this is a neon atom.
Photoshop!
Herpkina ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 00:13:22 on February 22, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
That hydrogen has so many electrons! And 2 shells!!! My year 12 chemistry teacher lied
Sw3Et ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 00:14:50 on February 22, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Wtf was this taken on, a potato?
on606 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 00:16:01 on February 22, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Sirus13 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 00:19:50 on February 22, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
What's that ring around the nucleus? Can't be the electrin cloud, can it? I was under the impression that it'd be much much farther away from the nucleus.
The fact that this is using the "jet" colour map or similar disgusts me.
[deleted] ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 00:23:15 on February 22, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
This is what we thought they looked like. An electron is a point particle, but it looks "smeared" out over the atom, due to quantum uncertainty. Really cool picture, they probably applied artificial coloring, though. I'm suspecting this is more akin to a heat map.
Funny thing is, we kind of expected them to look like this, according to our books.
This is a lot more 2D than I'd expect -- if the outer circle is the electron shell, then this is some sort of time-lapse picture showing that electron in multiple locations and it should be all around the nucleus, not just a ring.
Or... I suppose, if you say that the Hydrogen atom is 1 atom thick and the camera was focused on just the middle .2 of the atom and all electron locations outside of that barely register for the picture, I guess the image makes sense.
So what's going on? Why has it got a ring? It can't be the electron because that's supposed to be anywhere and everywhere around the nucleus, not just in one plane
Um ... I donโt want to be that guy but this paper is almost 5 years old ...
CoryTV ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 03:30:38 on February 22, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Well, if that's not the cross section of a spherically rendered probability manifold of multidimensional bell curves ultimately composed of collapsing wavefuctions, then I don't know what to say.
[deleted] ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 17:27:17 on February 23, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
The scientist who imaged this atom did it by averaging observations over time. They are now gonna try to image a helium atom, and they think it may allow them to actually see entanglement.
Are you referring to a hydrogen bomb? In theory we do that with any element, but hydrogen happens to work best. Hydrogen fuels the sun without which there would be no life, and is the most plentiful element in the universe.
Looks like one of the first pictures of other planets. Decades later and we have highres photos of them, imagine what an atom will actually look like, if technology progress even more.
[deleted] ยท -2 points ยท Posted at 18:54:36 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I'm trying to see the electron, but every time I look it feels like it's moved.
R34CTz ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 19:15:14 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Does anyone know if we will ever have the technology to take HD pictures of atoms and molecules? Without the fuzziness and such, or are there real images out there already? I don't mean the artistic models or 3d renderings either, i mean legitimate photos.
Nortonlp ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 19:31:40 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I see the yin and yang symbol. It would be extraordinary to think that that symbol was the foundation of it all, or that it all is the foundation of that symbol.
Edit: 1st thanks for downvoting
2nd. Iโve read multiple articles by now. Is it not more of a projection of highest probability of electrons etc of the atom? Maybe I misunderstood something. Eng isnt my first languge.
Saved comment
Mercurial_Illusion ยท 1916 points ยท Posted at 17:45:43 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Alright what the hell's going on here? Going back to college chem (LONG time ago) is that electron energy states the reason for the two distinct blue rings? Regardless that's super cool
adesme ยท 1249 points ยท Posted at 18:03:32 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Look up the stark effect. The hydrogen atom is excited.
Signager ยท 1975 points ยท Posted at 18:31:18 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Maybe because its his first portrait picture taken.
Penguinbeer ยท 324 points ยท Posted at 00:03:01 on February 22, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
unexpected r/wholesomememes
Bdubbin214 ยท 17 points ยท Posted at 02:19:52 on February 22, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Also quantum physics
Azurenightsky ยท 6 points ยท Posted at 10:21:31 on February 22, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
But it might also not be. It's hard to tell unless it's being pressed for information.
Buck_Thorn ยท 30 points ยท Posted at 00:12:43 on February 22, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I would be, too, and I'm only mostly carbon.
KingOfShrimp ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 23:53:53 on March 16, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Actually, the human body, being primarily composed of water, is mostly oxygen. We are about 65% oxygen, 18% carbon, 10% hydrogen, 3% nitrogen, and 4% other by mass. Because hydrogen is much less massive than any other element, hydrogen makes up 62% of our atoms. So you actually have about 4x1027 hydrogen atoms excited about this event!
Buck_Thorn ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 03:08:19 on March 17, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Humor is not your forte, is it? LOL!
Thank you for the information, but I was really just trying to make a silly little joke about excited hydrogen. I guess you could say that it was "dry" humor, because it neglected to include the water.
KingOfShrimp ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 03:05:52 on March 18, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Well I liked the joke, but just felt like sharing what I found to be interesting information!
RichardpenistipIII ยท 7 points ยท Posted at 01:59:10 on February 22, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I know youโre probably just joking, but if my understanding of physical chemistry is right (which it likely isnโt seeing as how I just got 47 on the test I just took in there last week), then youโre actually right because the act of observing its electrons would actually excite them
killboxBMP ยท 7 points ยท Posted at 03:34:03 on February 22, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I must be a hydrogen atom because I also get excited when people look at me.
D-DC ยท -13 points ยท Posted at 02:21:24 on February 22, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Tired of this quantum physics horseshit THEORY NOT PROVEN IN REAL LIFE of observing something effects it physically. It's false as fuck and the reason 45% of quantum physicists don't believe in the shrodingers cat model of quantum physics.
Ariadnepyanfar ยท 8 points ยท Posted at 05:02:37 on February 22, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Youโre being a bit harsh while correcting someone who admitted to a 47% on their latest chemistry test and said they were likely wrong on the explanation.
RichardpenistipIII ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 15:24:15 on February 22, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Thank you, also in my defense this is a class where a 35 is still a C-
voiceofgromit ยท 6 points ยท Posted at 05:04:39 on February 22, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Scientists dont try to prove their theories to be right. They try to find out what is wrong with them. Here's Nobel prize-winning physicist Richard Feynman, entertainingly explaining the concept. https://youtu.be/hz2SENYI1rE
SummonWho ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 12:28:12 on February 22, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
But you have to interact with something to observe it, and energy exchanges happen on that interaction. Taking a photo in the dark doesn't interact with an object, but light it up to take a picture and you will heat it. Same happens here when you beam electrons to an atom
RichardpenistipIII ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 15:23:03 on February 22, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Exactly, what people donโt understand is that when youโre working with things this small itโs not like youโre just looking at it with your eyes. In order to analyze anything on this scale you basically have to shoot beams of light or electrons at it and then youโre measuring the way it scatters/absorbs the light/electrons. Then it takes the data it measures and performs extremely complicated math in an attempt to try and interpret the data in a meaningful way. In the experiment posted by OP this means a โpictureโ, but usually it just means a graph that chemists learn how to read.
Kinda got off topic there, but the point is that in order to view things on this level you have to shoot them with light/electrons which does actually impact the atom/molecule youโre trying analyze because of the wave-particle duality of light
D-DC ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 10:26:49 on March 2, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
You only have to interact with something to observe it if you are using matter or an electromagnetic wave to interact with it.
Stonn ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 23:49:50 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Or maybe it's just a banana in its pants.
SuspiciousEconomy ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 00:24:51 on February 22, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
(shh... it's his birthday too!)
excrematic ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 00:53:10 on February 22, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Did you just assume hydrogen's gender?
Abunoriginal ยท -1 points ยท Posted at 02:14:18 on February 22, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Did you just assume an atom's gender?
[deleted] ยท 654 points ยท Posted at 18:15:35 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
[removed]
CARNIesada6 ยท 368 points ยท Posted at 18:21:06 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Look up the Bran Stark effect. The hydrogen atom is disabled.
AtheistState ยท 280 points ยท Posted at 18:22:44 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Look up the Tony Stark effect. The hydrogen atom is Iron Man.
[deleted] ยท 124 points ยท Posted at 18:29:26 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
[deleted]
Red_Cheddarz ยท 28 points ยท Posted at 18:45:07 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Well, I'm not Tony Stark.
DirtyToeLicker ยท 6 points ยท Posted at 00:18:15 on February 22, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Not with that attitude you're not.
Duckbilling ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 23:39:52 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
The arc reactor is just a prototype...
Adepta_sc2 ยท 72 points ยท Posted at 18:33:57 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Lock up the Rickon Stark effect. The hydrogen atom can only follow a straight line.
evanc1411 ยท 58 points ยท Posted at 18:39:26 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Look up the Paul Blart effect. The hydrogen atom is fat as fuck.
kingkwassa ยท 4 points ยท Posted at 21:58:33 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Look up the Starkelton Stark effect. The hydrogen atom is made up.
HeIIion ยท 11 points ยท Posted at 18:58:13 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Look up the Robb Stark effect. The hydrogen atom breaks an oath for a pretty face, firm tits, and a tight fit.
fapsandnaps ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 03:49:46 on February 22, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Not Dickon?
CommaCazes ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 03:53:44 on February 22, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Look up the Rick Astley effect. Hydrogen atom has to be rolled.
anonyzum ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 04:44:15 on February 22, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Oh shit.
ChequeBook ยท 4 points ยท Posted at 23:01:07 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I Fe what you did there
particle409 ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 23:28:05 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Something something Stark Hyperspace War.
http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Stark_Hyperspace_War
Chonkie ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 02:04:21 on February 22, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Look up the starkers effect. The hydrogen atom is naked.
stanhhh ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 19:10:01 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Look up the really stark effect. It is, indeed.
gaiatom ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 00:21:55 on February 22, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Look up the Stork effect. The hydrogen atom is a baby.
buckyworld ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 01:01:03 on February 22, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
"the hydrogen atom is iron, man!"
sarveshdhiman94 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 04:31:11 on February 22, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Look at sarveshdhiman94 effect, at atom is not funny.
byebybuy ยท 181 points ยท Posted at 18:25:21 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Look up the Arya Stark effect. A hydrogen atom has no name.
[deleted] ยท 120 points ยท Posted at 19:07:10 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
[removed]
Endoman13 ยท 432 points ยท Posted at 19:45:38 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
She appears to be sans a last name
Pantzzzzless ยท 16 points ยท Posted at 22:45:10 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
GODS I WAS ANONYMOUS THEN
ethereal_flesh ยท 17 points ยท Posted at 19:53:53 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Oh you. I like you
[deleted] ยท 7 points ยท Posted at 22:07:02 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Take your upvote and get the hell out of Winterfell.
joseregalopez ยท 9 points ยท Posted at 20:05:27 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Underated post!
wnbaloll ยท 6 points ยท Posted at 20:17:40 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Itโs not underrated it was just posted, the upvotes will cum
Zayin-Ba-Ayin ยท 6 points ยท Posted at 20:42:39 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
No, he said underated
Zzosobonzo ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 22:21:25 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I havenโt eaten it yet so I guess heโs right
Ioseb ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 21:12:41 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
As a typographer, I chuckled.
kurpav ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 21:47:57 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
That's just beautiful. /shedsatear
wreaknesspotfish ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 21:51:20 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
best comment here
Lord_Emperor ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 21:32:32 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Snow.
[deleted] ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 07:09:33 on February 22, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Bolton? Michael Bolton? Wait no nO NO NO
WHEN A MAAAAAAN LOVES A WOOOOMAN
dayglo98 ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 20:37:59 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I'm disabled!
librlman ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 18:23:49 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Look up the Bran Muffin effect. You are full of shit.
SecularBinoculars ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 22:06:40 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Its at more then one place at a time!!! Wieeee!
samjowett ยท 18 points ยท Posted at 18:25:09 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Look up the Ned Flanders effect. The hydrodiddlygen atom is excitiddlified!
XdieliciousX ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 21:01:41 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Me and my ritual dump. Stark fun yes. Omg this came OUT OF NOWHERE. Loldidlidoo
chunkumm ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 03:31:05 on February 22, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
๐
vorpalpillow ยท 17 points ยท Posted at 18:22:09 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Look up the Tony Stark effect. The atom is now iron.
SanityPills ยท 9 points ยท Posted at 18:33:06 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Tony Stark was able to take pictures of atoms in a cave! With a box of scraps!
[deleted] ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 20:11:46 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
[deleted]
AutoModerator ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 18:59:43 on April 9, 2019 ยท (Permalink)
Oh, you think you make your choices? Which part of you? The part that's governened by electrochemical processes? I guess I have free will too then, lmao.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
ThisMeansWarm ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 23:43:10 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Look up the Ned Ryerson effect. The hydrogen atom was punched in the face by a guy stuck in a time loop.
General_Kenobi896 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 23:48:12 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
CAREFUL NED! CAREFUL NOW!
Barrel_Trollz ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 00:23:20 on February 22, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
GODS I WAS DIATOMIC THEN
Llim ยท 11 points ยท Posted at 18:34:18 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
( อกยฐ อส อกยฐ)
Igotbored112 ยท 5 points ยท Posted at 18:32:41 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Well, they did just blast it with like a whole load of photons.
SuspiciousAdvice ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 18:40:14 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Don't get it too excited, in a trillion or so years, it'll die and convert to pure energy
Alc4n4tor ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 21:50:37 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Is that a hydrogen atom or are you just happy to see me?
Rokku0702 ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 18:47:01 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
SOMEONE BRING ME THE ATOM STRETCHER BEFORE I PISS MESELF
Am_Navi_Seel_Mann ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 23:05:55 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
It's not alone! As someone who is incredibly fascinated by science and technology and such, this is fucking incredible! I am incredibly impressed and happy about this, you have no idea!
Stannis_THEMANIIS ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 00:01:36 on February 22, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Look up the jon stark effect... oh wait that doesnt exist.
Cpt_Waffle ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 19:49:19 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/2013/may/23/quantum-microscope-peers-into-the-hydrogen-atom
boatmurdered ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 20:52:31 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
About what?
Haltopen ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 01:06:30 on February 22, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
You'd have perky nipples too during your first nude photoshoot. #Checkyourprivilege
Shitsonallthings ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 01:18:37 on February 22, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Now show me a slow motion of someone taking a shit on this atom.
_iceberglattice ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 03:02:21 on February 22, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I thought it was just happy to see me.
bigdaddyskidmarks ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 04:42:50 on February 22, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Look up the stark naked effect. The hydrogen atom is clearly excited.
yetanotherlogin ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 10:27:07 on February 22, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Me too thanks
slicksps ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 14:15:34 on February 22, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
It's probably more fear than excitement due to their negativity.
TheJoojer ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 07:06:38 on July 18, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Ive heard its because to look at an atom it to interact with an atom, disturbing it, making it harder or maybe even impossible to see in its โtrueโ form
adesme ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 07:31:18 on July 18, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I'm not sure what you're responding to exactly, but yes it kind of works like that.
Typically particles travel as waves, but are detected as particles (particle-wave duality). The wave is more like a probability functionโ"the particle an be anywhere in this range"โbut as soon as you detect it, it becomes decided that the particle is in that one spot.
Even otherwise, detecting things typically means interacting with them, which means that you will affect them in some sort of way.
nnavroops ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 19:41:27 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
why is there a node? is the electron in a excited state? i donโt get whatโs going on at all
adesme ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 11:18:22 on February 22, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Ok so this really requires a lengthy explanation, and Iโm also not too familiar with this experiment.
Essentially hydrogen atoms are created, excited and ionized. The ionizing electrons are what we are looking atโwhen they relax, theyโre accelerated towards a positional detector. The paths of these electrons are affected by the wave functions describing their positions. These wave functions have nodes.
As to why they have nodes: the atoms were excited to states that has specific numbers of nodes. That was what they wanted to look at (basically experimental validation of theory).
snidemarque ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 18:20:34 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Me too.
cms9 ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 18:30:44 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
me too thanks
m32th4nks ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 18:30:53 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
You have my thanks, for I find the need to agree and/or be apart of the moment you are speaking about. Thanks
cat_soup_ ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 21:39:40 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
ย ( อกยฐ อส อกยฐ)ย
doublegulptank ยท 100 points ยท Posted at 18:04:27 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I thought the sublevels weren't actually rings?
allthereisandmore ยท 246 points ยท Posted at 18:18:45 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
They aren't. They're more like probability distributions for the position of the electron, but the highest densities do form what looks like rings in a cross section. This is all of course a simplified abstraction of something that is quite difficult to visualize.
yodadamanadamwan ยท 95 points ยท Posted at 18:31:52 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
the probability distributions (square of the wavefunction) of the s orbitals look like rings in a cross section.
Kosmological ยท 16 points ยท Posted at 18:37:55 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I mean, sort of but it would be more of a ring-like density gradient. So describing it as a ring will give the laymen the wrong idea.
yodadamanadamwan ยท 14 points ยท Posted at 18:46:54 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I suppose. It's hard for a laymen to even understand that these are probability distributions and only tell you how likely hydrogen's one electron will be in that particular place at a given time, not that there's actually something there.
Kosmological ยท 25 points ยท Posted at 18:53:01 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Well, according to my quantum mechanics professor, the electron literally is the probability distribution but Iโm not about to try and explain that to a laymen.
Cymry_Cymraeg ยท 17 points ยท Posted at 21:29:54 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Try.
Kosmological ยท 25 points ยท Posted at 21:42:31 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
The electron only exists as a physical discrete particle retroactively the instant you try to measure it. Otherwise, it does not exist as a real, tangible particle, but instead as infinitely many possible particles superimposed on one another to make a probability density of possible particles.
This isnโt just a weird purely theoretical consequence of the math. This interpretation is what real world experiments have shown. This is literally true.
Sasmas1545 ยท 43 points ยท Posted at 21:46:18 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
This IS NOT proven. This is the Copenhagen interpretation, and it is the most widely held belief by physicists. Other (currently) valid interpretations aren't any more intuitive however.
FartingWithASmile ยท 5 points ยท Posted at 23:13:52 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
The most widely held position among working physicists Iโve spoken to is โinterpretations of QM all make the same predictions, are scientifically equivalent, so to pick one as your preferred is not a scientific exercise.โ
Sasmas1545 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 23:25:29 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Yeah this one is definitely common, but I think a lot still tend to look at things from a "preferred" perspective while acknowledging that it's not some scientific fact. My problem is with people pushing one over the other possible interpretations.
Rodot ยท 6 points ยท Posted at 21:59:51 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
True, but this interpretation is the best for the layman when describing what's really going on. When you get into things like multi worlds the layman thinks you're talking about something akin to a scifi multiverse which is a completely inaccurate description.
Sasmas1545 ยท 12 points ยท Posted at 22:01:10 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
My issue was with "this is literally true."
[deleted] ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 22:09:25 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
[removed]
Sasmas1545 ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 22:21:54 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Well, if you read the comments you're replying to, which I'm sure you did, I believe it's clear what they were claiming was proven, which is the Copenhagen interpretation, and it's not. That's all
Rodot ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 22:31:29 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I mean, if you want to be semantically pedantic, all observations show all interpretations to be true since they're just interpretations of data, or you could say all observations prove no interpretations to be true with equal merit. Interpretations themselves don't make predictions, they aren't scientific theories. Though, all interpretations must agree with observation. So you're right in a sense, the observation doesn't prove an interpretation to be true, but you can't really show an interpretation to be true anyway since they're just interpretations. They exist more in the subject of metaphysics than physics so it's more of a philosophical debate anyway.
Sasmas1545 ยท 7 points ยท Posted at 22:38:07 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Not quite. Some interpretations have testable predictions, otherwise why all the debate? Some interpretations have in fact been disproven, such as a wide class of hidden variable theories (though not all hidden variable theories!) In any case, I think my objection was fair.
AdvicePerson ยท 6 points ยท Posted at 03:47:07 on February 22, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Sounds to me like the correct interpretation does not exist as a real, tangible interpretation, but instead as infinitely many possible interpretations superimposed on one another to make a probability density of possible interpretations.
Sasmas1545 ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 03:57:50 on February 22, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Until we measure it, then it's a definite interpretation.
Kosmological ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 04:54:18 on February 22, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
The Copenhagen interpretation did have testable predictions. They tested it and showed it was correct. At least, as far as we can tell.
Kosmological ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 04:52:27 on February 22, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Well, youโre wrong. As far as we know it is. People can hypothesize all they want but if their ideas canโt be tested and have no supporting evidence, then they are just conjecture.
The Copenhagen interpretation does not rely on any unknown or unproven physics, just like the postulates of classical physics or relativity do not rely on anything more fundamental. They only describe fundamental rules of our universe, of which there is nothing more basic. These rules just are.
Energy and momentum are conserved.
The speed of light is constant in all inertial frames of reference.
Quantum systems are inherently uncertain.
These things just are, as far as we can tell. There is no explanation why because there is nothing deeper.
You may not like this idea and you wouldnโt be alone. You may believe that there must be some underlying physics which explains the weirdness of QM. But you donโt know that and you certainly canโt prove it. So where does that leave us? Iโll tell you: uncertainty seems to be a fundamental property of the universe. To say itโs not proven is nonsense. The proof is in the pudding.
As far as these alternative interpretations, you must first provide evidence for them before you can say they hold water, to which there is none. The Copenhagen interpretation faces no such issue. It works. Period.
Kosmological ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 22:03:02 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
For one, itโs the most widely accepted interpretation.
Two, it is the most valid interpretation given the current body of evidence.
Sasmas1545 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 23:22:47 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Most valid? Source?
Kosmological ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 01:27:40 on February 22, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Yes, the Copenhagen convention.
From what I understand, the Copenhagen interpretation is the most valid because it does not depend on any yet unproven, unknown, or untestable physics.
It is fully possible we may discover new physics one day which might unseat the Copenhagen interpretation as the concensus. However, until we do we canโt say any theory which attempts to explain quantum mechanics on a more fundamental level is more valid than the Copenhagen interpretation. For all we know, true randomness is just how things work on the quantum level.
Ohbeejuan ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 02:23:43 on February 22, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Layman here, thanks for the explanation.
Cymry_Cymraeg ยท 16 points ยท Posted at 22:17:55 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
That wasn't that hard, maybe you should give lay-people a chance.
Kosmological ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 22:23:28 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
It usually takes people awhile to digest this before they fully understand and not without diving into the experimental evidence. This cursory explanation is not enough for you to take away a working concept of a probability wave function. Not by itself, at least.
Cymry_Cymraeg ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 22:24:45 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Give me some more.
Kosmological ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 22:34:49 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
And this is where we run into a big problem with trying to explain the rest to laymen.
The bottom line is you canโt. At least, not without said laymen already possessing a strong background in physics, statistics, calculus, and linear algebra.
An introductory course in quantum mechanics starts with covering the most basic of concepts in quantum mechanics, the particle in a box.
Go ahead and review the wiki article then let me know how you feel.
Cymry_Cymraeg ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 03:58:54 on February 22, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
That wasn't bad either. Hit me.
Ariadnepyanfar ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 05:13:03 on February 22, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Have you read A Brief History of Time by Stephen Hawking? He lays concepts out beautifully in English, no maths required. Excellent, fascinating read. Heโs probably written other books since for the layperson, I just havenโt followed up.
barkxio ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 04:46:13 on February 22, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
? Why are you being so smug towards this person? If you're actually interested you should try to ask a specific question you have in mind, instead of constantly challenging them to just give you more information randomly about a very broad and deeply technical subject. They've been very thoughtful in their responses and you're coming off as a bit of a dick that's more interested in putting others down as opposed to raising yourself up. I appreciated the first challenge when you said "try", but the rest afterwards is pretty uncool. Who hurt you?
Cymry_Cymraeg ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 05:23:57 on February 22, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
You have very poor interpretation skills.
[deleted] ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 06:41:47 on February 22, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
i enjoyed your answers, thank you
madmaxges ยท 5 points ยท Posted at 00:54:23 on February 22, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
So as a layman what does โliterallyโ โnot provenโ imply?
Kosmological ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 01:17:29 on February 22, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Not proven is just saying this is an interpretation of the current body of evidence. The Copenhagen interpretation isnโt a theory in itself, itโs an interpretation of what quantum theory tells us. It is the consensus in the field of physics. It does not need to be proven because this is what quantum theory, which is proven, tells us. The proof is in the pudding.
The Copenhagen interpretation is the most valid because it doesnโt depend on any unknown or untestable physics. The interpretation just says โthis is how quantum theory works. This is why the math is what it is. This is why the experiments show us what they show us.โ
It is possible there is yet undiscovered physics which can explain quantum phenomena on a more fundamental level. Pilot wave theory is one which attempts to do so, for example. But we canโt say things exist without first having evidence of their existence.
madmaxges ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 02:45:54 on February 22, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
So itโs like only a poem could explain the reality of the true characteristics of atomic structures, and this is the best poem that has been conceived.
Kosmological ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 03:07:15 on February 22, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Well, no. The Copenhagen interpretation doesnโt attempt to explain why. It just explains what is. Why things behave the way they do under the Copenhagen interpretation is not known and the concept of knowing may very well be nonsensical.
For example: why is it that the electron exists as a probability distribution?
To really grasp whatโs wrong with this question, I will draw a comparison with a postulate in classical physics: conservation of energy.
Why does energy have to be conserved? Why can it neither be created nor destroyed?
Well, there is no why. There is no explanation. This is just how things work in our universe. There is nothing more fundamental, there is no underlying physics. Conservation of energy is one of the most fundamental postulates which governs the laws of physics.
The same can very well be true with the Copenhagen interpretation and the inherent uncertainty of quantum systems. As far as we can tell, the universe is truly random on the quantum scale. Beyond that, there is nothing left to explain.
madmaxges ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 14:20:31 on February 22, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Well Iโm satisfied, if you are.
madmaxges ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 02:46:39 on February 22, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
But someone could write a better poem. Maybe.
dwmfives ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 03:48:22 on February 22, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I find that silly. That to means it is always there, just impossible to predict where.
FishFloyd ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 04:06:08 on February 22, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Schrรถdinger (sp?) thought so as well. The whole point of his whole "dead and alive cat" thing was to illustrate how silly the concept is.
Turns out, though, that it's currently the best model we have (most predictive power and explains the most things). It appears that this is literally what is "going on", or at least, this is the best way that we can explain it in a way both consistent with known physics and within the grasp of our limited conceptual ability.
If it helps, "measure" or "observe" to the quantum physicist implies an energy input into the system - it's not like the particle pops into existance as soon as we do some math and say it should be somewhere. It requires some sort of actual energetic interaction with the probability field.
Please note that I do chem, not physics, and this is like "studying QM for 30 years" level of material, so my word is only a bit better than a lay person. Nonetheless, I think this is pretty consistent with mainstream thought, from what I've gathered.
Kosmological ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 05:20:41 on February 22, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Thank you for chiming in. For what itโs worth, everything Iโve tried to explain here was covered, more or less, in my introductory QM course. I also was a chem student during my undergrad, but Iโve done a lot of outside reading since then purely out of my own interest.
Kosmological ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 04:27:59 on February 22, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Yes, thatโs what everyone thinks at first. That makes sense. Thatโs what many scientists thought too, so they designed experiments to test that idea.
The experiments showed the opposite. The experiments showed that subatomic particles are wave packets of probably particles, none of which can be said to exist until an interaction takes place.
First thing you need to understand about QM is that it doesnโt make sense.
Ariadnepyanfar ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 05:17:55 on February 22, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
It also exists as a particle every time something interacts with it. Not just when We measure it. Given most atoms are interacting with other atoms and with photons most of the time, electrons here on Earth (and in Stars and planets) exist as particles most of the time.
[deleted] ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 07:18:12 on February 22, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Why your explanation leads me to think of the universe as a simulation I have no clue.
IceNein ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 01:37:10 on February 22, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
If you think about it, the rings are just a layman aid.
Shibbi88 ยท 4 points ยท Posted at 03:08:00 on February 22, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
When you have layman, you make layman aid. But for real this is interesting sh*t.
supremecrafters ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 22:15:39 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Except that the electron is actually everywhere in the probability distribution at once.
allthereisandmore ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 19:03:59 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
You're right. Higher energy orbitals are usually quite more complicated.
CashCop ยท 9 points ยท Posted at 23:08:20 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
s for sphere
p is dumbbell
d for double dumbbell
f for fucked up
Arvediu ยท 4 points ยท Posted at 18:48:47 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
They are only ring (or sphere) like when they are in low energies, right? Higher energy orbitals have more interesting shapes.
allthereisandmore ยท 5 points ยท Posted at 19:02:53 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Yes! S orbitals are the ones that resemble ring-like structures. Higher energy orbitals are more complex not to mention the complex interactions between the various orbitals.
Andyman117 ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 23:58:02 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Well, it looks like this photo is visualizing it pretty easily
MjrLeeStoned ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 00:59:06 on February 22, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
It's a visual representation of hypothetical paths and positions of condensed energy.
What's difficult to grasp about that? /s
TravisPM ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 02:45:19 on February 22, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
"something that is quite difficult to visualize. "
But aren't we looking at an actual picture of one?
king13579 ยท 19 points ยท Posted at 18:20:30 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Technically no, but the energy levels occupied by the 1-2 electrons that a hydrogen atom are spherical in nature so it's not too far fetched that a 2D image would display them as a ring
yodadamanadamwan ยท 24 points ยท Posted at 18:32:58 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
hydrogen only has one electron. What you're seeing is the probability distributions of the excited states that electron can hold. Hence why it gets more and more disperse.
king13579 ยท 11 points ยท Posted at 19:20:41 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Well I did say 1-2 since it is possible for it to have two and I don't exactly know how the photographers prepared the atom for photographing so that was mostly me covering my bases. But yeah your description is better then mine
nusigf ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 08:44:56 on February 22, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
How? The title said hydrogen, not deuterium, so only 1 proton. Hydrogen ions are positive, so missing an electron. I've never heard of a negative hydrogen ion.
kabrandon ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 11:04:53 on February 22, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
You should look into anions. Here's a link to Hydrogen anion
tramplemestilsken ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 03:37:24 on February 22, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Wouldnโt the probability collapse into a single location when itโs picture is taken?
yodadamanadamwan ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 03:47:44 on February 22, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I'm not sure of the exact technique they used. My guess would be the electron is just moving too fast.
Ariadnepyanfar ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 05:20:35 on February 22, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
So there are multiple exposures of the electron?
yodadamanadamwan ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 05:40:38 on February 22, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I would assume so. Looks like they were exciting it between energy levels as well.
Logicalist ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 04:12:00 on February 22, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Do you know how the image was photographed?
yodadamanadamwan ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 05:40:02 on February 22, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I would assume it was a long exposure, particularly because there seems to be multiple energy states.
Logicalist ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 07:03:08 on February 22, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
So, no then.
yodadamanadamwan ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 15:49:03 on February 22, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I'm not a photographer, I'm a chemist.
Pieguy5021 ยท 10 points ยท Posted at 18:18:59 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
They arenโt, just regions of probability
[deleted] ยท 10 points ยท Posted at 18:37:48 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
[deleted]
BlazeOrangeDeer ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 19:52:49 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
The colors stand for how many times the electron was detected at that place, there is a certain probability of detecting them at each place and trying a bunch of times gives a rough estimate of what the probability is.
Pieguy5021 ยท 5 points ยท Posted at 18:53:55 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Yea your not I have no idea what the fuck this picture is actually showing
twystoffer ยท 23 points ยท Posted at 19:36:05 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Electrons, being quatum particles, don't follow conventional physics. As a result, they behave in ways that seem weird.
Pictured here is a single proton (the red dot) and a single electron (the blue rings). The proton, for the most part, behaves how you would think (other than it costantly vibrates due to heat, any heat, above absolute zero).
The electron on the other hand is hard to really pick out. We can ever only know generally where it is, as it's a wave. But when it interacts with something, it can collapse into a point...maybe.
The reason there are two rings are the valence shells. These are energy states. Closer to the proton means less energy. Electrons in higher shells either fly off or give off energy as light to return to a lower energy state.
So what we're seeing is thousands of composite pictures, measuring the magnetic fields of both proton and electron, with the electron bouncing back and forth from high to low energy states seemingly like magical teleportation.
I_Love_My_Balls ยท 10 points ยท Posted at 20:23:27 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Thank you so much for this explanation. This is the first time I've actually been able to understand an explanation relating to atoms. You should be a teacher.
yodadamanadamwan ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 00:33:03 on February 22, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Hydrogen's easy because it's simple. Once you get into more complicated orbitals, molecular shapes, bonding, etc is where this stuff gets hard to explain. Especially when you have things that don't obey the rules you teach, like the octet rule.
Sentry459 ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 21:16:23 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Thanks.
Pieguy5021 ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 20:59:59 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Yea thatโs what I thought (it being a time lapse picture thing) but didnโt really want to say anything misleading as my Iโm just a highschool kid taking college chem
boatmurdered ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 20:53:56 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Indeed, nor I nor you have any idea [...]
crackercider ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 19:03:56 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Think of particles like waves at the quantum level. That electron is within that wave field and you have to collapse that wave field to squeeze out the position of the electron.
Or some shit I don't know man.
Ariadnepyanfar ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 05:21:43 on February 22, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I think weโre seeing multiple exposures of the same speedy electron, if this is indeed a photograph.
[deleted] ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 18:32:57 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
They're not, they're orbitals.
A radical hydrogen orbital is spherical, which is probably why it looks like a ring here.
I don't know anything about the imaging method though, so don't take my word for it.
link6112 ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 19:36:30 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Hydrogen only has 1 electron, the S orbital is, in fact, spherical. The P, D, and F orbitals are not.
Scarrzz ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 21:55:33 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Maybe the electron occupied all the spaces of the rings over the exposure time of the photo?
Ariadnepyanfar ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 05:23:55 on February 22, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Yes, itโs a composite photo taken over time.
yodadamanadamwan ยท 10 points ยท Posted at 18:35:05 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
The outer rings are the excited states (electron energy is quantized). The highest density is the ground state, which is when hydrogen's lone electron is in the 1s orbital, which is spherical hence why the cross section is a ring.
yoshemitzu ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 20:48:15 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
This explanation was really, really good.
CaseyStoner ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 21:15:45 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
To good. I need a dumber explanation.
HaikuHighDude ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 23:24:17 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Itโs a Tide commercial
The_DrLamb ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 23:33:33 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I've been out of school for a while, but if I remember correctly from my quantum course, the electron is most likely to be found at two radii, I'm not 100% sure but I believe that's roughly the answer.
[deleted] ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 00:18:22 on February 22, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Looks like the electrons have angular momentum here. Otherwise, it would just look like a symmetric sphere.
kaaaaath ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 07:52:41 on February 22, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Excited states. Finally using my fucking masters in chem for once.
_MakisupaPoliceman ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 07:04:45 on June 1, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
ELI5? Iโve heard excited states briefly in a couple classes but never understood
magneticphoton ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 20:32:50 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Thousands of "pictures" stitched together.
BubbhaDunkh ยท 1501 points ยท Posted at 17:11:09 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Sources: https://io9.gizmodo.com/the-first-image-ever-of-a-hydrogen-atoms-orbital-struc-509684901
https://journals.aps.org/prl/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevLett.110.213001
[deleted] ยท 1446 points ยท Posted at 18:29:34 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
[removed]
textfile ยท 1076 points ยท Posted at 19:00:02 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Yeah this groundbreaking achievement I hadn't heard of before is so laughably out of date
boatmurdered ยท 443 points ยท Posted at 19:03:48 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I took one just like it with my iPhone right now.
annon_tins ยท 261 points ยท Posted at 19:12:26 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I bet you did you nerd.
royisabau5 ยท 110 points ยท Posted at 19:28:59 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Letโs give him a swirly! You like H2O nerd?
bastardicus ยท 8 points ยท Posted at 20:08:51 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Itโs just H in the picture, though
annon_tins ยท 19 points ยท Posted at 20:10:18 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
โฆ fucking nerds
royisabau5 ยท 9 points ยท Posted at 20:11:56 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Are you making fun of oxygen nerd? That's it, you're gettin a super-wedgie
Ooooip ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 21:04:22 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
we'll give you the O later ( อกยฐ อส อกยฐ)
roogoff ยท 9 points ยท Posted at 19:46:07 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Please not the glasses oh boy
falconear ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 00:41:11 on February 22, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I like H20 too. Or is it H202?
royisabau5 ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 01:21:20 on February 22, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I donโt fuck around with my swirlies
[deleted] ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 20:56:02 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
We bashin nerds?
boatmurdered ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 02:54:15 on May 30, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
It's a nerd bashing. We're having a nerd bash.
roogoff ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 19:45:19 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Nerd-bashing time!
redditwinsinternets ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 20:23:22 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Dick pic?
boatmurdered ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 20:25:05 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
ouch
CaptinCookies ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 21:56:28 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
What's a computer?
[deleted] ยท 8 points ยท Posted at 19:43:32 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I had heard of it before... in fact, before I realized that this was just the same one five years later, I was planning to link one of the relevant articles to point out that it wasn't the first such image.
But no, it is the first such image, just... way later.
eppinizer ยท 5 points ยท Posted at 19:58:09 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
its amazing that 5 years ago os considered laughably out of date. Yet, I agree with you.
[deleted] ยท 18 points ยท Posted at 19:05:46 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
[deleted]
Horse_Boy ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 21:58:35 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Okay, grandpa. Everything that happens now should be happening now. I want my information now now.
[deleted] ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 23:20:25 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
[deleted]
The_Godlike_Zeus ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 20:38:51 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
But you hadn't heard of it, so what's the difference? Why does it matter if this is from 2013 or 2018?
FreaksNGeeks ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 22:37:53 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I feel like it says something about society's lack of scientific literacy. We have reusable rockets and pictures of atoms, yet there are influential pop culture figures having meaningless debates over the shape of the earth.
flaim ยท 5 points ยท Posted at 19:29:39 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
No need to be rude, I'm just amused at the fact that a 5 year old image is on the top of /r/all.
JoseyS ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 21:34:51 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
You might find /r/historyporn hilarious then
DigitalMindShadow ยท -2 points ยท Posted at 20:05:42 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
If that's the kind of thing you find amusing, you're going to be floored by the content on this old photos multireddit.
Reddit is not a news site.
[deleted] ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 20:59:34 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
[deleted]
DigitalMindShadow ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 21:52:59 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Sure, and there's also old photos, and all sorts of other content of all kinds. This is a thread in /r/woahdude, not /r/news or any other sub with a timeliness requirement, so I'm not sure what is supposed to be "amusing" about a photo being posted here that's 4 years old.
CatAstrophy11 ยท 11 points ยท Posted at 21:04:57 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Reddit in a nutshell. Just a revolving belt of content with the occasional OC dropped into the mix.
[deleted] ยท 441 points ยท Posted at 19:03:17 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
[removed]
rHodgey ยท 138 points ยท Posted at 19:18:53 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Wow amazing how much progress has been made in just five years
FivesG ยท 152 points ยท Posted at 19:04:59 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Truly beautiful.
Pytheastic ยท 33 points ยท Posted at 19:29:26 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
On a more serious note there really has been some great progress using electromicroscopy.
rubsitinyourface ยท 8 points ยท Posted at 19:36:15 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
God dammit you guys are killin me. Enough already
Flonkus ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 20:23:26 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
The first one got me. It got most of us. But if you fell for the second one that's on you bud. You killed yourself.
AFlexibleHead ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 21:25:23 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Name checks out
Illbebetterthistime ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 20:14:29 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Oh yeah like I'm gonna do that again
themasterm ยท 56 points ยท Posted at 19:13:10 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Genuinely majestic.
[deleted] ยท 7 points ยท Posted at 19:16:24 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Breathtaking, even.
Maj391 ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 19:57:56 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
A testimony to our scientists who never give up on achieving nearly impossible goals. Thanks for never letting us down, Science.
JonMeadows ยท 75 points ยท Posted at 19:33:13 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
you fuck
another_day_in ยท 15 points ยท Posted at 19:34:31 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Verb, noun, or adjective?
themasterm ยท 6 points ยท Posted at 19:40:26 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
All three?
mike19572 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 21:23:46 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
https://youtu.be/iW9bcaEOJvg
Singularity-_ ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 19:43:20 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I literally said that as I opened it and then read this comment.
Great minds think alike
SkateTroe ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 21:04:29 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
no u
Zacharym8 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 22:14:08 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
My sentiments exactly
playbeasy ยท 5 points ยท Posted at 19:32:58 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
That pic didn't let me down.
cyypherr ยท 6 points ยท Posted at 19:55:25 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
But, did it run around and hurt you?
meth-and-pussy ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 19:36:22 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Shit
[deleted] ยท 5 points ยท Posted at 21:18:24 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
DAMN IT
dammii96 ยท 10 points ยท Posted at 19:13:40 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Oh my god
Sentry459 ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 21:12:08 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Masterful.
valkyrieone ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 21:23:43 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
It is so clear. Almost as if we can see its valence.
just_a_thought4U ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 21:24:06 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Dammit!
Filipino75 ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 21:24:12 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I fucking hate love you.
DoctorAwesomeBallz69 ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 21:24:54 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I can't believe you've done this
doctor-dai ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 21:33:19 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Never lets me down.
THE_Nihilist_King ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 21:34:11 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
YOU BASTARD!!!
libbywalkerpornstar ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 21:38:31 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
You evil bastard ๐
IamVasi ยท 4 points ยท Posted at 19:11:13 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I love science.
jsake ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 20:25:35 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
God dammit. For all of you who are disappointed like me, here's the actual picture
OneMinuteEitherSide ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 21:17:24 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I knew what this was before I clicked.
aerovado ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 19:32:32 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Enhancing
sn00p3r ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 19:33:08 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Amazing!
strange-humor ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 19:31:44 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Amazing progress. I hope they never give up trying to get better resolution.
another_day_in ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 19:33:25 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
They have never let us down.
[deleted] ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 20:40:42 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Fuckin got my ass. Lolol
[deleted] ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 20:51:05 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Pretty sure that's tritium with two additional funky neutrons.
windral ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 20:51:45 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Take your upvote.
MauPow ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 21:02:33 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
god damnit
bdavis62794 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 21:11:50 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
You bastard!
BukkakeKing ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 22:38:49 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
This should have been the op!
SchighSchagh ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 22:45:51 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
For real though
lifeasapeach ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 01:04:51 on February 22, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I bow to you sir
ichhabehundertkatzen ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 19:24:46 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Now you have me genuinely interested in what today's modern images of atoms are
xingrubicon ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 19:21:46 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I stand in awe
columbus8myhw ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 19:23:56 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Amazing.
Arnold_Mal ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 20:11:03 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Ladies and gentlemen, welcome to the FUTURE!
jamesick ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 19:17:09 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I don't understand why that's meant to be funny.
Rags2Rickius ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 19:52:27 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Rofl
oishybd ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 21:44:31 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
How bigger it is in 2018?
[deleted] ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 22:44:37 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I have literally photographed quintillions of these since 2013. Fucking common everyday shit now. Maybe OP should post a picture of the first movie camera!
8r0k3n ยท 200 points ยท Posted at 18:56:37 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
That first article is wack, man. The wave function isn't a tangible thing. You use the wave function to figure things out about a quantum system, such as its probability distribution of certain quantities related to the system.
Isn't Gizmodo the same site that wrote that inflammatory article about Ken Bone? They're so bad at what they're supposed to do.
mcnuggetsispeople ยท 64 points ยท Posted at 19:12:49 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Actually, I don't think it's particularly misleading. According to Born's rule the probability density is simply the complex amplitude of the wave function squared. And the wave function in the Schrodinger equation simply represents position and momentum, since spin wasn't discovered at that time. Getting into particular formulations is beyond what the average reader would be expected to know.
As for whether the wave function is a tangible thing, since it represents the probability distribution of a specific quantum state if you can recreate the system you're trying to measure again and again then you can capture the average values of the wave function at particular points in space. Of course, it's impossible to clone actual quantum states, but if you're just interested in the hydrogen atom's ground state then cloning isn't necessary anyway.
dgrant92 ยท 7 points ยท Posted at 21:16:09 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Well, that's just like, your opinion, man. /s
yodadamanadamwan ยท -5 points ยท Posted at 19:29:16 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
The wave function represents the probability, not the distribution. What's important about the wave function is its use in the Schrodinger equation, which they mentioned. It has applications for group theory because you can combined atomic orbitals into group orbitals and it helps you tell whether molecules are able to bond (on the basis of the interaction between the signs of their wave functions (it has to do with constructive i.e. bonding, and destructive i.e. antibonding, interference). Honestly, the math is a little over my head but that's the jist.
SayNoob ยท 10 points ยท Posted at 19:34:37 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
In quantum mechanics, the probability distribution is a tangible thing. At the smallest scales things don't have a 'shape' they have a probability distribution that tells you how likely you are to interact with the particle at certain points in space. It's the closest thing there is to a shape of a particle.
mcnuggetsispeople ยท 6 points ยท Posted at 19:41:29 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
What do you even mean by "the probability and not the distribution"? The complex amplitude squared is a probability distribution function, i.e. it is unitary - the total prob sums to one.
Secondly it's not really true that any of physics has applications in group theory, since group theory is a very abstract and vast branch of mathematics this is applied to quantum physics in many different ways, particularly Lie groups and their corresponding Lie algebras.
The most important application of group theory may be the fact that all physical transformations are instances of the Poincarรฉ group and that spin-half (fermionic) angular momentums (e.g. 1/2, 3/2, 5/2...) are actually directly correspond to representations of the Lorentz group, which is a non-trivial fact and, along with the Dirac wave function equation, the reason they often say quantum spin comes from special relativity.
haharisma ยท -1 points ยท Posted at 20:29:47 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
He means that in order to have an image similar to shown (I didnโt read the original paper) a โphotoโ of many thousands atoms must be taken. Itโs like an โimage of a humanโ obtained by superimposing thousands of images. It may still be meaningful but looking as none of individuals in particular.
mcnuggetsispeople ยท 4 points ยท Posted at 20:43:49 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Actually, hydrogen atoms are different from people since they're not unique or individual. In fact unless the proton or the electron are in an excited state hydrogen atoms are indistinguishable bosons. It wouldn't be difficult to ensure with near 100% probability that the hydrogen atom being imaged is in the ground state if you cool things down to near absolute zero. It's particularly easy because hydrogen atoms are bosons and thus have a symmetric wave function.
haharisma ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 21:01:14 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Indistinguishability is not that important here. Electrons are also indistinguishable but, intuitively, an electron in my keyboard plays a different role from an electron in a car that just passed my window despite both electrons occupying low levels in some carbon atoms.
If I take a million hydrogen atoms reliably in the ground state and shot at them electrons with the same initial state, the results of the scattering detected by an array of detectors with sufficiently good resolution will be all over the place. When I superimpose images from individual scattering events, I'll restore a picture obtained using the wave function formalism. See, for instance, the build-up picture here.
mcnuggetsispeople ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 21:10:15 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Indistinguishability has a formal meaning in quantum mechanics. It refers to the possible symmetries of the wave function. There are two possible types of symmetry that correspond to two different types of angular momentum.
No-one is shooting hydrogen atoms at anything, instead they're the things being shot at. Usually the hydrogen atoms are part of crystals in these imaging experiments. But good luck keep hydrogen atoms in that ground state whilst you are accelerating them to shoot them at electrons. If you want to actually hit an electron you'll ionize the hydrogen so you'll really just be shooting protons.
I'm well aware of matter waves and interference. For something like hydrogen, however, it's De Broglie wavelength will be very similar to that of a proton since electrons are so light except for the contribution of the electron's kinetic energy which is a famous value - 13.6 eV.
haharisma ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 21:25:22 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I don't shoot hydrogen atoms. All atoms are in an optical lattice cooled down to millikelvins and I perform standard electron spectroscopy that people do for more than a century, if we count from the Geiger-Marsden experiment. The fact that individual measurements are random, owing to the complex mechanism of the collapse of wave functions, is well known and observed many times. As well as the fact that looking at ensembles and combining individual events will amount to the wave function prediction.
zonules_of_zinn ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 19:39:05 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
if you take the frequentist interpretation of probability, aren't the probability and the distribution basically describing the same thing?
wetsarcasm ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 21:12:05 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Boom goes the dynamite, probably.
yodadamanadamwan ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 19:47:13 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Honestly don't really know what that means. I only know enough quantum mechanics to understand some of the logic underpinning chemistry. From a quick google search that seems to be a philosophical interpretation of statistics. I haven't really thought that much about it so I'd have to think on it more.
elmoismyboy ยท 5 points ยท Posted at 19:35:18 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Mm yes shallow and pedantic
yodadamanadamwan ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 19:38:59 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I don't see how that was shallow or pedantic.
[deleted] ยท -1 points ยท Posted at 21:01:51 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
[deleted]
elmoismyboy ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 21:16:19 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Shill
3taswefasdfxczbzdrgh ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 03:30:22 on February 22, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
The thing is that "direct observing" the wavefunction will collapse it. As you stated, you can reconstruct the original wavefunction by measuring it again and again, but I feel like the sentence is pretty misleading.
Also I can't find it now, but I'm pretty sure I've seen a "picture" of electron orbitals using AFM before.
RavingGerbil ยท -2 points ยท Posted at 23:45:17 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
What, you mean the rest of that first paragraph or something average readers should know??
Shit. I'm behind.
[deleted] ยท 30 points ยท Posted at 19:10:05 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Well, the wavefunction is a description of the quantum state of something as a probability wave. It's as tangible as that thing is tangible, though what we actually mean by that is a little fuzzy.
sheikhy_jake ยท 10 points ยท Posted at 19:28:04 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
The wavefunction is about the most tangible description of things that we have.
If you are saying it's all just a mathematical model and not the reality, that's a deeper question for another thread.
8r0k3n ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 19:36:22 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
No, the wave function is reality. I'm just saying you do "stuff" to the wave function to determine the properties of the quantum system--the properties that we're actually observing in the picture. By "stuff", I mean the rich analysis that is involved in quantum mechanical study.
bobotheking ยท 7 points ยท Posted at 19:53:00 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Permit me to address your concern with two different, tangentially related stories.
First story: I was once arguing with my research advisor about whether virtual photons are real. I kept insisting that they're just a mathematical trick to get the numbers to work out and because they're not directly observable, they don't meaningfully exist. He didn't say I was wrong and is a really patient guy, but I imagine he was getting tired of my rant so he finally asked me, "Is force real?" Well, yes, in classical systems it's directly measurable, but in quantum systems, we don't (and can't) use the concept of force. I very suddenly realized that debates over whether something is "real" are mostly pedantic.
Second story: I recently had my students conduct an experiment in freefall. They dropped a ball bearing from different heights and measured the time it takes to fall from its initial height to its landing point. They graphed their data, fit a line to the graph, and determined the gravitational acceleration on Earth, usually to within about one percent. Can my students say that they observed Earth's gravity?
More to the point, you are technically correct (the best kind of correct) that the wavefunction is the probability amplitude and the probability amplitude is never directly observed. What is observed instead is the probability, which is merely the magnitude-squared of the probability amplitude. This is a small but important distinction which I don't think is lost on you because you seem to know your physics pretty well. Having said that, I think that to the casual observer who sees the front page of Reddit and thinks, "Ooh, neat! A picture of a hydrogen atom!" it is not too far off the mark to say that the wavefunction is observed, especially since a more accurate and detailed description would be wordy and difficult for the layperson to understand and appreciate.
8r0k3n ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 20:09:23 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
But what about this bit from the abstract of the linked paper? It's nice and straightforward.
And that's the picture: we are observing the charge distribution, which is really what the casual observer should be informed about in this picture. Discussions on the wave function really have no place here, which is kind of my main gripe with the article.
rippledshadow ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 04:59:24 on February 22, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Is there a standard distribution of the observed state of the electrons being represented (in this wave function)? Or is this 'true random' in the sense it's all possible states unmeasured at that crystallized unobserved moment in time?
sheikhy_jake ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 21:44:32 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Fair enough. All probes are in some sense indirect but some are more direct that others. There's always some mathematics between what you actually measure and the wavefunction.
SpeedoCheeto ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 19:31:08 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Neh, you're being intentionally obtuse.
dsguzbvjrhbv ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 20:04:12 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
In this case their description is actually correct. The second link with the actual abstract agrees with the Gizmodo article here.
The wave function can show up in averages but also directly interact with other wave functions. It is more than a theoretical construct.
mthrndr ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 20:02:13 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Gizmodo is a dumpster fire of a tech blog.
GodsFailures ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 21:21:35 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Welcome to the Bone zone
zeroscout ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 01:51:18 on February 22, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
/u/8r0k3n
You might enjoy this article https://physics.aps.org/articles/v6/58
montibbalt ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 02:40:47 on February 22, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
You mean to tell me a (former) Gawker site isn't very good?
voatgoats ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 03:42:36 on February 22, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I don't know man according to the citation they used repeated exposures to map the location of the electrons in the ring to actually show a representation of it. That's, like facts, and measurement. Quantum mechanics is a thing, it's like one of the most economically successful scientific theories we have. I know a lot of people on reddit are doubtful about the collapse of waveforms due to observation being an actual physical occurrence, but we currently have commercial products that are on sale that make use of the actual physical existence of this effect. Quantum Mechanics (other than the Brian Green youtube videos) is an established fact we are currently basing the majority of our high-tech economy on.
8r0k3n ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 04:03:41 on February 22, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Absolutely, I agree but that's not quite what I'm arguing. See my comment here
The question of whether or not we're actually seeing a wave function is something physics cannot answer at this present time.
JJAB91 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 22:50:25 on February 22, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Its part of the Gawker Network, what do you expect?
amateurtoss ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 21:31:13 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
The wave function is as 'tangible' as any other state variable for an object. But that doesn't mean it's easy to picture. Even for an object's positional wave-function, the wave function requires something like six dimensions (3 real, 3 imaginary) to 'visualize.' The probability distribution does not contain as much information as the wave-function (the probability distribution only takes 3 dimensions)
rippledshadow ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 05:04:11 on February 22, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Could you point me in the direction to learn more about the imaginary variables?
amateurtoss ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 06:03:56 on February 22, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
The Bloch sphere is probably the simplest quantum system. Check out this stack exchange answer. https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/204090/understanding-the-bloch-sphere. It relies on some understanding of spherical coordinates and complex numbers but nothing else really.
[deleted] ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 19:26:20 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
mainstream media fails again
[deleted] ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 19:38:09 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
yeah, got confused there.
ruetoesoftodney ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 19:45:10 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Welcome to "science-based" literature.
But honestly, imagine not being educated in "higher-level" physics and then having to write an article based on things you don't understand.
JaqueeVee ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 21:42:17 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
NEEEERD
i_give_you_gum ยท 6 points ยท Posted at 18:53:35 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Can anyone answer if the ring around the atom is the electron spinning around it or some sort of shell?
elbowe21 ยท 19 points ยท Posted at 18:54:26 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I can answer. Just not correctly
So yeah sure
Forbidden_Froot ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 19:00:35 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
The real answer is in the comments
boatmurdered ยท 7 points ยท Posted at 19:05:11 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Would you be satisfied with the answer "more or less"?
i_give_you_gum ยท 7 points ยท Posted at 19:07:53 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Yes and no
boatmurdered ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 20:28:46 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Now you're getting it!
i_give_you_gum ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 23:42:57 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
oh i've already got it!
[deleted] ยท 8 points ยท Posted at 19:43:10 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
[deleted]
i_give_you_gum ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 23:46:25 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
thanks for trying to explain!
o0Rh0mbus0o ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 23:29:10 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
It isn't, but I don't know what it is.
[deleted] ยท -6 points ยท Posted at 18:55:12 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
[deleted]
boatmurdered ยท 5 points ยท Posted at 19:04:37 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Except they don't quite do that.
8r0k3n ยท 6 points ยท Posted at 19:01:49 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Why would it be a joke? It's completely not obvious what we're looking at here.
i_give_you_gum ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 19:06:47 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Not sure how that would be considered a joke but whatever,
so to clarify is it spinning so fast that it appears to be a solid line, or is there some sort of static shell?
Obewoop ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 19:26:06 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
It's a little complicated, but for very small things you can either know where they are very accurately or how they're moving very accurately, but not both. So when you try to find out where an electron is you will see where each electron is at one point in time, but you wouldn't be able to see them moving in a continuous line. The electron shell is the area where an electron is most likely to be found around an atom, and images like this are a buildup of lots of pictures, so you can see those shells. Those shells often have really weird shapes, and are defined as the area inside which you have over a 90% chance of finding an electron, so if you took 10 images, 9 times the electron would be somewhere within that area.
i_give_you_gum ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 23:51:23 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
and you're sure this is a series of photographs combined into a single picture? It makes sense but it definitely changes the understanding of what we're looking at, I would have preferred to see an elongated electron than a long exposure of one, maybe it wouldn't be visible though? Thanks for doing what you could to explain.
[deleted] ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 19:12:28 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Electrons don't orbit anything though.
mikedi12 ยท 24 points ยท Posted at 18:43:42 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
This should be the top comment.
FasterDoudle ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 19:12:48 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I'm here from the future to tell you - it is. Everything you fought for has come true, grandfather
boatmurdered ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 19:04:08 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
No YOU should!
Doonce ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 18:58:31 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I was going to say.. I thought I remembered this.
MagicMan032214 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 19:22:25 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Amazing
norsurfit ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 19:33:19 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Big deal, I took a photo of about 50 trillion Hydrogen atoms with my iPhone this morning.
ubermynsch ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 20:41:45 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I thought this was just a model....
Licklicklickmaballss ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 21:34:28 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Doc Manhattan.
mnky9800n ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 00:36:00 on February 22, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
i really hate the way the aps website works. figures look horrible. wiley journals do it sort of better.
radditersaysihategd ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 01:37:32 on February 22, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
"Cite" yer sources
BubbhaDunkh ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 02:04:20 on February 22, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
The second link is the paper describing how the experiment was performed. Email the physicists if you want more information.
radditersaysihategd ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 02:05:02 on February 22, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Oh... I meant that you should cite your sources.. Okay, I'll leave
LeoLaDawg ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 09:31:30 on February 22, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Wonder what it would look like if you placed a double slit in between. I'll wait for the answer on youtube.
DrizzledDrizzt ยท 11434 points ยท Posted at 17:32:02 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
It's bigger than I thought it'd be.
[deleted] ยท 4975 points ยท Posted at 18:32:28 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
[deleted]
but_most_importantly ยท 1582 points ยท Posted at 18:40:27 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
He protec
He attac
But most importantly,
He /u/whicketywack
Chalkless97 ยท 387 points ยท Posted at 19:57:40 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Do you just follow this guy around and only post occasionally or do you just post when you happen to see him?
torrented_some_cash ยท 242 points ยท Posted at 20:28:36 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
yes. most importantly.
zombieshredder ยท 9 points ยท Posted at 21:17:38 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Huh
Have_U_Considered_P ยท 23 points ยท Posted at 21:29:09 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
P
jarious ยท 16 points ยท Posted at 21:50:31 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
i always consider p
excrematic ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 00:54:25 on February 22, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Then you must not consider (not p)?
jarious ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 01:00:23 on February 22, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I always consider to p or not to p
Kittten_Mitttons ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 05:34:20 on February 22, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Goodbye.
PM_FOR_SNUGGLES ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 23:38:38 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
You wouldn't download cash...
AlexJonestwnMassacre ยท 47 points ยท Posted at 20:40:17 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Its the same guy
[deleted] ยท 14 points ยท Posted at 23:56:31 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
[deleted]
Cosmicslorth ยท 11 points ยท Posted at 00:53:47 on February 22, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
He protec
He attac
But most importantly,
He /u/whicketywack
oceanpizza123 ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 16:22:19 on February 22, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
He protec
He attac
But most importantly,
He u/whicketywack
[deleted] ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 22:28:31 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
[deleted]
notoyrobots ยท 4 points ยท Posted at 22:30:40 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Maybe it's Maybelene
Generic-account ยท 23 points ยท Posted at 22:09:08 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Sad, but I'm guessing alt.
[deleted] ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 21:30:31 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
[deleted]
Sub_Corrector_Bot ยท 4 points ยท Posted at 21:30:33 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
You may have meant /u/whicketywack instead of /U/whicketywack.
Remember, OP may have ninja-edited. I correct subreddit and user links with a capital R or U, which are usually unusable.
-Srikar
Chalkless97 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 22:36:52 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Username does not check out
RDay ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 20:35:26 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Well it's yes and no.
emilsco ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 21:27:27 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Bor
Chalkless97 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 22:36:26 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
It's boar actually
Flarestriker ยท 7 points ยท Posted at 22:30:56 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
You seem like the best kind of stalker.
Doctor-Squishy ยท 19 points ยท Posted at 19:02:51 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Username checks out
DrNuggetry ยท 6 points ยท Posted at 21:03:15 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
He protec
He attac
But most importantly,
He /u/whicketywack
FUCKNOVELTYACCOUNTS ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 22:20:25 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Bruh
browdogg ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 22:42:02 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Iโve been laughing at this comment hysterically for like 5 minutes.
JJAB91 ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 22:52:05 on February 22, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
He posts to /r/me_irl instead of /r/meirl so I don't know if he is that good
Bubbaman3000 ยท 4 points ยท Posted at 20:29:38 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I appreciate the continuity you provide to reddit
goodbyekitty83 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 15:13:40 on February 23, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
don't come back.
[deleted] ยท -17 points ยท Posted at 20:25:21 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
That wasn't funny. And that's the only thing you ever comment.
GreeneMan ยท 11 points ยท Posted at 20:31:02 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
You donโt seem to know the iconic history between /u/warlizard and เฒ _เฒ
Hazindel ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 21:21:12 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
The gaming forum guy?
MrBojangles528 ยท 23 points ยท Posted at 18:49:08 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Get out you son of a bitch
boatmurdered ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 19:03:01 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
yousonofabitch.gif
RDay ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 20:35:47 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
NatalieWood.jpg
the_king_of_sweden ยท 12 points ยท Posted at 20:27:02 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
You should be charged for making puns like that
mattylou ยท 9 points ยท Posted at 20:58:31 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
But he's in his element
pointlessvoice ยท 8 points ยท Posted at 18:41:59 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
That pun is positively elemental.
Apex-Raijin ยท 4 points ยท Posted at 19:42:37 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
So itโs a double bonded pun then.
toms47 ยท 7 points ยท Posted at 20:51:24 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
He protec
He attac
But most importantly
He u/whicketywack
oceanpizza123 ยท 7 points ยท Posted at 20:18:36 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
He protec
He attac
But most importantly,
He /u/whicketywack
LeftStep22 ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 19:40:37 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Magnificent.
[deleted] ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 20:45:27 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
You bastard that was good
Seraphin_Eveles ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 21:20:23 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
God damnit, take my upvote.
[deleted] ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 21:29:40 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
He protec
He attac
But most importantly,
He u/whicketywack
PM_ME_YOUR_HOT_DADS ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 21:47:43 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
He protec
He attac
But most importantly,
He /u/whicketywack
OrionActual ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 20:14:53 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Does the fan club ever get irritating?
J0ey89 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 20:29:59 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
if I wasn't poor I'd gild you
UrNotFly ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 20:41:39 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Are you positive?
(Great one BTW)
DamagedHells ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 21:23:28 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
REARNAEINDSOGDF
Aesen1 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 21:28:28 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
God damnit
SurrealSirEel ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 21:55:54 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Take my upvote and get out, I dont want to see you ever again
spacekatbaby ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 22:10:08 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Its just an ioning board.
reagan2024 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 22:32:56 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
These puns are bohring.
MichuV5 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 23:54:42 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Hell no. Get this upvote and get the hell out from here
Ientz ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 05:10:35 on February 22, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Get out
Multi-Banana ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 17:46:42 on February 24, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
oh my god that joke was so bad
Ctf677 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 16:22:56 on June 2, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
He protec
He attac
But most importantly
He u/whicketywack
Legeto ยท -1 points ยท Posted at 19:51:57 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Dude, do you realize how fucking cool you are?
i-comment-cat ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 19:05:11 on April 13, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I mean, he protecc, he attac, but most importantly, he /u/whicketywack
an_internet_denizen ยท 5600 points ยท Posted at 17:42:09 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
That's what she said.
Yamilon ยท 1174 points ยท Posted at 17:45:29 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Never in my life..
DocGonzoEsq ยท 615 points ยท Posted at 17:53:10 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Thatโs what she said
kingManatee ยท 354 points ยท Posted at 18:04:18 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Now we're cooking.
kernell32 ยท 273 points ยท Posted at 18:09:17 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
That's what she said
Holmes02 ยท 198 points ยท Posted at 18:19:56 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
This is a long, hard thread of thick, girthy jokes
MrOtsKrad ยท 266 points ยท Posted at 18:23:55 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Thats what you said.
Pull_Pulk_ ยท 116 points ยท Posted at 18:27:25 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
-Michael Scott
mansohof ยท 94 points ยท Posted at 18:29:59 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
-she
GarlekJr ยท 4 points ยท Posted at 18:35:17 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
-said
0xTJ ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 18:39:23 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
-to
Jam_44 ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 18:52:44 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
-say
OFTHEHILLPEOPLE ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 19:48:55 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
-hello
uninterestingly ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 21:39:13 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
-goodbye
Canabann ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 20:30:30 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
-Wayne Gretzky
Aanon89 ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 18:58:35 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
-said
[deleted] ยท 17 points ยท Posted at 19:07:51 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
[deleted]
Nagasasaki ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 19:37:46 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
-Michael Scott
P.s. Nice username
boatmurdered ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 19:02:19 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
What he said.
AeroUp ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 19:15:50 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Is actually what she said!
krabxdd ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 18:35:27 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Yes it is, was that supposed to merit a โthatโs what she saidโ?
Winsconsin ยท -1 points ยท Posted at 19:02:57 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Upvote, upvote, upvote, upvote...
hockeyusa96 ยท 23 points ยท Posted at 18:09:39 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
How's he holding up?
anyholsagol ยท 18 points ยท Posted at 18:38:00 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
To shreds you say?
WillTank4Drugs ยท 11 points ยท Posted at 18:46:24 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
And his wife?
NeckRoFeltYa ยท 9 points ยท Posted at 18:48:42 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
To shreds you say?
Jam_44 ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 20:00:12 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
oohhh myy...
[deleted] ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 18:28:43 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
[deleted]
AeroUp ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 19:17:21 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
HOLY FUCK ITS BATMAN
LimEJET ยท -2 points ยท Posted at 18:09:24 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
That's sexist.
JULIAN4321sc ยท 7 points ยท Posted at 18:21:04 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
That's what she said.
Fredwestlifeguard ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 18:44:21 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
On gas
efitz11 ยท 6 points ยท Posted at 18:14:28 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
The key is to set really low expectations
Magikpoo ยท 4 points ยท Posted at 18:21:43 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Then exceed them.
[deleted] ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 20:14:46 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Would if I could but I won't. Probably should but.. shorn't.
knee__gurr ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 18:38:52 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Then youre not a trap
DiamondPup ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 18:41:38 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I don't know why but this made me burst out laughing. This needs to be the new auto-response to 'that's what she said' everywhere.
e_z_p_z_ ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 18:51:04 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
feltgoodman
DJboomshanka ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 19:18:57 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Don't underestimate her under underestimations
mister_gone ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 19:42:05 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I've been underselling it for years now. She's right, it's NOT micro. It's just well below average! Muahahahaha.
Fuck, she's in for a ride!
Yamilon ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 20:28:29 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Attaboy! Small but playfull!
NateBlaze ยท 68 points ยท Posted at 18:05:51 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Nice erectrons
1975-2050 ยท 5 points ยท Posted at 19:30:54 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
overheard in Pyeongchang Olympic village
NateBlaze ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 19:35:14 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
And there it is.
LonnieJaw748 ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 18:52:08 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Thatโs a good name for a super villain in a porno that has a decent plotline.
niktemadur ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 07:06:12 on February 22, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
We can determine its' position or trajectory, but not both at the same time.
chil34 ยท -1 points ยท Posted at 18:41:43 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
*Electron FTFY
NateBlaze ยท 4 points ยท Posted at 18:44:00 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I think you missed something.
DrPila ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 18:54:32 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
To fully balance the humor and the scientific accuracy, I believe the correct response would be: Erectron FTFY
NateBlaze ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 18:57:01 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
What if it's got her seeing double?
chil34 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 18:23:52 on February 22, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Valence electrons are no joke guys, come on!
DrPila ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 19:34:01 on February 22, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
You mean Viagra Erectrons?
BadgerRelatedDeath ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 18:38:48 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
That's what she said
shahooster ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 19:08:57 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Whatโs all this talk about the Presidential Erection?
MonkeySpanker22 ยท 32 points ยท Posted at 18:02:32 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
MICHAEL!
kjbigs282 ยท 6 points ยท Posted at 18:34:22 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Identity theft is not a joke Jim
AlphaNathan ยท 4 points ยท Posted at 19:02:44 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Millions of families suffer every year!
[deleted] ยท 7 points ยท Posted at 18:55:30 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Very funny. MICHAEL!!
[deleted] ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 23:00:07 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
No...Not me...Not Dwight.
Make him stop. QUIET YOU!
ThePixelCoder ยท 13 points ยท Posted at 18:04:33 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
You mean your dick is the size of a hydrogen atom?
funkmastamatt ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 19:16:58 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
But it's a bigger than average hydrogen atom.
dengeskahn ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 20:19:44 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
She said your penis is bigger than an atom? Congrats I guess
fllr ยท 4 points ยท Posted at 18:37:54 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Never change, Reddit. Never change...
[deleted] ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 18:24:15 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Who?? I would love to meet this woman.
funkmastamatt ยท 6 points ยท Posted at 19:16:14 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Your mother.
shhheeeeeeeeiit ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 18:43:31 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
*not
T0NYHOMO ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 18:49:36 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
thats what the bishop said in the dark
[deleted] ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 19:01:00 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
God, I wish.
csupernova ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 19:14:54 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Is this back?
HardTruthsHurt ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 19:48:17 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Excuse me, but we live in a loving and accepting world now where we can say "that's what he said" you bigot.
[deleted] ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 19:50:59 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Why would you get gold for saying that? That's probably to most overused, unfunny, and unoriginal joke in existence.
Kolbreez1 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 20:00:44 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
/r/DunderMifflin everywhere
tahcamen ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 20:13:21 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Red!
IsThatWhatSheSaidTho ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 20:17:55 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
sstout2113 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 20:20:09 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Not for me.
MarkIsNotAShark ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 20:20:36 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Undersell overperform
PORTMANTEAU-BOT ยท 4 points ยท Posted at 20:20:42 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Underperform.
Bleep-bloop, I'm a bot. This portmanteau was created from the phrase 'Undersell overperform'. To learn more about me, check out this FAQ.
[deleted] ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 20:23:52 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
A surprise, to be sure, but a welcome one.
TheAzylum ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 20:33:12 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Hah jokeโs on you, no one has ever seen it...
cloudhock ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 20:57:34 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I never know how to feel when I hear this.. thanks?
NineteenEighty9 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 18:45:21 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
โ๏ธ๐ฅ๐ฅ
AsherGray ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 19:19:56 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Damn, this whole thread is full of witty things from 2013
[deleted] ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 18:18:42 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Ftfy thats what she never said
maz-o ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 18:31:05 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
No it wasnโt
Philbin27 ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 18:44:21 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Someone gave you gold for that? Hell, they must be pennies to that guy, can I have 1?
Speaker4theRest ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 19:08:08 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Thatโs what
shehe or she said. FTFY.Molthash ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 19:08:15 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
How is it possible to get gold for Thats what she said quote. Cmon! :D
escarchaud ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 19:31:29 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I'm taking the kids with me
[deleted] ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 19:32:16 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Name checks out
therascalking13 ยท 109 points ยท Posted at 18:16:08 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
/r/biggerthanyouthought
NSFW
ImWhatTheySayDeaf ยท 47 points ยท Posted at 18:57:37 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
My favorite thing about Reddit. There's a sub for anything and everything. Did you think dem titties were THIS BIG!?!?
Total-Annihilation ยท 18 points ยท Posted at 19:02:20 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
They also do asses on that sub, if you're an assman.
UtCanisACorio ยท 4 points ยท Posted at 19:25:57 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
you da real mvp.
svartk ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 23:34:46 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
How big?
[deleted] ยท 6 points ยท Posted at 20:52:23 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Why no r/smallerthanyouthought ?
Edit: holy shit this is actually a thing. Flat is justice after all.
TonesBalones ยท 6 points ยท Posted at 20:31:50 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
See that subreddit is a self-fulfilling disappointment where because the implication is that they are "bigger than you thought" you preemptively assume that they are indeed big so instead of thinking they are bigger than you thought, instead you think "wow, that's exactly as big as I thought they would be."
creed10 ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 20:36:06 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I literally JUST got done fapping... now I have to go in again
tookTHEwrongPILL ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 01:56:40 on February 22, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Is there a sub for the opposite? I saw a woman today pushing what I think I think were just b cups up to her neck. I wanna see women reveal those.
[deleted] ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 18:56:39 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
[deleted]
MontgomeryRook ยท 6 points ยท Posted at 19:56:38 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I'm guessing you expected smaller, based on the name of the subreddit.
slappinbass ยท 40 points ยท Posted at 18:04:12 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
If I had a nickel for every time I heard that...Iโd be in debt
k-uke ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 21:11:44 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Hello everyone.
What does a 'bridge' mean in a song?
I hope u don't mind me asking this here.
slappinbass ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 21:26:08 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
A part of a song that usually doesnโt repeat either chorus or verse forms. It keeps the song moving along. Think of it like an interlude.
k-uke ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 21:34:38 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Awesome. Thanks.
calfmonster ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 22:40:46 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Think of it as a part that โbridgesโ the song format between verse/verse or verse/chorus combinations (traditionally youโd think of basic song structure something like intro-verse-chorus-verse-chorus-etc.-outro/fade.) Slappinbass explained it well and an interlude is a good synonym for it but I figured the connection to the naming convention would help solidify it.
APsockes ยท 5 points ยท Posted at 19:48:18 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Miss me with that gay shit.
[deleted] ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 20:37:40 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
The nucleus looks bigger than it actually is. In reality the distance from the center to the outer rim is about 3200 nucleus widths. If the nucleus was scaled up to the size of the sun, the electron would orbit about where Neptune is.
mofaha ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 18:37:32 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
You're standing too close!
UltravioIence ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 19:06:08 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Phrasing
Foxlust ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 19:11:47 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
FOR YOU
TheBurpingAvocado ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 19:51:17 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Itโs bigger on the inside
Carbon_Carbon_01 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 20:01:51 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
TWSS
idigholes ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 20:02:43 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
That's what she said
Aussiewhiskeydiver ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 20:07:32 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
A groundbreaking moment in science. And weโre making dick jokes ๐ณ
opaco ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 21:41:06 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
not by much tho, let's say by a few pixels
SupernaturalPenguin ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 22:51:14 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
What we all think she will say.
WildBird57 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 23:42:59 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
No itโs just realllly far away
General_Kenobi896 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 23:52:33 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Anniemy goodness, you've grown!DHSDirector ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 04:14:33 on February 22, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Thats what she said....
kpdunphy ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 18:14:53 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Its just a picture of your butthole
MongoSmashGuud ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 18:33:19 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
R. A. Salvatore would be proud of you this day...
[deleted] ยท 2163 points ยท Posted at 17:23:41 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Enhance
Toror ยท 1555 points ยท Posted at 18:20:29 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Enhanced
XoidObioX ยท 527 points ยท Posted at 18:26:04 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Enhance
ThatsNotFRE401 ยท 2569 points ยท Posted at 18:48:41 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Enhanced.
8e8 ยท 498 points ยท Posted at 18:51:16 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
This one really shows the details.
Aanon89 ยท 176 points ยท Posted at 19:04:10 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Man nature is awesomely beautiful
scrubzork ยท 50 points ยท Posted at 21:00:12 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I respect your feelings about man nature.
SpikeShroom ยท 12 points ยท Posted at 21:09:49 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
crazy how nature do dat
[deleted] ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 15:06:43 on February 22, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
You donโt think it be like it is but it do.
ChampionOfTheSunAhhh ยท 14 points ยท Posted at 19:12:13 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I need one with the Fibonacci spiral
Unidangoofed ยท 9 points ยท Posted at 20:22:48 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
You can even see the quarks in that one ๐ค.
trueluck3 ยท 9 points ยท Posted at 20:51:32 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
More JPEG!!
bmlzootown ยท 7 points ยท Posted at 21:03:47 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
MORE JPEG!!!
SaucyLettuce ยท 6 points ยท Posted at 21:56:37 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
EVEN MORE JPEG!!!
Forbidden_Froot ยท 42 points ยท Posted at 18:58:29 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Has science gone too far?
Adhiboy ยท 56 points ยท Posted at 18:56:32 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Hey is this photoshopped
ayram3824 ยท 22 points ยท Posted at 19:11:59 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
itโs not. iโve seen many shoops in my lifetime trust me
throwaway_ghast ยท 10 points ยท Posted at 19:44:05 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I'm a curator of pixels and I can confirm that these are indeed pixels.
KimJongIlSunglasses ยท -2 points ยท Posted at 20:21:27 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Itโs MS Painted.
GarlekJr ยท 5 points ยท Posted at 19:17:49 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Now zoom.
stealthscrape ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 18:56:34 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
/thread. Can't get any more detailed than that.
nulleureka ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 19:01:03 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
this is gorgeous. nature is amazing.
JDGWI ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 19:09:45 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I thought this was going to be Peyton Manning again
xMASSIVKILLx ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 20:50:16 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
On this day we are all hydrogen atoms.
moon__lander ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 22:57:56 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
now needs more jpeg
A9M4D ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 21:06:37 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Enhanced
rymarks ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 19:28:12 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Needs more jpeg
1975-2050 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 19:31:51 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
just breathtaking
E-Mouse ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 20:56:46 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
ENHANCE!
sunset_vertigo ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 21:09:16 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Dat vignette, nice...
Crusty_Dick ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 22:57:37 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Lmao
HernaniStyle ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 23:09:49 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I let out a big โhahโ on the subway for this. Good meme bruther.
inversesquare-1 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 00:25:25 on February 22, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
fuck go back
liverfailure ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 05:29:38 on February 22, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
why I still love Reddit
bellapippin ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 13:39:04 on February 22, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Enhanced.
Jayt130 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 18:59:34 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Enhance
realizmbass ยท 90 points ยท Posted at 18:47:53 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Enhanced
HookedOnOogaChaka ยท 63 points ยท Posted at 19:06:56 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Enhanced.
alotta_freckles ยท 20 points ยท Posted at 18:50:20 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
*Nice. * You can really make out the electrons.
----_____---- ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 19:19:08 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Hydrogen...electronS...?
alotta_freckles ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 19:40:20 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Oh, sorry. "/s"
JayhawkRacer ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 20:47:30 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Proton, electron, and Peyton.
aew360 ยท 5 points ยท Posted at 18:56:12 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Fuck yeah
SmitefulAres ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 19:00:40 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Thought the one posted a minute before yours would be this just because of the gold. Good shit on the enhancement still
[deleted] ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 00:14:39 on February 22, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
[deleted]
realizmbass ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 01:04:55 on February 22, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Me
Texas451 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 03:42:04 on February 22, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Damnit
PM_ME_CLITS_ASAP ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 20:27:02 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Wow how did they manage to take a picture of that?
TheRealestMush ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 21:27:22 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Truly a scientific marvel. Thanks for this.
Jumbuck_Tuckerbag ยท -1 points ยท Posted at 18:48:38 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Enhanced
[deleted] ยท -3 points ยท Posted at 18:57:14 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Enhanced.
https://m.imgur.com/gallery/v5bR4
CAT_JESUS ยท 9 points ยท Posted at 19:19:23 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Decent album art potential
TackyMan ยท 5 points ยท Posted at 03:23:32 on February 22, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KSGWsmR4ipM
mr_droopy_butthole ยท 4 points ยท Posted at 18:49:17 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Needs more jpeg
Toror ยท 9 points ยท Posted at 19:26:48 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Dehanced
mr_droopy_butthole ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 19:43:47 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Needs about 7x more jpeg
SabroToothTiger ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 20:00:09 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
About 7x more jpeg
mr_droopy_butthole ยท 5 points ยท Posted at 20:04:43 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
We are getting there boys. We have almost come full circle. Letโs try seven times more JPEG!
SabroToothTiger ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 20:11:06 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
About 7x more jpeg
Quillava ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 20:26:20 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Can we do 5x more PNG?
theproblemdoctor ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 20:38:36 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
5x more PNG https://m.imgur.com/a/TOZJO
the_obese_otter ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 20:54:29 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Perfect.
SabroToothTiger ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 20:45:40 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I tried
ayojamface ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 19:22:56 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Needs more Jpeg
pepperman7 ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 18:49:02 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I think I did it wrong.
Effendoor ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 20:35:37 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Does this trick work on my penis?
[deleted] ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 22:07:07 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Why doesn't this guy get gold but the paint poster does? Reddit is weird.
ict316 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 18:58:59 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I feel like the center is pulsing
BAXterBEDford ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 00:04:13 on February 22, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Georgia O'Keefe
tasty_tantalizer ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 03:07:22 on February 22, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Make bigger
[deleted] ยท 204 points ยท Posted at 17:37:29 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
[removed]
[deleted] ยท 146 points ยท Posted at 17:38:12 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
[removed]
MonstercatSpedup ยท 121 points ยท Posted at 17:39:33 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Enhance
[deleted] ยท 94 points ยท Posted at 17:40:00 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
[removed]
Physfaxe ยท 87 points ยท Posted at 17:50:52 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Enhance
Velvet_Thunder ยท 75 points ยท Posted at 17:54:09 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
E n h a n c e
starchington ยท 236 points ยท Posted at 17:55:13 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Enhance
impressflow ยท 30 points ยท Posted at 17:57:21 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Enhance
Purple-Turtle_ ยท 50 points ยท Posted at 17:56:44 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Enhance
Wllew4 ยท 53 points ยท Posted at 17:57:22 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Enhance
akawind ยท 5 points ยท Posted at 17:57:57 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Enhance
charliewr ยท 4 points ยท Posted at 18:36:44 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Enhance
nahtazu ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 22:18:03 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Enhance
Ziograffiato ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 18:38:55 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
In hands
dadfrombrad ยท -2 points ยท Posted at 18:43:51 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Enchant
bert0ld0 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 19:05:47 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Enchance
SuperSMT ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 18:59:19 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Incant
jadenpls ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 20:31:59 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
inplants
mallchin ยท -3 points ยท Posted at 18:05:54 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Magnify
needkneadkneed ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 18:06:52 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Enhance
Brlja ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 18:29:09 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Ehrnanze
Lil_Broomstick ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 18:16:37 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
FUCC GO BACK!
someguysomewhere573 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 18:09:29 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
ecnahnE
Kernal_Carnage ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 18:31:26 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Enhance
[deleted] ยท 12 points ยท Posted at 18:22:14 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Just print the damn thing!!
[deleted] ยท 8 points ยท Posted at 18:24:10 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Enhance
jg1245 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 18:26:28 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
One more time now
DarkenedSonata ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 18:42:02 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
EอองอฏฬฬออาฬชฬฬฬฬฆฬฬอNอจฬฟอฬฬออฬซฬฬผฬHฬฟอฅฬ ฬขาาฬณฬAฬฬออาอฬฬคNฬอซฬฬฟฬฬงอ ฬอฬบฬฏCอฬฬฬทฬจอฬฬฬณฬชฬอฬชEฬ ฬอออฆฬฟฬพอญอฬนฬฑฬณออฬฬ
TheMindsGutter ยท 37 points ยท Posted at 18:09:55 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I fucking love Reddit for this shit
ijustwant2argueagain ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 19:06:51 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I honestly resent it, but god love ya for being so positive
padiwik ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 20:35:29 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
i lik you
lukethe ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 22:42:58 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
mmmmmmlem
DankPandora ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 18:54:15 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Trust me, I was thinking recently if I'm ever trying to convince someone to join reddit how do you explain this shit that goes on haha
thekeen ยท 23 points ยท Posted at 18:00:38 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
e x i s t e n c e . e x e located
BrockN ยท 20 points ยท Posted at 18:17:35 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
delete
shadeXfusion ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 18:19:01 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
DELETE!
Magikpoo ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 18:23:13 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Dereet!
Stackhouse_ ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 23:35:51 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Order existence
Fapiness ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 18:50:38 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
What happened here
Murgie ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 18:55:40 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
๐๐ต๐ธ๐ท๐ฎ
TijuanaFlow ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 19:24:58 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Why would someone gild this?
barkooka1 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 18:47:31 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
What. How did you get gold.
[deleted] ยท 20 points ยท Posted at 17:40:29 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Enhance
Elaxendor ยท 21 points ยท Posted at 17:42:10 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Enhance
Chrimmm ยท 24 points ยท Posted at 17:43:20 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I think we may have found our killer
sneaklepete ยท 16 points ยท Posted at 17:46:29 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
"Dr. Manhattan. Of course, you can't trust a man that never wears pants."
[deleted] ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 18:26:45 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Itโs true look at anyone who ever trusted the romans
idrankforthegov ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 18:29:20 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Who is dr. Manhattan? The original was from blade runner
chris28ish ยท 14 points ยท Posted at 17:48:38 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Enhance
LordPoopFart ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 18:52:22 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Unsubscribe
ohioland ยท 6 points ยท Posted at 17:40:15 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Magnify that death sphere!
steakmm ยท 43 points ยท Posted at 17:49:56 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
JUST PRINT THE DAMN THING
[deleted] ยท 7 points ยท Posted at 17:52:01 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
[deleted]
Im_your_dingleberry ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 18:34:43 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Me too. Saw Heffernan and Lemme a week or two ago. Love those guys.
iamnos ยท 6 points ยท Posted at 18:21:05 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WwnI0RS6J5A
DrRakdos ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 18:24:51 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Found our perp
FusilliJerri ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 18:25:39 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Make look bigger.
Pst04 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 18:30:50 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Enhance?
waal70 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 18:44:07 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
We call this โcoarseโ in the aggregate business
mitchlats22 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 18:53:07 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I'm from Google. Google show me this guys' balls please....enhance...enhance
mazu74 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 20:18:39 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
JUST PRINT THE DAMN THING
fart_fig_newton ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 22:30:38 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
JUST GRAB THE DAMN SNATCH!!!
GingerLegs ยท 2096 points ยท Posted at 17:43:37 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
If you zoom in close enough you can see the back of your head.
vmack7 ยท 701 points ยท Posted at 18:33:51 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I donโt know if this was the commenters intent, But thereโs a short story I read on here a while ago that dealt with quantum computers and eventually they became so advanced that they were able to view the back of your head on a monitor by re-creating the universe. Or something like that canโt remember
ImInPhx ยท 436 points ยท Posted at 18:49:24 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Here's the short story you're referencing.
[1]There are some other really great stories worth reading over there. Here's a list of the other short stories.
[1]
I don't know, Timmy, being God is a big responsibility
hfv01 ยท 132 points ยท Posted at 18:52:59 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
My friend, I have been looking for this link for YEARS. THANK YOU!
ImInPhx ยท 89 points ยท Posted at 18:55:23 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I can now say that I've been productive today.
fdm001 ยท 8 points ยท Posted at 22:22:10 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
that makes one of us
blasto_blastocyst ยท 5 points ยท Posted at 23:20:25 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Only if you don't observe yourself.
[deleted] ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 10:56:43 on February 22, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I feel more productive reading your comment
confirmation bias is a bitch
hfv01 ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 15:03:20 on February 25, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Got lost reading the stories for a sec my dude, thanks again!
tommy_needs_a_mango ยท 5 points ยท Posted at 01:30:32 on February 22, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
That was an AMAZING read. Thank you so much !!!!!!
R34CTz ยท 25 points ยท Posted at 19:32:46 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Now that was an awesome read. Are there more like This? I love this stuff.
ImInPhx ยท 29 points ยท Posted at 19:53:55 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Here a few I really enjoyed from the same site. These four stories are kind of in the same universe.
Film Maker
The Last-But-One Question
Gorge
Valuable Humans In Transit
xcosmicwaffle69 ยท 12 points ยท Posted at 20:57:27 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Here's another good one.
http://www.galactanet.com/oneoff/theegg_mod.html
R34CTz ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 22:17:12 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Oh yea that was good.
AstroAlmost ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 04:28:28 on February 22, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
That's the author of The Marian, right?
xcosmicwaffle69 ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 05:51:35 on February 22, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
You got it! Good story teller, i think the Martian was his firt novel.
RaulRene ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 12:20:09 on February 22, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I remember reading this one and couldn't find it since. Thanks! Very nice read
satiricalspider ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 22:30:55 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
By awesome read do you mean it made you question your very existence, because you could be the version of you in the recreation?
R34CTz ยท -5 points ยท Posted at 22:33:21 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Unfortunately no, because I absolutely do not believe in reincarnation, i just found it interesting to read and think about. It would be nice to have an entire book based off of this, or a movie series where the mc becomes a god a few episodes before the end.
GIAway ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 23:38:23 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Reincarnation?
R34CTz ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 00:01:30 on February 22, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I was preoccupied, i misread the comment, thought he said reincarnation but he said recreation. Either way, i don't believe in reincarnation, that's just me. Not sure why I was downvoted for that. It's still an awesome short story.
GIAway ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 08:26:13 on February 22, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Unfortunately no, because I absolutely do not believe in the misread comment, i just found it interesting to read and think about. It would be nice to have an entire book based off of this, or a movie series where you become a god a few episodes before the end.
R34CTz ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 19:39:57 on February 22, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
You can believe what you want, i misread it. Tbh I'm not even sure what he meant by recreation. I missed something somewhere obviously. I was eating and trying to work numbers for a bid I was writing up so my mind was elsewhere when I read the comment and replied. Doesn't matter though.
Perpetually27 ยท 6 points ยท Posted at 19:43:57 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
That was a fun read. Thank you for sharing.
y2k2r2d2 ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 20:19:42 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Is it Now Now.
cheeseitmeatbags ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 05:09:40 on February 22, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Ra is such a good story. needs to be a movie.
Odder1 ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 01:54:27 on July 22, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
This is quite Interesting
ImInPhx ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 03:19:09 on July 22, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Enjoy it!
Slow night, yeah? Me too. Not too often I get a comment on a 5 month old comment.
Odder1 ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 03:37:22 on July 22, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Lol, very slow night. When you wrote that comment i used to be able to walk lmao
ImInPhx ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 04:47:26 on July 22, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Ouch man. I creeped and saw your post about the atv accident. Hope you have a good recovery.
Odder1 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 04:53:09 on July 22, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Tbh that damn thing is in better shape than me, like damn. But in a few months iโll be able to walk again and fully recover!
maxfortitude ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 23:55:49 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Your list is missing โThe Egg.โ
I deem it incomplete.
alexhaase ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 06:25:01 on February 22, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
"it's super-duper"
Sloi ยท 210 points ยท Posted at 18:44:30 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I think he was referring to a Simpsons intro. Homer ends up saying "woooooooooooooooooow..."
What you're referring to is I don't know, Timmy, being God is a big responsibility...
thechilipepper0 ยท 8 points ยท Posted at 19:44:34 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
That was a great read
timmy12688 ยท 7 points ยท Posted at 19:45:55 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
me too thanks
is_that_a_question ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 20:02:03 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Woooooow commenting with both references, nice!
VelSparko ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 21:22:23 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
They've re-used that Simpsons opening in a few more recent episodes. The one I remember has Marge ask him when he comes on, "Did you get the milk?" and then he sighs.
[deleted] ยท 28 points ยท Posted at 18:48:43 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
[deleted]
Edgefactor ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 00:06:26 on February 22, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
But not at the same time
Jumbuck_Tuckerbag ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 18:46:13 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Remember what it was called?
thebigcupodirt ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 18:50:06 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Another commenter beat me to it, but the story is called I donโt know, Timmy, being God is a big responsibility.
stanhhh ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 18:52:04 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I don't know Timmy
infinite-regression ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 19:24:23 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Ever heard of a simulaverse?
Ivan_Whackinov ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 20:01:34 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
All you really need is a piece of fairy cake.
Bacon_Hero ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 20:24:48 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Faceback!
[deleted] ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 20:46:42 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
New porn concept .. They will call it the 'ol Over/Under
Rocketbird ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 23:47:27 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
The Rubest of Rube Goldberg Machines
Dookie_boy ยท 318 points ยท Posted at 18:23:19 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
What
AreYouDeaf ยท 1076 points ยท Posted at 18:23:38 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
IF YOU ZOOM IN CLOSE ENOUGH YOU CAN SEE THE BACK OF YOUR HEAD.
Xnics ยท 277 points ยท Posted at 18:26:07 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
username checks out, thank you for your service
ryzikx ยท 68 points ยท Posted at 18:55:30 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
It's a bot
DerpTe ยท 23 points ยท Posted at 19:05:43 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
What
ChampionOfTheSunAhhh ยท 51 points ยท Posted at 19:09:39 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
IF YOU ZOOM IN CLOSE ENOUGH YOU CAN SEE THE BACK OF YOUR HEAD.
ScottishCheese ยท 17 points ยท Posted at 19:13:17 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Wait a minute...
shawarma_law ยท 5 points ยท Posted at 20:23:19 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Itโs a human.
[deleted] ยท 8 points ยท Posted at 20:34:47 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
[deleted]
Army88strong ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 22:52:15 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
IF YOU ZOOM IN CLOSE ENOUGH YOU CAN SEE THE BACK OF YOUR HEAD.
ichhabehundertkatzen ยท 5 points ยท Posted at 19:25:56 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Love the username!
Snolidsteak ยท 4 points ยท Posted at 19:35:12 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
AH-AHHH-AHHHHHHHH!!
KimJongIlSunglasses ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 20:18:34 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Oh now I see it.
Electric_Evil ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 19:29:59 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
You can't lock up the darkness
Anjunabeast ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 20:26:04 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
How do I know youโre not a bot?
TaylorSwiftTrapLord ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 19:05:49 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I dont think so.
Winkelkater ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 20:22:23 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
what?
bacondev ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 21:32:34 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
!isbot AreYouDeaf
ryzikx ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 21:33:17 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Yes
bacondev ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 21:34:25 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Hey, you're not /u/perrycohen!
[deleted] ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 21:35:11 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
เฒ _เฒ
bacondev ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 21:40:49 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Oh god, it's become sentient! Everybody run!
DwayneWonder ยท 5 points ยท Posted at 18:49:02 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Lol.
[deleted] ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 18:51:37 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
lol I love what u do
turnpikenorth ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 19:11:06 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
goodbot
ellsve ยท 4 points ยท Posted at 18:26:08 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
What?
RuffledFeathers411 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 19:06:46 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
What?
[deleted] ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 19:50:13 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
[deleted]
Yu5or ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 23:19:25 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
HAHA YES FELLOW HUMAN ROBOTS, REALLY ARE STUPID COMPARED TO US SUPERIOR HUMAN BEINGS HAHAHA
robot_turtle ยท 6 points ยท Posted at 18:37:34 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
YO SKIN BITCH LOOKS SMOOTH
Melijuanaa ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 18:59:48 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
What?
DGT-exe ยท 25 points ยท Posted at 18:31:04 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I don't get it.
chazoid ยท 61 points ยท Posted at 18:32:04 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Existence is an infinite loop from infinite angles
EliieTheGlutton ยท 19 points ยท Posted at 18:33:22 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
How.
Hunterkiller00 ยท 82 points ยท Posted at 18:34:12 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Given enough time and pressure, hydrogen eventually starts pondering its place in the universe.
rnrigfts ยท 20 points ยท Posted at 20:03:17 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Give it student loans to speed up the process.
I_Work_For_The_GovT ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 11:12:30 on February 22, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Too much pressure!
thealmightyzfactor ยท 10 points ยท Posted at 19:04:26 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
https://xkcd.com/1123/
pez777 ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 21:22:24 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
The answer is 42
chazoid ยท 13 points ยท Posted at 18:34:05 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
You'd have to ask whoever's in charge
KattheImpaler8 ยท 4 points ยท Posted at 18:35:06 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Since its just one atom id say its 1+ charged
NegativeGPA ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 18:41:29 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Itโs gotta be neutral or we wouldnโt see the distribution of the electron
Mothafucka
[deleted] ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 18:59:04 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Could be -1 since it's s orbital could be filled. Hydrides aren't super unusual.
benmarvin ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 18:51:35 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Time is a flat circle
18hockey ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 18:57:25 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ycvlJ9XMd94
boatmurdered ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 19:18:33 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Monads!
[deleted] ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 18:48:35 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
[deleted]
[deleted] ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 19:29:40 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Can't move from one possibility to the next if everything happens at once. Can't have moments when everything happens at once either.
JabawaJackson ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 19:55:02 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
You can though. It's our perception of the universe as beings stuck in the 4th dimension, which is time. Much like an ant in an ant farm only perceiving it's universe as the ant farm. Or the example of being born in a cave, only being able to face the direction of the wall with shadows being cast on it from outside. Your perception of the universe would be limited by your lack of knowledge of existence beyond the cave. To you, life only exists as the shadows.
[deleted] ยท 4 points ยท Posted at 20:01:49 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
No, you can't. Everything happening at once implies there is no time which means there is no next or there aren't any distinct moments. You can't have both things because they're mutually exclusive. If you admit a "next" possibility or another "moment" then you admit everything isn't happening at once. This is the biggest fault anyone who thinks they're clever by saying there is no such thing as time always fall down on. It's impossible to frame anything in a series or any type of temporal order. It's impossible to even discuss these things without actually implying time exists. How can you reply to my comment if there isn't time? What you write is dependent on what you read from my comment. If they happen at the same time, that doesn't work. The saddest thing we lose if everything happens at once is music. Music is the very essence of time. To say that everything happens at once and there is no time is to say that music doesn't exist.
You may as well be trying to say there is no above or below or in front or behind or even space at all. This is largely just word salad you have going on.
JabawaJackson ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 20:07:14 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Space and time aren't separate. We even use the two interchangeably as measurements for distance. ( I'll be at x in around xx minutes; it'll take be a x hour drive; star x is x light years away; etc.) Not sure which of us is more confused with the other. I'm don't think I'm "clever", I'm just a loser that watches a lot of cosmos and star trek.
[deleted] ยท 5 points ยท Posted at 20:10:57 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Sure, space and time aren't separate. That does not mean everything is happening at once. In fact, pretty much everything about relativity involves things not happening all at once.
KattheImpaler8 ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 18:39:52 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Somewhat unrelated (maybe) but if you were to stand eye level with the event horizon of a black hole you would see light bend due to the โorbitโ of gravitationally bound photons
rayzman18 ยท 80 points ยท Posted at 17:57:34 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
STOOOOOOP
[deleted] ยท 44 points ยท Posted at 18:32:49 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Collaborate and listen
Scrawlericious ยท 13 points ยท Posted at 18:36:04 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Ice is back with a brand new addition
[deleted] ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 18:43:34 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
[deleted]
Scrawlericious ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 18:46:58 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I'm not so sure
[deleted] ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 18:47:31 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
[deleted]
phadewilkilu ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 18:49:30 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
And wrong.
[deleted] ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 20:21:17 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
At the same time
Nole_in_ATX ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 20:54:07 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Something
boatmurdered ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 19:14:34 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Chimi chimi chimi
BigDolo ยท -1 points ยท Posted at 18:41:02 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Hammer time!
[deleted] ยท 5 points ยท Posted at 18:38:41 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Simpsons example
[deleted] ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 20:53:33 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I zoomed in the maximum and still didn't see my luscious golden locks.
justgraduated12 ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 21:00:42 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
The back of yo head is ridikulus
Shaggyfort1e ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 22:53:50 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
https://gfycat.com/AdorableSingleBallpython
SadPandalorian ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 23:41:52 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I get sucked into a freaking vortex on my day off.
GeorgiaOKeefinItReal ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 18:43:15 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
pssst... hey hydrogen, your 1s is showing
Lord_of_N00bs_ ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 18:33:41 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Enhance
boatmurdered ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 19:06:43 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
SMACK
bluesox ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 19:08:31 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I see Pluto (the dog).
JamesIgnatius27 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 19:18:49 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I never noticed how quarky the back of my head looks...
ljferguson94 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 20:14:34 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
You can also see Donald Trump's hands if you zoom in past that
BatPlack ยท 306 points ยท Posted at 16:53:56 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
A boy and his atom
How the video was made
sothatsathingnow ยท 25 points ยท Posted at 18:30:19 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
The building blocks of life used to make doodles. What a time to be alive.
scatteredthroughtime ยท 16 points ยท Posted at 18:39:43 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Technically the building blocks of everything that's matter.
jdallen1222 ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 20:42:02 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
But what about dark memes?
boatmurdered ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 20:51:20 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
The first one was a dick.
akawind ยท 68 points ยท Posted at 18:05:02 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
This making of is far better than the actual clip.
dangolo ยท 29 points ยท Posted at 18:20:47 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Worth watching just for hearing the atom move, wow
Jimmeh_Jazz ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 22:57:28 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
It doesn't actually make a sound, it's just some feedback that you can get from the STM (probably the changes in current measured when dragging the CO molecules) that helps them see how many spaces on the substrate that the CO has moved along. The software turns it into a sound.
KQ2eZPackers ยท 17 points ยท Posted at 18:30:05 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Are you criticizing a movie made out of fucking atoms?
AmazingGnatman ยท 19 points ยท Posted at 18:35:59 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Arenโt all movies made of atoms tho
StoppedLurking_ZoeQ ยท 4 points ยท Posted at 21:55:34 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Smokes blunt
[deleted] ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 02:13:15 on February 22, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
They had more atoms in the second clip. Not a fair comparison.
jayrod111 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 04:47:06 on February 23, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Agreed
Seakawn ยท 9 points ยท Posted at 18:33:38 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
So, uh... /r/nostupidquestions time.
Where do they get the atoms? Like... break off some pencil lead, and then just take whatever atoms they want from it?
And I thought atoms were everywhere, even empty air is full of oxygen and stuff--so why does it look like there's empty space?
So much curiosity about nanotechnology, and so little knowledge of even basic chemistry.
MazzyFo ยท 6 points ยท Posted at 18:38:14 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Atom was probably suspended in an electric field for the image. Unsure where they got the atom from, but hydrogen is in nearly everything that isnโt a pure compound, or they could have just purchased a sample of pure hydrogen if they didnโt make it themselves.
Edit: quick search indicates image was taken via a quantum microscope. This picture isnโt exactly what an atom โlooksโ like, since we canโt qualify such a thing with the naked eye. The colors are wave functions of the electronโs orbital over time (probably not very much time, electron movement happens at a quantum level, think Schrodingers Cat) whereas red is a more traveled path, and blue is less traveled. Basically this is more like a visual/ graphical representation of what the atomโs quantum properties look like in space.
As for your question about the single atom, I couldnโt find much info on that, itโs possible the diffraction (light scattering) method to detect the H were set to only encompass the size of a single atom, maybe by a B or E field spreading the atoms proportionally.
Iโm more of a biochem guy so if anyone finds errors in my assumptions feel free to correct me!
Edit 2: words n stuff
yodadamanadamwan ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 18:49:59 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
they probably separated H2 and suspended it in an electric field.
Jimmeh_Jazz ยท 7 points ยท Posted at 23:04:31 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
If you're asking about the boy and his atom video, I can help because I use a machine very similar to the one they use (a scanning tunneling microscope) in my PhD.
They have a very flat copper surface, which they clean inside a vacuum chamber by firing ions at it (usually a noble gas) to 'sputter' material off (basically firing something with lots of energy at the surface and blasting stuff off at an atomic level), then heating it up to reform the flat surface.
They then leak some carbon monoxide gas into the vacuum chamber, which then sticks to the copper surface (forming a kind of bond with it). The blobs in the video are not actually single atoms, but CO molecules that sit with the carbon sticking to the copper and the oxygen pointing up.
They then use something called a scanning tunneling microscope (STM) to drag the molecules around on the surface to the places that they want - this is because the molecule can feel an attraction to the tip. An STM is a machine for imaging conductive surfaces to a very small level, with resolution below 1nm. It works by something called quantum tunneling. Basically, a sharp metal tip is held very close (but not touching) to a surface. When it gets close you can get a current flowing between them via some quantum mechanical magic. This current is very sensitive to the height of the tip above the surface (and other things, which make the explanation more complicated than I want), so you can use it to map out surfaces and see where all the 'bumps' are.
The grey around the CO molecules is just the surface. You can't see the surface atoms properly there because you have to use different tunneling currents/voltages to see those usually, which involves the tip going close to the surface. This would start moving the CO molecules around so they don't image it like that. Here is an example of a copper (111) surface atomic resolution:
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Germar_Hoffmann/publication/23557321/figure/fig8/AS:294415148044318@1447205449612/Atomic-resolution-of-a-Cu111-surface-with-a-line-profile-The-corrugation-is-20-pm.png
[deleted] ยท 5 points ยท Posted at 17:56:30 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
This reminds me of Bioshock 4 some reason.
[deleted] ยท 13 points ยท Posted at 18:17:03 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Unless I'm missing something, there are only 3 Bioshock titles...
[deleted] ยท 6 points ยท Posted at 18:33:21 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I feel like a Bioshock 4 would basically ruin everything good about the first 3.
BioDefault ยท 5 points ยท Posted at 18:33:30 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
He probably meant it as "for".
[deleted] ยท 5 points ยท Posted at 19:26:09 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Ah, I didnt even realize he omitted the word 'for'. My brain just automatically put it there.
galacticengine ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 18:48:54 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Prey is basically Bioshock 4
[deleted] ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 19:29:50 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
4 - for*
but I can dream, can I?...
Roar_Im_A_Nice_Bear ยท 8 points ยท Posted at 18:17:43 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Wait there's a Bioshock 4
fakethelake ยท 9 points ยท Posted at 18:32:29 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Trending Google Searches for Bioshock 4
I'm curious to see how much these posts will have an affect on the search trends
boatmurdered ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 20:51:49 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
effect = change
affect = emotion
micromoses ยท 4 points ยท Posted at 18:40:02 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
He used the number 4 in place of the word "for" for some reason.
Sciphis ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 18:28:49 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Bio shock Infinite?
SingleLensReflex ยท 4 points ยท Posted at 18:31:21 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
But that was the third Bioshock, no?
soil_nerd ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 02:56:37 on February 22, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
โIf I can get get a 1,000 kids to go into science rather than go to law school, Iโve done a wonderful thingโ. Lol.
Neckbeardacus ยท 457 points ยท Posted at 17:53:30 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I need that camera so I can finally take some good dick pics
MyTakeHomePayIsZero ยท 79 points ยท Posted at 18:33:44 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Username checks out
boatmurdered ยท 5 points ยท Posted at 20:54:27 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
It's an older username, but it checks out.
heisenberg747 ยท 5 points ยท Posted at 19:17:38 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Don't be so hard on yourself.
R3DSH0X ยท 8 points ยท Posted at 20:52:56 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
He can't be hard in the first place
CheeseSteakJimmys777 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 19:54:17 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Same
MeGustaDerp ยท 552 points ยท Posted at 17:39:15 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I was told there would be more than one hydrogen atom...
bassinastor ยท 293 points ยท Posted at 17:54:57 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
You joke, but isnโt that the point of atoms? All atoms of the same type are identical. That really is the hydrogen atom.
ActivatingEMP ยท 136 points ยท Posted at 17:57:05 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Isotopes are different though
Agilability ยท 39 points ยท Posted at 18:24:05 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Would you even see a neutron or two though? I skimmed but I thought this was just measuring the electron orbital?
LasagnaMuncher ยท 49 points ยท Posted at 18:33:49 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
You would not see the nucleus. The imaging technique used in the image is Scanning Tunneling Microscopy, which is the highest resolution imaging technique available to our species at present. This microscope moves a needle across a surface and essentially (very simplified picture) squirts electrons either at the sample or sucks one from the sample. Depending on the amount of electrons it gets from that spot, it can determine the distance away from the sample, creating a topological map. Considering the very low energy levels required for this technique to work, it can not probe into the nucleus.
rebelx ยท 25 points ยท Posted at 18:47:04 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
You said "our species."
Are there other species that have this power?
glenomenon ยท 27 points ยท Posted at 19:13:47 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I'm pretty sure any self-respecting scientist would answer that question with "we don't know."
[deleted] ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 20:50:50 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
[deleted]
Quaalude_Dude ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 03:40:51 on February 22, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
That's thinking on too small a scale. On Earth? Yea "probably not". But keeping in mind a universe of billions of galaxies that are each full of billions of stars and trillions of planets I'd imagine their answer is "probably yes".
BrainOnLoan ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 09:09:06 on February 22, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
If you pressed them, I think most would say "probably yes"/ "quite likely".
The universe is a really big place. Even if life is rare, multicellular even rarer, and technological civilization truly scarce ... the numbers are still likely quite large by our reckoning. That said, we don't know.
LeaksLikeYourMom ยท 13 points ยท Posted at 18:57:48 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Not from a Jedi.
Tyrinnus ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 19:30:28 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Dolphins. So long and thanks for all the fish
boatmurdered ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 19:23:04 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Yes.
Liamb2179 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 18:46:20 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Is this stm or AFM?
LookBehindYoo ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 18:52:43 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
This is STM, tunnelling microscopy.
Liamb2179 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 18:53:28 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Ah cool
boatmurdered ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 19:22:39 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Exactly. This is an image of a perfect best guess.
[deleted] ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 21:31:14 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
[deleted]
LasagnaMuncher ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 03:15:12 on February 22, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
The needle either has a positive or negative voltage bias relative to the sample surface. This creates a lowered barrier for electrons to pass between the tip and sample. However, the potential barrier is still greater within the tip to confine the local electrons. But that barrier is small enough that a quantum tunneled electron current is detectable. This is the signal that is seen. The amount of tunneled current then becomes a function of the material's work function (look up photoelectric effect for more details) and the distance between the tip and surface. Generally speaking, the function of signal is far more sensitive to the distance between the tip and sample than different materials' work functions, so this technique is more useful for microscopic topology than for nanoscale spectroscopy. I don't know of people using it for the latter purpose specifically, but I am sure people do it.
I am loving your questions. Your curiosity makes you a prime candidate for STEM. The tip process totally blew my mind with how simple it is. You cut a wire at an angle with wire cutters and use the sharp end as your tip and start taking some of the highest resolution images in our species' history. That's literally it. It's fucking crazy, right? If your tip sucked, your images suck and you have to cut another. You would agree that the closest distance between two points is a straight line, correct? What about the shortest distance between a point and a plane? A straight line from the point to the plane directly beneath it. Because the amount of current of this technique is dependent on the distance, a vast majority of your signal is coming from the point directly beneath the tip. If, however, you have a large surface rise to the side of the tip, you will start getting signal from over there and not directly below the tip. How that would manifest itself in the image is a brighter pixel than it should be. This is a common type of imaging artifact with the probe microscopy techniques. This problem is one factor that contributes to the limitations of the technique.
This technique is very unlike particle accelerators (LHC). In that case they create a beam of subatomic particles zipping around at something like 99.9999% the speed of light and use external magnetic fields to curl the beam around the track and magnify the beam to a small interaction cross-sectional area at the detectors to increase the rates of collision. One in every perhaps quadrillion particles from one beam actually make contact with a particle in the beam going in the opposite direction. Because the the particle is moving so fast, they are essentially pancaked versions of their resting geometry (look up special relativity's space contractions for more details) and they almost never strike perfectly and are almost always a glancing blow. The energy of that collision is so god damn high (we're talking temperatures like 100000000000000000000000 degrees C) that matter involved in the collision decays directly into energy, cools down, and then coalesces back into matter. But the matter that it returns to may not be something that we are familiar with, so that is why we study it -- to see what particles pop out of the collision. So, you can see that this is quite different from Scanning Tunneling Microscopy.
The field of Physics contains the answers to the questions you seek. It is very rewarding.
[deleted] ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 12:04:18 on February 22, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
[deleted]
LasagnaMuncher ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 19:14:11 on February 22, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I am a current PhD student. I specialize in solid state physics, which makes use of various microscopy techniques, including of the probe microscopy variety. My understanding of particle physics comes from coursework and I have almost no hands-on experience in the field.
JayStar1213 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 18:50:51 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
This is just off the top of my head but, Hydrogen is made up of 1 proton. Thus it has 1 electron in a neutral configuration. The ring you see around the massive internal blob is the electron orbital 1s.
As for what appears to be an inner ring, I suspect is still just the nucleus. Remember this is a picture of a quantum system meaning it has an exposure time to gather information. This fact illustrates the concept of electron orbitals well, since when we consider the electron as a particle with mass it has a probabilistic density of where it physically is. The flip side of this is that it will also capture the much more massive particle's (the proton's) energy. However a proton isn't really just a single particle, it is comprised of 3 known particles and that likely contributes to the blob in the image. Honestly could be way off here.
SingleLensReflex ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 18:34:06 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I assumed the red was the concentration of mass that represents a proton.
boatmurdered ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 19:21:47 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Of course different things will be different! But the same things will be the same.
ActivatingEMP ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 21:01:15 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
But what about when same things are different and different things are same? ๐ค
boatmurdered ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 17:26:03 on February 22, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Same things are same and different things are different! Easy!
[deleted] ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 18:41:35 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Isotopes are such bastards, drive people with OCD absolutely mad they do.
bassinastor ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 19:15:07 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Thatโs kind of meant by โof the same typeโ
ActivatingEMP ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 21:00:25 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
With the context it seems more likely he meant of the same element when he said the same type. Maybe he meant to include isotopes with that wording but then those are still different from the hydrogen atom pictured.
bassinastor ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 23:00:08 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Iโm the one who wrote it lol
ActivatingEMP ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 23:28:51 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Oh mb, sorry for the technically then.
stanhhh ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 19:01:54 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
They have beards and rotating guitars
An_Innocent_Bunny ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 20:46:59 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Ions too.
[deleted] ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 03:04:18 on February 22, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
[deleted]
ActivatingEMP ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 03:38:15 on February 22, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
You can still call any hydrogen isotope hydrogen though, right?
WonkyTelescope ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 08:01:05 on February 22, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Well then all those can be their own same!
[deleted] ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 18:33:09 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
[deleted]
boatmurdered ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 19:23:51 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I am so glad someone else posted this! Zoom ping zam lil frend!
posts_lindsay_lohan ยท 70 points ยท Posted at 18:03:20 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
And the atom is just an excitation of proton, neutron, and electron fields. Like the C note on a guitar exists due to an excitation of the 3rd fret on the A string.
[deleted] ยท 32 points ยท Posted at 18:23:15 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
bruh
Turence ยท 8 points ยท Posted at 18:29:47 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
my mind... it's blown!
jayhawk1225 ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 18:46:48 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Relevant username
littlebrwnrobot ยท 17 points ยท Posted at 18:34:24 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
And those are just excitations of quark fields! And quarks are just excitations of string fields! (Maybe). But that's maybe definitely as deep as it goes
JayStar1213 ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 18:54:01 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Depends on your frame of reference. Field theory is a bit abstract for most people and atomic models do well to explain general particle physics.
While I agree field theory is far closer to an explanation of nature, most people don't have the time to put into understanding it to actually bennefit from it.
SquarePegRoundWorld ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 23:57:46 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
The Concept of Mass - with Jim Baggott is a 50 minute lecture I found that seemed to cover it in a fairly understandable way.
StuntHacks ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 18:29:58 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Yeah, basically every hydrogen atom really is the same since every electron is the same as well.
boatmurdered ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 19:28:30 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I dreamed about exactly that. We are one now.
imGnarly ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 19:29:53 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
just excite the G-Spring
tias ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 21:54:00 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
But the guitar string itself consists of atoms, which are excitations of particles. So the C note is a wave of vibrating waves. It's waves all the way down, man.
- Feynman
GrumbleSnatch ยท 4 points ยท Posted at 17:56:39 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I would like a scientist to weigh in on this: is there a difference between atoms of the same element? Edit: Guys I know what an isotope is
dalr3th1n ยท 25 points ยท Posted at 18:18:21 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I'm surprised nobody's really answered this. The answer is no, there is no difference! People correctly point out that an isotope like Hydrogen 2 is different than regular Hydrogen, but isotopes are different types of atoms. Two given atoms of the same isotope are completely identical.
FactualNeutronStar ยท 4 points ยท Posted at 18:52:47 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Two atoms of the same type could have different energies, though, correct?
dalr3th1n ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 18:59:29 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Yes, but if you charged the other atom to match, they remain indistinguishable.
Affugter ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 19:23:28 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
They will never have the same state. Or am I misreading Pauli?
dicemaze ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 19:35:04 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
IIRC, location is a part of the โstateโ of a particle, and from the conversation going on in this thread it seems like people are using โindistinguishableโ to mean โindistinguishable besides for the obvious fact that one atom is right here while the other atom is right thereโ. So if 2 electrons are identical in energy/spin/etc but not location, they still have 2 different states.
dalr3th1n ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 19:42:27 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I'm realizing that I've gotten beyond my level of expertise.
n1ywb ยท -1 points ยท Posted at 18:39:19 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
they could have differing numbers of electrons IN THE VALENCE SHELL depending on their charge
adding or subtracting one electron from the valence shell doesn't generally affect chemical or physical properties though, only electrical. The number of electrons overall is determined by the number of protons.
you can also have electrons at different energy levels and by energy level I mean different electron shells; e.g. when an atom is excited one of the electrons can jump to a higher level/shell
*edited for clarity because pedants
Dalroc ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 18:53:54 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Uhhm, the electron configuration of an atom is what decides the chemical properties of elements so it very much affects chemical properties.
Also all atoms are neutral, otherwise it's an ion.
And electrons have to exist in different energy levels as they are identical fermions and thus abide to the Pauli exclusion principle.
rsqejfwflqkj ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 19:30:57 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
The electrons determine the chemical properties, but the allowable electron states is determined by the protons in the nucleus. So really it's both.
Dalroc ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 19:52:42 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
You're not wrong, but that isn't really relevant here as the atom is the nucleus and the electrons combined, so the nucleus charge is not the same as the atoms charge as /u/n1ywb seem to think, and it's the electrons that do all the work in chemical processes so.
n1ywb ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 19:54:47 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I do not think that. What did I say that sounded like that?
Dalroc ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 20:08:29 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
It's unclear what you actually think though, because you're mostly rambling and spouting nonsense
n1ywb ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 19:26:19 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
is determined by the number of protons in the nucleus
"The number of electrons in an electrically neutral atom increases with the atomic number" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_orbital
You're just being a pedant. GTFO.
"An ion (/หaษชษn, -ษn/)[1] is an atom" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ion
"The general formula is that the nth shell can in principle hold up to 2(n2) electrons"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electron_shell
Dalroc ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 19:40:54 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Yeah, so? It's still the electron configuration that decides the chemical properties of elements.
No. And actually I was being nice, but since you're an asshole, let me be frank.. you don't know shit about what you're talking about. Your first comment sounds like a high school student who haven't paid adequate attention but still wants to sound smart.
Nice how you cut that right in the middle of a sentence. The language isn't perfect, no.
Being in the same shell is not the same as being in the same energy level. But you are a little correct, an energy level can carry two electrons with opposite spins (in the absence of an E- or B-field), but I didn't want to go into that as that would obviously be way over your head and unnecessary.
n1ywb ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 19:42:15 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atom
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electron_shell
Radon, e.g. has 32 electrons in one shell
ruetoesoftodney ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 19:58:51 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Yes and shells beyond the first begin to contain sifferent orbital geometries, like p, d or f orbitals.
Then in a molecule, these orbitals begin to hybridise to form single, double or triple bonds without violating the pauli principle.
It's turtles all the way down man.
Dalroc ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 20:07:05 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
You're really embarrassing yourself dude.. Stop it.
As I said, the language isn't perfect, especially when trying to talk about it with laymen like yourself, which is exactly what Wikipedia is all about so try looking up some better sources than Wikipedia.
An electron shell is not the same as an energy level, which is why they specify it with the "principal" epithet. (Is that the correct usage of the word "epithet" btw? Grammar is not my best subject, especially not when it's not in my native language.)
n1ywb ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 20:09:03 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/How_to_Win_Friends_and_Influence_People
Dalroc ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 20:14:27 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Look dude... I tried to point out that you were wrong without being an asshole, but you still had to bitch about it. It's obvious you lack any education within either physics or chemistry so wouldn't it just be better if you admitted to being mistaken? There's nothing wrong with being wrong.
n1ywb ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 19:40:06 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
oh I looked up https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pauli_exclusion_principle
doesn't say anything about two electrons not occupying the same energy level. it says
so it says right in the friggin example that two electrons can be in the same energy level
ruetoesoftodney ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 19:53:28 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Properties of particles such as spin and quantum numbers are sort of "energy levels". They are not exactly energy (as I understand it) but neither are they an angular rotation (spin).
Hence, two electrons in the same locatioj can never have the same "energy levels" - location, quantum numbers, spin.
n1ywb ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 19:57:02 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
In this context I'm using "energy level" as a synonym for "electron shell".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electron_shell
known elements have up to 32 electrons in one electron shell/energy level
Dalroc ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 20:11:47 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
An electron shell is still not a synonym with energy level no matter how much you want it to.
Dalroc ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 19:58:04 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
As I told you in another comment, two electrons can exist in the same energy level (when no magnetic field is present so there is no Zeeman splitting).
I didn't go into this because you show incredible ignorance on this topic and a huge hubris.
n1ywb ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 20:00:19 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I read your comment history. I encourage anybody else with any doubts about this discussion to do the same.
Dalroc ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 20:09:53 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Uhh, okay? Nice attempt at derailing the discussion mate.
[deleted] ยท 24 points ยท Posted at 18:01:47 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
[deleted]
ebquick ยท 7 points ยท Posted at 18:38:52 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
There are plenty of hydrogen ions that exist in nature as well. Which is literally just a proton
bassinastor ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 19:16:30 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
No, the joke whyโre trying to make was that the title implies thereโs only one hydrogen atom in the universe
Dalroc ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 18:49:08 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
What are you talking about? Neutral atomic hydrogen is very common throughout the Universe..
VanceIX ยท 6 points ยท Posted at 18:05:03 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Yes, you can have isotopes. Hydrogen, for example, has three relatively stable isotopes: protium (1 proton, 0 neutrons, most common by far), deuterium (1 proton, 1 neutrons, about 5000x as rare), and tritium (1 proton, 2 neutrons, only trace abundance, radioactive).
BadGoyWithAGun ยท 13 points ยท Posted at 18:24:09 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Not exactly. Hydrogen-1 (protium) has no neutrons, Hydrogen-2 (deuterium) has one neutron and Hydrogen-3 has two. The isotope number refers to the total number of nuclear particles (i.e., protons + neutrons). There are also Hydrogen-4 through Hydrogen-7, but they have decay rates far too fast to actually be found in nature and have only been produced artificially by bombarding lighter isotopes with neutron beams.
VanceIX ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 18:31:09 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
My bad, you're right. That's what I get for not checking my numbers before posting haha
KQ2eZPackers ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 18:29:10 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
That's exactly what he said
BadGoyWithAGun ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 18:29:42 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
noxumida ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 18:15:55 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Only if they have different numbers of neutrons (we call these different forms "isotopes"). Other than that, all neutrons are identical to all other neutrons and the same is true of protons and electrons.
Manticorp ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 18:29:29 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
You would not be able to tell the difference between two atoms of hydrogen, with the same number of neutrons, in the same energy state.
As far as the universe is concerned, you could swap our a hydrogen atom with a different one and there would be no difference observable.
DHMC-Reddit ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 19:59:50 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
A lot of people are responding 2 atoms of the same isotope and charge would be completely identical, but that's not entirely true.
A proton is made up of 2 up quarks and 1 down quark, however, simply and technically, you can add as many quarks onto those 2 ups and 1 down, as long as the charge cancel out.
For example, a charm quark has a charge of +2/3, while a strange quark has a charge of -1/3. A proton could be 2 up quarks, 1 down quark, a charm quark, and 2 strange quarks. It's still a proton, just heavier.
Now, this is temporary, but still, it stands that not every atom of the same charge and isotope are necessarily the same. The proton and neutrons could have temporarily fluctuating weights with more quarks as long as their charge is constant (and the necessary quarks for a proton/neutron are still there)
GrumbleSnatch ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 14:49:55 on February 22, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
This is what I was after mate, thank you
Eternityislong ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 18:19:27 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Yes. Elements are families of atoms that have the same number of protons. Carbon can exist as C-12 and C-14 in nature. Those differ in the number of neutrons. We can also have things like H and H+, which are still hydrogen, however behave very differently because of differing electron count.
nastafarti ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 18:46:13 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
No two atoms are identical.
heisenberg747 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 19:03:41 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Yes, that's the current theory. A hydrogen atom has a nucleus made of one proton and one neutron, which are orbited by one electron. You can have different isotopes by adding or taking away neutrons, for instance the hydrogen atom I just described is called deuterium, but if you took away the neutron, it would be a different isotope called protium. You can also give atoms a different charge by adding or taking away electrons. In the future we will likely discover new states that an atom can be in, but scientists currently believe that every atom of the same isotope and same charge are identical.
Jaspersong ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 19:12:15 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
They are all exactly the same thing
ToeMasMooller ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 18:03:25 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I'm not a scientist but from college chem classes, isotopes are different forms of the same element. There are i think 3 isotopes (or at least prominent ones) for hydrogen. But all "normal" hydrogens should have the same form.
dewhashish ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 18:23:31 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
It means more neutrons in the nucleus I believe.
verylobsterlike ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 18:24:41 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
99.98% of hydrogen on earth is protium (hydrogen-1). 0.02% is deuterium (hydrogen-2), and then the tritium (hydrogen-3) that exists on earth is almost entirely man-made in nuclear reactors as a byproduct from other reactions.
You can go on to stick more neutrons to your hydrogen atoms, we've created up to hydrogen-7, but above tritium they're so unstable they only live a few septillionths of a second before decaying.
mallchin ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 18:08:43 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Yes, electronsโ orbits are unique; no two atomโs electrons share the same orbit.
n1ywb ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 18:45:46 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
they don't really orbit though, at least not in the sense that planets do. within a particular shell they are more like a standing wave. I don't think that quantum mechanics would permit you to differentiate two atoms based on the positions of the electrons in their "orbits" but I could be wrong. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_orbital#Electron_properties
mallchin ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 21:03:22 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I think youโre missing the point โ they do โorbitโ the atomic nucleus and their โorbitsโ are โhigherโ in higher energy states.
Planets are massive objects bedridden in spacetime.
n1ywb ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 21:16:44 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I know that
this whole thread should die in a fire; what a clusterfuck
burritochan ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 18:10:39 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
An isotope is a particular type of an element, like Carbon-12 or Carbon-14. Both are carbon, but they are different atoms for sciencey reasons. But two atoms of the same isotope are identical.
walksalot_talksalot ยท -2 points ยท Posted at 18:08:54 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I'm a scientist, but the wrong kind...
To me, all the faces of my mice look the same, but I bet there are vast differences in their eyes.
As for the atom of hydrogen, maybe they have some kind of character like how their quarks spin and vibrate to make up their protons and neutrons. Maybe something unique about how their electron flies about.
I'm just not sure if its an answerable question. If I recall mostly how we see small stuff is by looking at crystals or using particle accelerators to smash them and look at the resulting signatures. But, I didn't read the article, maybe that could offer insight into your question.
noxumida ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 18:15:15 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
That's really not how it works. All protons are made from the same kinds of quarks and are identical, and the same is true of neutrons. You could switch out the neutrons and protons in an atom and it would not change anything. Electrons are also not unique. The only thing that could really vary between atoms (of the same element and charge) is the number of neutrons, which creates different isotopes.
meirl_in_meirl ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 18:36:16 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Are they truly identical though?
They are in different places, they have different forces acting upon them. How can any two things be identical?
johnnymo1 ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 18:44:35 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I can't comment with perfect knowledge for a system like an atom, but fundamental particles at least are indistinguishable in principle, and that fact has observable consequences like the Pauli exclusion principle. I assume that should extend in some sense to composite systems of fundamental particles, like atoms.
meirl_in_meirl ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 19:27:56 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
But even particles are contextual, they exist in a certain place and have forces acting upon that are different than even the particle right next time them.
johnnymo1 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 22:29:10 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
It doesn't matter, though. This is very clear at least in the case of bosons, where you can show that if you had boson A and boson B and you swapped their roles, nothing would change. And this has measurable effect (in comparison to say, fermions, where interchange picks up a minus sign).
So you may think there's a philosophical difference, but if nothing would change physically even in principle if the roles of two particles were swapped, those particles are indistinguishable in all ways science concerns itself with (measurable ones).
There's a good quote to this effect in Griffiths' quantum mechanics textbook:
EDIT: This is all half-remembered from undergrad quantum though, so I'd point to the wiki page for likely more accurate information than I could give.
boatmurdered ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 20:47:20 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Ontology is tricky!
bassinastor ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 19:18:18 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
If you were to take a picture of a hydrogen atom their location and forces would be controlled for
yatea34 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 18:34:33 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Indeed - there have been serious theories from serious physicists (Feynman) that there may just be One Electron that moves forward and backward through time: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One-electron_universe
Fickr ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 21:07:54 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Did you just assume the atom's appearence without its consent?
Jeramiah ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 18:34:56 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Based on our understanding of them.
bytesandbots ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 18:41:57 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Related. There is only one electron
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9dqtW9MslFk
boatmurdered ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 20:47:49 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
That we know of!
nastafarti ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 18:44:18 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
No two atoms are identical.
xSoliloquyx ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 18:55:09 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I think what he was getting at is that there exists no hydrogen atoms by themselves. They are always bonded to something else.
Affugter ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 19:12:43 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Wolfgang Pauli would like a word with you.
c3534l ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 23:25:47 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Unless you count properties like, you know, where they are. That's usually what people use to distinguish between similar things. If I have something in my left hand, and something in my right hand, then I have two things. What an odd sophism.
Javlington ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 13:14:45 on February 22, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
An important detail is that they aren't identical, because they aren't in te exact same location!
Fleckeri ยท 17 points ยท Posted at 17:56:19 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Yeah, shouldnโt it be H2?
cynian ยท 7 points ยท Posted at 19:11:09 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
H2 is the form Hydrogen naturaly occurs in as atoms always seek the state in which they have the smallest ammount of energy. A bond between two hydrogen atoms has a smaller ammount of energy than a single atom would, but that does not mean that Hydrogen only exists in pairs. Its only the default configuration in which it can be found in nature. It is possible to break up the bond between them by putting the energy which the system emits during bonding back into the system,thus making the option of two separate atoms the energy-poorer of the two.
(termiology might be off, I ain't no native speaker)
Dalroc ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 18:58:11 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Atomic hydrogen is very common throughout the Universe, just not so much naturally on Earth.
Fleckeri ยท -1 points ยท Posted at 18:59:31 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Oh sorry, I didnโt know this picture was taken in space.
Dalroc ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 19:31:57 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
It's taken in a lab, not out in nature. Are you deliberatly acting this stupid? The fuck are you so salty for?
Fleckeri ยท -1 points ยท Posted at 21:32:08 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Calm down, bud. This is /r/WoahDude, not /r/AskScience.
Dalroc ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 21:45:57 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Yeah that was a little over the top, sorry. Was worked up from discussing with this other dude in this thread and that snarky comment kind of rubbed me the wrong way, but yeah.. A bit too much from my side there, sorry.
xkcd1234 ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 18:45:17 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
not to worry, it is not an image of the hydrogen atom. the title implies that the center is the nucleus and it is simply wrong. This is a velocity map image of electrons ionized from Hydrogen, see more discussion here ...
Beasts_at_the_Throne ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 18:20:20 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
No, there's only one electron. Plenty of hydrogen atoms.
Webhoard ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 18:53:58 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Eww. Gross. That electron was (is) (will be) in my mouth.
CheeseSteakJimmys777 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 19:55:27 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
No there are many hydrogen atoms but there is only one The Hydrogen Atom. Itโs an important distinction to make.
Gizmo-Duck ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 22:25:07 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
itโs also not the first image of a hydrogen atom. nearly every single photo ever taken has hydrogen atoms all over the place.
geekmuseNU ยท 1142 points ยท Posted at 17:55:32 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Obviously this is a false-color image but that has me wondering, would a particle that small even be large enough to be capable of giving off a color assuming we could somehow detect it with human eyes?
Edit: I am getting two very different equally in-depth answers to this question and am now more confused
LiberatedCapsicum ยท 166 points ยท Posted at 18:26:02 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
At the most basic level, photons arise from a need to conserve energy. They are produced when particles have to change direction suddenly, mass is reduced in some particle decay/annihilation, when a particle's energy is reduced to a less energetic state, etc.
In large materials, these things randomly happen all the time - especially if they are hot - hence why everything emits some light.
A hydrogen particle is different. Something about its state would have to change (ie: its subatomic particles would have to do something interesting) then a photon will be released with the energy that was lost in that event. That energy will determine the photon's color.
It's like a flat pond. You have to drop a stone in to make a ripple.
What you're seeing in the image is the field around the atom, rendered in color. It's essentially just a graph but that's really no different from taking a photo.
samgrylls ยท 8 points ยท Posted at 18:54:25 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Hardly anything spontaneously emits light... 99% of the photons you see are from absorption and scattering, and come from specific light sources (light bulbs, the sun, etc). What you're talking about is blackbody radiation, which doesn't get into the visible spectrum until it's heated to hundreds of K.
herywort ยท 15 points ยท Posted at 19:06:55 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Like, 300 K? :P
Willyb524 ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 19:26:31 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Visible light doesn't give off until around 5000k according to the graph on Wikipedia. I believe everything at room temperature just gives off IR radiation. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black-body_radiation
herywort ยท 7 points ยท Posted at 19:50:38 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Visible light is emitted at all temperatures, but under like 800 K it's negligible, while at around 5000 K it's at maximum. This 800 K point is called Draper point and above that almost all solid materials visibly glow
Willyb524 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 19:59:28 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
That make sense. I didn't really think about it much at first, but light bulbs definitely don't need to get anywhere close to 5000k to work so I'm not sure why I thought it wouldn't start until 5000k
cure1245 ยท 5 points ยท Posted at 20:06:43 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Also, to be fair, the bulb doesn't have to get that hot: only the filament does. The rest of the bulb appears to glow because of the scattering caused by the powder coating on the inside of the glass.
grubnenah ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 01:03:31 on February 22, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Here's a color temperature chart, the temp just determines the wavelength. It can go down further into infrared or higher to ultraviolet.
http://www.photographymad.com/files/images/colour-temperature-chart.png
LiberatedCapsicum ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 22:10:53 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
It all comes back to the same thing, though. Energy in, energy out. Photons are how the universe reconciles the laws of conservation.
kenman884 ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 18:50:45 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
How was the atom imaged if it wasnโt with electromagnetic radiation? Was it measured using electromagnetic field strength?
LiberatedCapsicum ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 22:08:38 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I assume so. There's some wet and wild stuff at the quantum level, though, and some very clever ways of observing it that I won't pretend to be knowledgeable about.
StoppedLurking_ZoeQ ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 21:46:39 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Wait, I'm a layman but I thought when we see light you are talking about a electromagentic field wave that has encountered something which then gets reflected of that something and enters your eye. Green objects are green because the the non green frequencies get "absorbed" by the object and a frequency which we see as green gets reflected towards you.
Isn't he asking if you could hit the atom with a photon to see if something gets reflected back? Rather than the atom emitting a photon?
CourtJester5 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 05:57:18 on February 22, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
As far as I understand, color is purely dependent on wavelength. There is a visible spectrum, which is what we see, but it's just a very small sample of the possible lengths light can be.
Atoms can actually release photons, or light, when their electrons gain enough energy. I think what he's asking is what color that would be, if a color at all, if we were to actually record the photons being released.
CourtJester5 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 05:52:36 on February 22, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
In other words energy must be added for energy to be emitted... right?
Also we know what wavelengths hydrogen emits... right? And this is just visible light.
LiberatedCapsicum ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 07:22:56 on February 22, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
The issue is resolution. What you're talking about is a single photon emitted from the entire atom, after which the atom would not be around to emit another one. That's like trying to take a picture of a gun by measuring the bullets it fires.
CourtJester5 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 23:09:37 on February 22, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
So basically one atom isn't enough to encapsulate all of its potential wavelengths? A fluorescent tube of many hydrogen atoms should solve that issue though right?
Also doesn't the electron just dispel it's excess energy and return to ground state when emitting the photon, so you could feasibly capture one atoms emission spectrum over time by constantly bombarding it?
boom_wildcat ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 19:05:24 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
If you consider the visible light is violet at the smallest wavelength and then to ultra-violet, then a wavelength small enough in the context of an atom could be described as some abstract mega-purple.
[deleted] ยท 865 points ยท Posted at 17:59:40 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
[deleted]
JamesR624 ยท 1583 points ยท Posted at 18:13:13 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Q: What color is an atom?
A: No.
karmisson ยท 157 points ยท Posted at 18:16:16 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Can I take off the 3d glasses now then?
sarcasm_hurts ยท 87 points ยท Posted at 18:28:21 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
No.
ABadPhotoshop ยท 22 points ยท Posted at 18:36:02 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
No?
phphulk ยท 29 points ยท Posted at 18:38:04 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Enhance
0xTJ ยท 21 points ยท Posted at 18:39:59 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
And zoom.
ProbablyLegendary ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 19:36:32 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
What is this, an atom for ants?!
y2k2r2d2 ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 20:12:22 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
No , atom for ant man.
schmeckendeugler ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 21:13:55 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Did somebody say Zoom?
MothaFcknZargon ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 21:57:06 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Ok, then can I remove the gimp mask and take the sharpie out of my butt?
thanatossassin ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 19:13:56 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
37
DamnIamHigh_Original ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 19:21:02 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
42
camomanef ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 20:04:49 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Purple
[deleted] ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 18:39:48 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Blue
DrRakdos ยท 31 points ยท Posted at 18:26:22 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
It's like asking can I go south of the south pole
JayStar1213 ยท 5 points ยท Posted at 18:35:50 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Assuming you start the problem away from the south pole, the answer is yes - contextually.
silent-onomatopoeia ยท 14 points ยท Posted at 18:44:15 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Thatโs some expert-level pedantry right there.
y2k2r2d2 ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 20:13:16 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Pedantry Pedantry.
DrRakdos ยท 5 points ยท Posted at 19:08:20 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
However I literally stated from the south pole.
You took what I said and changed the nature of what I said.
It's like responding to "can I breathe under water if I have human lungs and do not possess gills or any machinery to aid me?" with "only if you have gills or an oxygen tank."
So no, is the correct non-reach around answer.
Now that's pedantry.
JayStar1213 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 19:26:36 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
However that's literally not what you stated. Because you literally stated
And I said, in a nut shell
Also, why did you think another analogy would be useful?
DrRakdos ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 19:46:07 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Because perhaps I thought I was dealing with people of a different caliber.
My bad
imGnarly ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 19:28:51 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
No.
Arnold_Mal ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 20:13:11 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
What's the answer?
DrRakdos ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 20:21:42 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
No, every direction from true south is north.
[deleted] ยท 6 points ยท Posted at 18:30:47 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
[deleted]
PadreCastoro ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 18:38:04 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I would probably be confused for the rest of the exam and fail it.
TheWingus ยท 5 points ยท Posted at 19:53:36 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Q: What color is a quark?
A: Red, Green or Blue
Q: Is it nice?
A: It has a strange or charm quality
Q: Where is it?
A: Up, Down, or Top
Piogre ยท 21 points ยท Posted at 18:36:16 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
That wasn't the question though. More like:
Q: Would an atom give off color?
A: No.
OpinionatedBonobo ยท 10 points ยท Posted at 18:46:12 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Atoms do emit visible light, though the colour has generally little to do with the colour we normally associate with the substance Edit: colour, not Colorado
Horse_Boy ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 22:00:52 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Well, perception of color is relative, too. Not everyone perceives color the same way. Some for physical reason.
sweetsweetgreenseat ยท 5 points ยท Posted at 18:44:30 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Thanks for the breakdown.
Kluey ยท -4 points ยท Posted at 18:43:32 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
You must be fun at parties
Nostalgia00 ยท 10 points ยท Posted at 18:59:17 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
You must be remarkably insecure
yellowdart654 ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 18:46:18 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Is it bumpy, or smooth?
nexusSigma ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 19:17:47 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
A: You could classify an atoms colour by its spectral profile. The colour produced from the photons made by the atom as a result of various physical processes.
Hydrogen for example produces these colours: https://hydrogen.wsu.edu/2015/12/22/the-colors-of-hydrogen/.
mindbleach ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 18:39:25 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Mu.
LesEnfantsTerribles ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 18:46:18 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
That sounds depressing.
The atom wanted but could not.
TheREexpert44 ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 18:49:41 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I keep screaming but god won't answer
hilarymeggin ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 18:52:05 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
๏ผผ๏ผ๏ผพโ๏ผพ๏ผ๏ผ
LeDerptato ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 19:15:27 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
the question was would we be able to see color
SayingRandomThings ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 19:56:46 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I don't think it's an actual color but more of a different detection areas from the machine and to make it useable and "simplier" we add the color to the areas
myKidsLike2Scream ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 18:42:27 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Q: Is an atom smaller than the wave length of light?
A: His last speech had 1 million viewers
bad917refab ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 18:39:53 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
This comment wins the internet for the day
Seakawn ยท 46 points ยท Posted at 18:36:05 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
How many atoms do you need until they exhibit color to a human eye (assuming such eye is capable of seeing it)?
Nelyeth ยท 109 points ยท Posted at 18:53:21 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Enough to reach the wavelength of visible light (380-800nm). Carbon atoms (to pick a common one) are 1.7 angstrรถm (0.17nm) wide, so you'd a surface of 2236x2236 atoms (380/0.17), so the end result would be a square, mono-atomic layer of 4999696 atoms. If you make that a cube instead of a square, that's 11179320256 atoms.
That said, you'd probably need something a bit bigger than this though, since light is diffracted by smaller objects/slits, which'd distort what you see, so by my calculations, "a fuckton" would be a more accurate answer.
Edit : apparently, colour doesn't work like this, and you can have much smaller objects that still display a colour. So now this post is just about how many atoms you need to reach the wavelength of visible light.
ultralame ยท 35 points ยท Posted at 19:03:07 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Why did you choose a square? Why not a disc with r=lambda/2?
EDIT: Also, what about polarized light aligned with a strip of atoms? Damn. Now you got me going down the rabbit hole.
Nelyeth ยท 43 points ยท Posted at 19:36:21 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Because I am lazy and because I like squares.
ultralame ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 21:36:44 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Squares are cool, and the math is easier, so I award you internet points.
akaBrotherNature ยท 14 points ยท Posted at 19:26:41 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I concur. ๐ง
BiscuitHead3000 ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 20:04:40 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
One fuckton equals 2200 kilofucks for anyone not in 'Murica
Seabee1893 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 22:26:14 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I prefer Freedom units. 1 Fuckton it is!
XkF21WNJ ยท 7 points ยท Posted at 19:15:51 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Of course by this logic no molecule with less than 5·106 atoms would have a colour.
Edit: Just to highlight a particular counter example, chlorophyll has an atomic weight below 900u. It's also around 20 angstrom long. Yet if it wasn't capable of absorbing visible light all plants would die.
Nelyeth ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 19:44:35 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Good point. This is absolutely not my field of expertise, and I'm much more comfortable talking about molten metal than light physics, so I might be wrong about it all. If anyone knows better, I'd love to hear a conclusive answer.
XkF21WNJ ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 19:54:42 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Well, if the only criterion is whether it can absorb light of a particular wavelength then a single atom is enough to 'exhibit colour'. Even if you restrict this to visible wavelengths.
If you're also willing to accept light emitted after the atom is excited by lasers then a single atom is enough for it to be 'visible' (you still need a long exposure to photograph it, but I think it counts).
Hatzn ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 20:03:44 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
If something has a colour or not is determined by the atoms of a molecule and how they are connected. You excite the electrons in the atomshells with the electromagnet wave (light) into a higher state of energy and if the difference in energy between high and low state is equal to the wavelength of visible light (E=hv) the molecule absorbs some colour of the visible light so in consequence not all wavelengths are reflected and the thing/molecule gets a colour. The size of a molecule doesnt really matter. For lightscattering on the other hand it does...
I hope this made atleast a little sense.
Seakawn ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 20:57:46 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I feel like it's so complicated just because it's not only light physics, but also seems to involve the psychology of sight as well. That all makes for a lot of variables to consider.
Shmolarski ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 20:02:40 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
So a microscopic spec just barely large enough to give off a visible spectrum still has trillions of atoms in it?
AlkalineHume ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 19:24:24 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
If this is true why is the sky blue?
(Objects much smaller that the wavelength of light can absorb and scatter that light, leading to observable color.)
wende11 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 00:56:26 on February 22, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Nope, that's not how that works. Any atom can give off photons. Whether you can see it, and what color it is depends on the wavelength of the photon being emmitted and the total amount of photons per second being emmitted. Which is around 5-9 photons every 100 ms for the human eye.
RobertThorn2022 ยท 44 points ยท Posted at 18:51:49 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
This started like a light bulb joke.
ChampionOfTheSunAhhh ยท 8 points ยท Posted at 19:10:53 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
...enough to break the ice
XkF21WNJ ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 19:14:16 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
The answer to that particular light bulb joke is somewhere in the order of 1027.
wsupduck ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 18:59:56 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
The color something "is" is a bit complicated. It's related to the the wavelengths of light the object doesn't absorb because it is reflected then absorbed by our eye. As far as I understand, a single molecule can have a color as long as it has the necessary electronic transitions (electrons moving from one orbital to another). Actually observing that absorption/reflection might take more than one molecule but it occuring is individual.
Seakawn ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 20:58:53 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
This is something that I expected and seems like a pretty relevant nuance. But it definitely makes the question/answer pretty complicated.
Rigo2000 ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 19:03:30 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
They wouldn't have colour. When the atom is energised it sends of electrons that vibrate at a certain frequency which corresponds to a colour on the electromagnetic spectrum. Depending on which kind of atom it is, it gives of different colours. This is also used to figure out the molecular composition of far away planets.
[deleted] ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 18:48:06 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
[deleted]
ultralame ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 19:04:56 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
The length of them would have to be at least the wavelength. So ~2236 long for carbon (~.17nm wide). And I am not sure how wide the strip would have to be, assuming you used polarized light.
stanhhh ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 18:53:24 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
About tree fiddy
Jaspersong ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 19:08:51 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
5
benmarvin ยท -1 points ยท Posted at 18:52:30 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
At least 4, but less than a million.
PM_ME_SILLY_THINGS ยท 57 points ยท Posted at 18:34:13 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Maybe they spray painted the atom
Chris-P-Creme ยท 75 points ยท Posted at 18:49:53 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
This is so wrong.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrogen_spectral_series
kalenxy ยท 15 points ยท Posted at 19:09:39 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Color is almost always in reference to the visible spectrum.
Chris-P-Creme ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 23:26:41 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
H has emission lines in the visible. See: the Balmer series.
[deleted] ยท 41 points ยท Posted at 18:56:43 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
[deleted]
XkF21WNJ ยท 28 points ยท Posted at 19:11:02 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Well hydrogen can absorb photons depending on their wavelength so I don't really see how you could claim it has no colour.
To the human eye it will probably look white, but that's not the same thing as not having any colour at all.
vitanaut ยท 4 points ยท Posted at 20:00:25 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Only photons have "color", nothing else does
uFuckingCrumpet ยท 4 points ยท Posted at 20:06:02 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Don't forget our friend the quark.
undercoverhugger ยท 8 points ยท Posted at 20:11:49 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
From the dumpy gluon to the succulent neutrino, nothing satisfies physicists quite like subatomic particles.
uFuckingCrumpet ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 20:18:08 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
My favourite quark is the green quark. The blue one is nice too. But the red quark.... he's not very nice indeed.
[deleted] ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 23:04:16 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
[deleted]
Better_Call_Salsa ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 02:54:10 on February 22, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
And just like life, the correct answer ends up at the bottom.
[deleted] ยท 6 points ยท Posted at 19:43:26 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Just to be pedantic, light doesn't "reflect" in the normal sense of the word, but gets absorbed and re-emitted. I can't speak to the size of objects that this happens with, but if a hydrogen atom can be hit with light, absorb it, enter a different state, decay and release a photon, then it's reflecting the light.
bubbaa11 ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 19:59:17 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
That's not how reflection works. According to your definition, shining light onto something and heating it up is a form of reflection. Also, that's not really what was being said. The point here is that you can not image an atom with visible light. It is too small. You can see the visible light they emit but you can not see them in the traditional sense of forming an image of the atom with visible light.
[deleted] ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 20:07:33 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
That's exactly how "reflection" of light on an object works. A photon hits something, that something absorbs the photon, enters a metastable state, that state decays and then a new photon is released. The only time where this sort of gets fuzzy is in single photon electron interactions where it just sort of becomes an irrelevant discussion.
Sure, you can't "image" an atom (to be fair, partial wavelength particles are a thing so I don't completely buy into your hand waving, but I'm not informed enough about our best of the best imaging techniques to really care to disagree), but like I said, I was being pedantic.
Ross302 ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 20:46:04 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
It's not that wrong
xDuffmen ยท 5 points ยท Posted at 19:36:29 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
and people wonder why every comment on /r/science is deleted
Paz_50 ยท 17 points ยท Posted at 18:34:15 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
So how is color decided in such a small level. Eg. you have 2 rectangles touching one black one white. At the place where they are touching if you were to โzoomโ in how far could you get before they lose the color?
Liamb2179 ยท 17 points ยท Posted at 18:44:52 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Probably about 200-800nm which is about the wavelength of visible light
jessbird ยท 21 points ยท Posted at 18:46:26 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
i mean...so is it just black?
what color is it
Dazaer ยท 39 points ยท Posted at 18:51:18 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
that's like asking what colour are radio wavelenghts... it's not on the visible spectrum; there is no colour
GodlessGospel ยท 18 points ยท Posted at 19:09:56 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
WAit wait wait. So does this mean that "what we can see with the naked eye" is simply the range of visible light we can interpret?
Upvotes_poo_comments ยท 21 points ยท Posted at 19:12:11 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Yes, the visible light spectrum is only a small part of the total EM spectrum.
GodlessGospel ยท 4 points ยท Posted at 19:17:02 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Yeah I've always understood the idea that there's a spectrum of light and we can't see wavelengths of a higher and lower frequency. I guess I'm asking about the size factor as well. Is the smallest object we can see (with the naked eye) also the smallest object that can "pick up" color?
Upvotes_poo_comments ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 19:41:34 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
No, not necessarily. Anything that has enough molecules to perturb the EM spectrum to the point that it produces wavelengths that correspond to visible light would technically "pick up" a color, and we wouldn't necessarily be able to see it with the naked eye because it's too small. There's a threshold and it's not necessarily visible to the naked eye.
GodlessGospel ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 19:54:48 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Ah okay that makes sense. I appreciate you taking the time to explain this to me, it's very interesting stuff
GeorgeHWChrist ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 00:15:40 on February 22, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
To add to this, there is a fundamental limit (Abbe limit) to how far we can zoom in on something. Point sources of light eventually become blurred, overlapping blobs. Using some fancy techniques (electron microscopy, super-resulution microscopy), we can break this limit in the lab, but the idea of color doesn't make sense in these contexts.
VigorousJazzHands ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 20:49:27 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
No, anything capable of producing a photon in the visible spectrum can essentially have "color". The ability to produce a photon is not based on the size of the object.
[deleted] ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 19:56:50 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Bingo
Thereโs probably all sorts of weird shit around us that we can never be aware of. Like the Loch Ness monster, just swimming around your living room, chilling in its non-visible spectrumness.
jessbird ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 20:06:35 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
so how did they โphotographโ it? if itโs akin to photographing radio wavelengths...
Dazaer ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 21:37:33 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
No clue, but a quick google search says:
"The quantum microscope utilizes photoionization microscopy to acquire the nodal structure of the electronic orbital of a hydrogen atom. (...) In this experiment, a hydrogen atom is placed in an electric field and is excited by laser pulses. The excited electron then escapes from the atom and follows a trajectory to a dual microchannel plate detector perpendicular to the electric field. Since there are numerous trajectories that may reach that same point on the detector, the interference patterns created by the phase differences between these trajectories were observed, which were then magnified by more than 20,000x using an electrostatic zoom lens that would not disrupt the quantum coherence. The interference pattern observed revealed the structure of the wave function"
The_Mountain_Puncher ยท 5 points ยท Posted at 18:54:39 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
It doesnโt have a color, thatโs the weird part. Color is based on the wavelength of photons released or reflected off substances. However, the wavelength of visible light is too big to reflect off atoms. Thus, you can only image it with some kind of magnetic/ultraviolet light thatโs small enough in wavelength to reflect. Those wavelengths that it does give off are outside our eyesโ visible light range, so no color.
[deleted] ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 19:37:51 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I think it moreso has to do with the "systems" ability to absorb the light since light almost never "reflects" like bouncing a ball, but rather gets absorbed and then re-emitted.
Paz_50 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 18:56:53 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
So is there some underlying โlawโ that says when X amount of atoms group it will reflect blue or green ect
[deleted] ยท 4 points ยท Posted at 18:52:12 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Wavelength determines hue; itโs the amount of light shapes brightness. So the color could be anywhere on the visible spectrum, but our eyes would never differentiate it from black.
Shattered_Sanity ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 18:59:45 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
There is no color. What you're looking at is a false-color image of electron density. The colors are only there to show you how intense the density is, i.e. how probable the electron is of being there.
jessbird ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 20:05:08 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
but what did they photograph if thereโs nothing visible to document :/
sidepart ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 19:04:24 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
To answer this, try to conceptualize what it's like for a person with no eyes. They don't see black. They just don't see, period.
In this case, the atom is smaller than any visible wavelength of light. It has no color.
jessbird ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 20:04:21 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
that makes sense in theory, but if we can see the atom...what..color are we seeing
sidepart ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 21:20:40 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Well the simple answer is still nothing.
In order to see a color, the following needs to happen:
Now, if the light that is emitted is exactly the same as the light absorbed, then what you're looking at is clear. Colorless. If you were to just get a bunch of H2 gas and look at it, it's colorless. In fact if you burn hydrogen, the flame is also clear. If you want to get more complicated, I think it's a pinkish color in its plasma state.
Someone with more knowledge on this subject might need to continue on this discussion, but I'm fairly certain all atoms are clear if they're just by themselves. Like, you need to have a gold ingot to see gold but 1 gold atom by itself is just clear. This would be because the light emitted by the 1 atom's electrons would be the same light that was absorbed. If there are more than 1 atom though, there are more electrons, they can jump around and then emit color.
BoJacob ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 19:15:59 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
So there isn't really such a thing as color as humans see it past that size scale of visible light (400 - 800 nm). Something's color is defined as what wavelength of light it either reflects or emits.
Something reflects light because of its complicated electronic structure and how it interacts with incoming light. For example, a metal like copper (edit: the green line in this graph is copper) strongly reflects light from ~600+ nm which is the red side of the visible spectrum. Notice how it also reflects a little bit below that as well, which is why copper isn't a pure red color, more of a mix of colors but mostly red. This only really happens with large amounts of atoms, enough to generate this complicated electron-light behavior. If you have a single atom of something, this doesn't really happen. This is where emission comes in.
Emission is more complicated because it is described by quantum mechanics. A specific atom has a very exact electron structure, meaning all atoms of an element are exactly the same (atoms of the same isotope and ionization at least). If you can give an atom some energy (shoot a photon at it, basically shine light on it) one of its electrons can absorb that photon and jump to an excited state, the area where the next electron would go if it had one. The original electron state is left empty, and the electron now sits in a higher energy state. This isn't really stable, so after a while the electron "falls" back down into it's original state. But that higher energy state contained more energy, and the original state is at a lower energy, so that energy has to go somewhere (conservation of energy). The energy goes into emitting a photon. The energy that this photon has is exactly the energy of the excited electron state minus the energy of the original electron state. Through some simple unit conversions energy can be represented as wavelength. So since these original and excited electron states are very exact and always the same, the light that an atom can emit is always at the same wavelength or color. Whether or not this wavelength is in the visible spectrum that humans can see depends on the specific atom. Keep in mind, this isn't really the color of the atom, just what color of light it emits when it is excited and decays.
Since those are really the only ways to give something "color", the atom as a whole doesn't really have a color. Atoms are around 0.1-0.5ish nm, more than 1000x smaller than our color spectrum.
mcnuggetsispeople ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 19:16:44 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Think of it as being ultra-ultra-ultraviolet, to talk very generally, small things correspond to high frequencies and high energies and conversely large things correspond to low frequencies and low energies. Note large means spatially large, not more massive.
NeuroCore ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 19:40:34 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I think someone else said the answer is "no"
NomDuGloom ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 18:51:12 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Infrared?
ANUS_IN_MY_POTATO_ ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 18:52:38 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
White, if I had to guess
jessbird ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 20:05:38 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
a solid guess.
Precedens ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 19:00:24 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Color is determined by what wavelength is bounced back.
wsupduck ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 19:01:38 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
It's a color humans can't see because it's outside the visible spectrum
coffca ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 18:50:09 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Color is not a property of objects, is light bouncing off of it what we see
[deleted] ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 19:40:55 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Well, color is a property of objects in some sense, but it's also related to light coming out of the object. When light hits an object, it doesn't bounce off like a ball. It gets absorbed, and what absorbs it enters a metastable state that eventually decays and emits another photon. The physical structure of the object in question determines how the light gets re-emitted and also the energy of the re-emitted photon.
coffca ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 19:55:07 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Thanks for the input
random_fucktuation ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 18:47:08 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Visible light run from about 380 to about 750 nm. Anything smaller than that size can't be seen using visible light, you need light with a smaller wavelength or something else entirely like electrons.
edit: to clarify - there's no difference between radio waves and visible light except for wavelength and frequency (which are related to each other by the constant 'c' - which incidentally is also the speed of light). Radio waves can have wavelength in the range of metres to kilometres - which is why they don't 'see' buildings and walls and rather pass straight through. Microwave wavelegnths are in the order of centimetres - which is why they don't 'see' the grating on the microwave oven door - the holes are too small and they simply reflect off of it.
wsupduck ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 19:02:41 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
They used color on their measurements the same way 100% high school graduation is green and 80% is red
Jaspersong ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 19:09:27 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
once they get big enough to be in the visible wavelength spectrum
VigorousJazzHands ยท 5 points ยท Posted at 18:42:02 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
But the color of an object is just based on what wavelengths the atoms absorb or emit. You would not be able to color the image like it's done here, but technically the atom as a whole would have a color.
uFuckingCrumpet ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 20:16:11 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
It's wrong to think about what "color" the atom is. The atom can release a photon of a specific color wavelength. But a hydrogen atom can release different colors of photon depending on the state its electron. There is no specific color that a hydrogen atom has.
VigorousJazzHands ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 20:31:51 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I know this, but that's how it works in all objects, large or small, down to a single atom. Nothing has a color. They all release photons. An objects color is just the sum of all the photons it releases, so why is it wrong to think about what color the atom is? This is how we identify what atoms are present in stars, we look at the color (wavelength) of the light they emit.
uFuckingCrumpet ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 20:36:37 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Yes and no. When it comes to "macro" objects, obviously the simplistic conceptual idea of absorbing and releasing light (or scattering) is kinda still at play. Really only kinda, though. There is far too much going on in a macro object composed of interacting molecules for the simple point about differences in the energy of incident light leading to different colors of light being released to turn out to be true.
I get the whole compulsion to assume that a composite object should just function that same way as its individual parts do. But individual atoms vs complex "macro" objects is a perfect real-world case of the fallacy of composition. They really aren't the same, even at a fundamental level.
FactualNeutronStar ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 18:49:08 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I know it's not what OP asked but it would still give off light. The photon emitted when a H- atom becomes H would have an energy of 13.6eV, correlating to a photon wavelength of ~91 nm, which lies in far ultraviolet. This is the maximum energy a H atom could give off from electron interactions. If it were simply shifting orbitals or something it would be a longer wavelength.
uxl ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 18:55:10 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
What about a molecule?
samgrylls ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 18:55:45 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
The ability of an atom or molecule to absorb light has nothing to do with its size relative to the absorbed wavelength, just has to do with the relative energy of the excitation to the energy of the incoming photon.
boatmurdered ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 19:20:55 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
But then how can we use spectrographic analysis to determine what elements something consists of?
bumblebritches57 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 21:05:01 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
That isn't actually true, the color an element gives off is due in part to their atoms, it's what makes the band gap.
There was a wiki article with a picture of a bunch of different elements burning and showing their band gap I read a while ago, but I can't refind it.
boog14 ยท 76 points ยท Posted at 18:10:07 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Interestingly, yes. The emission spectrum of hydrogen is typically red although this color comes only from the electron emitting photons to change energy states so the circles around the nucleus would have the color of hydrogen's emission spectrum but I'm not sure what color the nucleus would be.
pwrpfgrlz ยท 15 points ยท Posted at 18:28:19 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
the nucleus is very extremely tiny compared to the electron shell, if i recall correctly. also light spectroscopy is in some places called electron spectroscopy, because color comes from interaction with electrons. so maybe no color from nuclei?
n1ywb ยท 16 points ยท Posted at 18:37:30 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
when nuclei undergo fission they give off gamma-ray colored photons :P
stanhhh ยท 14 points ยท Posted at 18:56:26 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
X-rays on the 5nm wavelength is my fav color. I find ฮณ-ray to be a bit too vulgar, aggressive even like "heeeyy yall look at me! hey! Bam!: You don't have eyes anymore haha!" really not my style .
DemJellyBones ยท 5 points ยท Posted at 18:36:59 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Nuclei will emit electromagnetic radiation (light) but at a very high energies. These are called gamma rays. A hydrogen nucleus is made of only one proton though so it won't emit anything.
dalovindj ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 18:49:44 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
This breaks it down pretty well.
GetWeird_Wes ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 18:58:32 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I wasnt expecting a social commentary but damn. Wholesome d00d
[deleted] ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 18:34:49 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
the radius of the nucleus is hundreds of times smaller than the radius of the electron orbits.
AngryBritishFrog ยท 4 points ยท Posted at 19:07:26 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
It's quite a bit smaller than even that, actually, about the same as the pin of a needle compared to a football field.
cartesian_jewality ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 18:38:32 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Color is a result of electormagnetic radiation at a frequency in the visible light band.
However, electrons can cause light when they are forced to drop to a lower energy band, ie LEDs.
GetWeird_Wes ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 18:54:31 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
It's the same scale as putting a golf ball in the middle of a football stadium. The ball being the nucleus, and the the stadium walls being the electron cloud.
goody863 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 22:10:22 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Electron spectroscopy is actually a specific subset of spectroscopy where you detect electrons ejected from an atom. But you're right, in standard absorption spectroscopy, specific wavelengths of light are absorbed because they match the evergy required to excited an electron into a higher energy state. They photons don't interact with the nucleus of the atom
wave_theory ยท 4 points ยท Posted at 18:34:28 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
The color of the nucleus would be gamma radiation because the energy involved in the nuclear forces is much higher than the atomic forces governing electron interactions.
DonutTread ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 18:50:54 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Please explain as I don't know exactly what you're getting at. The strong nuclear force is indeed higher than the electromagnetic force at small distances but I'm not seeing how this leads to a release of gamma radiation without matter conversion (a hydrogen atom is incapable of fission) or bremsstrahlung which doesn't occur without acceleration of a charged particle.
My knowledge is not comprehensive so I'm probably ignorant of the mechanism or just not looking at the situation correctly.
wave_theory ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 19:02:26 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
A bit facetious, but the idea is that "color" is determined by the wavelength of the photon, which is related to its energy, which is set by the energy of the transition that created it. Nuclear transitions would involve much higher energy levels, which would release higher energy, shorter wavelength photons whose spectrum would be more in the x-ray to gamma ray range.
DonutTread ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 19:10:57 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I understand the relationship between wavelength, energy and color. What I'm not getting is how a single hydrogen atom generates a photon. What mechanism occurs to release a photon?
wave_theory ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 23:28:41 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
You'd have to talk to a dedicated particle physicist to get a precise answer on exactly what happens in the interchange, and even then it's more on the level of "this is what the math says should happen" which then matches with observations we make with experiment.
But on a more conceptual level, the idea is that on the atomic scale, energy is discretized. An electron orbiting a nucleus cannot be located just anywhere; it is defined by a wave function that can only take the form of discrete configurations, and each of those configurations will be associated with a specific amount of energy. An electron in one configuration can move to another by either gaining or losing an amount of energy equal to the difference. For instance, it can move to a higher energy level by absorbing an incoming photon, or it can move to lower level by releasing energy in the form of an outgoing photon. The key is to simply think of photons as little packets of energy that can be absorbed and emitted by particles.
When you see something like a glowing neon tube, what you're witnessing is the process of trillions upon trillions of neon atoms having their electrons put into an excited state through the use of a high voltage, and then those electrons making discrete jumps back down to their ground state and releasing the difference in energy as photons. Since they're all the same atom, and therefor they all have the same energy levels, you see the same colors coming from each of them. And if you look at the emission spectrum of neon, here, for instance, you see that its spectrum is predominantly red and yellow which is why neon has its characteristic neon orange glow. There are a lot of different lines there because neon has a lot of electrons which allows for a wide range of energy shifts. If you look at something like hydrogen you see that there are much fewer lines, because with only one electron, there are far few discrete energy configurations that it can assume.
EHNIGMA ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 18:37:32 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
A single hydrogen atom would never be able to produce enough photons to be detectable by the human eye.
boog14 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 18:41:34 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
True, but we could detect it with equipment.
yoku651 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 19:11:07 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Is this the hyperfine transition or that that something else?
boog14 ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 19:49:52 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Yessir. The hyperfine and fine structures both will do this although the hyperfine structures have drastically less energy change associated with them, hence the names.
yoku651 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 19:52:41 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Sweet. I have a very basic understanding of it so Iโm glad I was able to recognize it.
[deleted] ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 19:11:32 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
That's the emission spectrum though; I don't think it really lines up with our common notion of "colour". If you were to ask, what is the colour of a hydrogen flame, then yeah. But the atom (and of course the nucleus) itself can't reflect any light as it's too small.
People have also talked ITT about light scattering through a cloud of hydrogen, but this also doesn't really work as you need way more than one atom. It's colourless, basically.
Igotbored112 ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 18:34:58 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
nucleus is too small to interact with visible light photons. Also, the nucleus is not visible in this picture because it's way too small compared to the rings.
wave_theory ยท 5 points ยท Posted at 18:40:03 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
What we perceive as color is nothing but the photons emitted from electron interactions in an atom or molecule, so as another response said, yes, it absolutely does have a color, and that color is comprised of hydrogen's emission spectrum. It's just that a single atom would only be generating a single photon per transition, so it would take a very long time with an efficient sensor to collect enough of them to generate the spectrum.
a_hessdalen_light ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 19:11:08 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Reading these answers confused me and stressed me out in equal measures.
Electric_Evil ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 19:35:37 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
This is often my experience on reddit in general.
[deleted] ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 19:10:46 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Yes, a single atom can emit/reflect/scatter light. However (i) the intensity/brightness is limited as there is only one atom emitting/reflecting/scattering photons. And (ii) the color of light propogating from the atom can be at a variety of wavelengths which are dependent upon external stimuli. Emission for example, is dependent upon the speed and radius of the electron traveling in its orbit; even then, the light from this electron will be polarized along the plane in which said electron orbits. Alternatively, if a laser is used to excite the state of the hydrogen atom where the electrons orbit changes you can change the color/brightness of the emitted light.
Source, I do spectroscopy for a living.
Acute_Procrastinosis ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 18:39:41 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
So, you want a particle to wave?
geekmuseNU ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 18:44:56 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
To be fair electromagnetic waves are both (thanks Einstein) but my question was more about whether this particular particle would be capable of emitting wavelengths in the color spectrum if excited
Acute_Procrastinosis ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 20:14:07 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Probably just heavy breathing...
mindbleach ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 18:40:43 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Yes.
samgrylls ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 18:48:43 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Yes, single atoms can absorb and emit light. What we typically think of as 'color' is just the light that's remaining after absorption. Things that absorb light in the visible spectrum have a color. But the absorption cross section of atoms is so small that you probably won't 'see' it in the conventional sense. You can also see things that emit light, or in this case with the hydrogen atom, electrons. You can see single fluorescent molecules by eye (through a microscope).
jordan314 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 18:50:59 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
It looks sort of gray to me: https://www.newscientist.com/article/2161094-a-single-atom-is-visible-to-the-naked-eye-in-this-stunning-photo/
which makes me wonder, doesn't this violate heisenberg's uncertainty principle?
AlkalineHume ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 19:28:50 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Nope. The HUP puts bounds on the uncertainty of complementary variables, of which the position and momentum pair are one example.
In the image you see emission from an atom. You can use that information to put bounds on the position and momentum, but those uncertainties will be much larger than the Heisenberg limits.
bert0ld0 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 19:05:16 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
how do you know?
thismaynothelp ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 19:14:36 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Youโll get much better answers in ask science. I wouldnโt trust any of these jabronis.
kalenxy ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 19:15:20 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
The color of something is determined by wavelengths of EM emitted in the visible spectrum. Rough examples are Violet (420 nm), Blue (470 nm), Yellow (580 nm), and Red (680 nm). A particle that small still emits EM, but not in these ranges of the visible spectrum, so it does not have a color.
JcmNOOT ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 19:24:52 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Well every atom emits a very specific wavelength when excited. So yes, technically atoms have a colour. By the way, that the way LASERs work; you see the light emitted by atoms.
AlkalineHume ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 19:32:19 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
The "objects must be above the wavelength of light" statement only refers to attempts to see that object in a microscope (and even then the statement is approximate at best, there is a rigorous form you can look up). If you try to focus a super high end microscope on an object that is too small you will begin to observe what's known as the airy disk. No matter how much you fiddle with your optics you will never be able to focus on it. However, that notion doesn't preclude you from seeing light scattered or emitted from very small particles. It's just that you would be unable to use that light to focus your microscope on that particle. If you tried to focus down on that light source you would find yourself looking at the airy disk again.
[deleted] ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 19:34:06 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Particles, under certain circumstances, can give off photons, but they do not reflect photons so wouldn't appear a color.
Vipitis ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 19:49:03 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
every element can reduce it's energy level by giving away photons, there is porbabilities for every wavelenghts, for Hydrogen you get 4 spikes inside the visible spectrum
moschles ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 19:59:36 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
This is NOT a photograph of an atom...repeat... NOT a photograph.
This is a 'reconstruction' of the atomic structure that is created by knocking off the electron from a hydrogen atom and seeing where it lands on a collection plate, after being magnified by 20,000X. Scientists knock the electrons off by zapping the hydrogen with an ultra-fast laser pulse. After many repeated trials, the locations of hits on the collection plate form a pattern. Those patterns are then overlapped and averaged (in some funny way) and the locations of the knocks are deduced from those patterns.
The "patterns" are actually interference fringes from waves. The calculations from the interference fringes back to the original electron locations cannot be done with paper and pencil. Only a computer can do it.
uFuckingCrumpet ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 20:14:17 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Basically, the question of "what colour is it" is not a well-formed question when we're talking about individual hydrogen atoms.
When we're talking about large objects (like a green apple), what we see as colour is really just the predominant wavelength of light that is not absorbed by the object. When we're talking about individual hydrogen atoms, we're really talking about basic nuclear physics. And what happens with an individual hydrogen atom is that when a photon hits it, the atom absorbs the energy of the photon and the electron in the hydrogen atom moves to an outer "shell". That electron can then fall back down to a lower shell and release a photon of a specific wavelength. But the hydrogen atom doesn't have just one transition that it can do (and corresponding wavelength of light that it can release). It can absorb a range of specific energies. So there isn't one single colour that hydrogen will always release.
PHD_Memer ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 20:17:58 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I would believe the answer to be yes, however Iโm doubtful it would look exactly like this. Electrons for example absorb and discharge photons in order to increase and decrease energy levels respectively. The nucleus may be able to do something? As Iโm not a nuclear physicist but a chemist Iโm mostly aware of how the electrons of atoms behave. And since photons arenโt exactly a full particle they dinโt really have a set size but I believe if they were to be quantized like that they would probably be on par with an electron or smaller. (Thatโs mostly a guess if anyone knows that better feel free). But I believe a single atom could produce multiple photons, maybe not all at once but perhaps with enough exposure time a more complete image comes into frame. As for colors Iโm willing to bet they would have no color. Energy is โquantizedโ meaning it comes in specific amounts, atoms can only absorb and release very specific wavelengths of light. Depending on energy level and type of atom. Theres a good chance the photons released my be somewhere in infrared so unless you are secretly a lizard person you wouldnโt be able to see it. However Iโm not an expert in that and itโs very possible that hydrogen can absorb and release something in the same range of violet in terms of wave lengths which would allow it to release a similar color, in which case it may appear purple at that scale. Again, Iโm not exactly a physicist so a lot of this could be incorrect completely or partially.
UnitedMacoder ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 20:25:18 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
No single atom of any element gives off heat.
Shit_in_1_hand ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 20:39:05 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
If 95% of the people here read the abstract of the paper that's posted just below, they would say,
It is Photoionization Microscopy. In layman's terms, they shot a super precise laser at the area where a hydrogen atom was, and measured the change in ionization of the reflected light.
More simply, they shined light at the atom, and it shined something back.
neuromorph ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 21:49:05 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
its not false color. Color represents the time the atom/ electron was in that position. the redder the color, the more time in that position. Its proportional to intensity in heat maps.
Piscator629 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 22:37:29 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
A single visible light strontium atom which won a science picture award this week.
https://www.livescience.com/61763-single-atom-ion-trap-photo.html
Eikonals ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 02:13:49 on February 22, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
This is quite a deep question you've stumbled onto :p I'll try my best to explain the different moving pieces. From the replies I've seen, everyone is giving you part of the answer based on the particular definition/manifestation of color which they are familiar with, but what makes this question complex is that there are many ways to get color.
For the lazy, here is the TL;DR
excited electrons in atoms can produce spontaneously emitted light in discrete lines. Like we see in Neon signs. Here is the Balmer series of lines for some heated up Hydrogen
a bunch of atoms together, when they are opaque to that emitted light, can shift that light around and the overall effect is a smooth white light (blackbody) spectrum composed of many photons. Like we see from an incandescent light bulb, the sun, or a hot stove coil. Here is an example of such a spectrum
Most objects are too cold to produce light of their own (except in the infrared), so the color that we see from them is instead the white light from some light source (a lamp, the sun) minus those colors which the molecules/atoms in the object absorb, and then scattered towards our eyes. Here is the spectrum of light which our atmosphere absorbs (itโs opaque too)!
Humans don't have a built-in spectrometer in our eyeballs, so the light we see is based off of a composite of 3 receptors, which are sensitive at 3 different color/wavelength bands. Here are the sensitivity curves for cones/rods in the human eye.
Long form explanation:
Join me on the journey of a photon packet! I'll start from the bottom and work my way up. At the most basic level, light is emitted by the electrons in an atom/ion transitioning from an excited state to a less excited state (high energy to low energy). Because energy is conserved that difference in energy as the electron drops in orbitals produces a photon. The energy of photon is basically its frequency/wavelength, and the frequency/wavelength of a photon is what we perceive as color! The visible range of light for humans is 390 to 700 nm in terms of wavelength or 430โ770 THz in terms of frequency.
So a single atom can indeed produce light/color. In fact it produces the most fundamental unit of light/color, the photon (and yes we have single photon counting detectors which can measure this emission). Because atoms have many energy levels, they can produce many different photons. Here is a simple case of the Hydrogen Balmer series. More complex atoms (more electrons/protons meaning further down on the periodic table) have many more energy orbitals and can therefore produce many more frequencies of photons. The places where you see this kind of pure emitted light, largely undisturbed by other processes, are mainly in neon signs (where we use different gases, not just Neon, to get different colors). plasma ball toys, and certain true color pictures of nebulae. But most objects in our everyday lives aren't glowing, so this isn't the color that we perceive from them. But it is the first step to what we see!
At this point you should have a couple questions. How do we get from single distinct emission lines to a smooth, white light spectrum as is produced by the sun or by a heated tungsten filament in an incandescent light bulb? What is the color that we perceive from everyday objects?
Now we move from considering a single atom to a whole collection of atoms/molecules interacting with large numbers of photons. Atoms/electrons don't just produce light, they can also absorb it and even shift it in complex ways. The atoms in a blackbody (like a heated tungsten filament or a stove top coil) emit light that they themselves are opaque to. So for the light produced inside of a tungsten filament to get to the surface and escape to your eye, it must go through a number of random shifting/scattering events. The sum effect over many photons and many atoms is the smooth blackbody (white light) spectrum.
side note: In experimental plasma physics we design/use objects called hohlraums, which are like this idealized picture of a blackbody. The heated inner surface of this "oven" produces photons, but the oven is opaque to those photons, so they keep bouncing around from atom to atom, getting scattered and shifted, until they can finally make their escape. At large facilities like NIF (National Ignition Facility), these hohlraums are used to bathe a target experiment in a broadband of x-rays.
So now that this packet of white light photons has escaped from the sun, it now hits an everyday object! This everyday object is also made of molecules/atoms and also absorbs/scatters light. So the light emerging from household objects are the white light from the light source, minus the light absorbed by the object. Here is an example of absorption spectra from chlorophyll. Note how there is little/varying absorption from green to orange. This is why plants have colors varying from green to orange, they tend to absorb blue light!
The final stop for our packet of photons is the human eye, where they meet our photoreceptors, the rods and cones. Most humans have 3 different cones which enable us to distinguish colors. Each of these cones is sensitive to a different wavelength band. The light is then converted into a chemical signal, and the composite chemical signal from these receptors is then perceived as color by your brain.
So there you have it! The entire trip for a packet of photons, from the transition of an electron in an atom, to scattering through and out of a heated piece of metal or ball of plasma, to scattering/absorption off of a household object, and finally ending at the photoreceptors in your eyes.
theorymeltfool ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 18:49:18 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
No. Ffs.
[deleted] ยท 102 points ยท Posted at 17:53:50 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
[deleted]
Wobblycogs ยท 78 points ยท Posted at 18:13:12 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Looks like it's a mapping of the electron density would be my guess. The essentially spherical shape would be a result of a hydrogen atom having just one electron and therefor only (half) filling the 1s shell. Not sure why there is more structure to the image, anything you use to measure at that scale will disturb what you are trying to measure though so perhaps it's an artefact of that promoting the electron to higher orbitals.
DarthWeenus ยท 4 points ยท Posted at 19:40:17 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Doesn't the uncertainty principal makes this image inherently inaccurate?
kudles ยท 21 points ยท Posted at 19:46:06 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
No. It that states you cannot simultaneously know the velocity and position of a particle. This image isnโt worried about velocity.
Sweedanya ยท 6 points ยท Posted at 22:32:53 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
You should think of this image as a sort of time time-laps, we don't know where the electron is at any one point, but there are certain defined regions in which it will be 99% of the time. What we are seing is a record of all places the electron was and the associated density.
Some of these defined spaces (electron orbitals) are bigger than others and more likely to be occupied than other orbitals so that's why the graph isn't uniform.
DarthWeenus ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 23:42:00 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Appreciate the response. Cheers!
Kmart999 ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 04:18:04 on February 22, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
It is mapping the electronโs (and protonโs) wave function while in a quantum state. So all those light blue dots represent, as a whole, the state of the electron prior to collapse. The actual hydrogen atom would never look like this at any instant, this is just a representation of many states over time to help visualize what is going on behind the curtain.
nmhnmhnmhnmh ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 18:56:23 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
They represent the duality of man.
wtfdidijustdoshit ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 20:32:55 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
blue is cold, red is hot
librlman ยท 377 points ยท Posted at 17:24:47 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Eyes...in the dark.
One moon...circles.
Daemon69 ยท 101 points ยท Posted at 18:08:20 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Shaka, when the walls fell...
Quimera_Caniche ยท 55 points ยท Posted at 18:18:16 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Different episode I think, but easily one of my favorites.
Darmok and Jalad, at Tanagra!
Searchlights ยท 26 points ยท Posted at 18:31:11 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Temba, his arms wide.
ZoopZeZoop ยท 10 points ยท Posted at 18:41:44 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Darmok on the ocean!
JustHereToFFFFFFFUUU ยท 4 points ยท Posted at 18:42:56 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Dammit, I just realised that Temba Wide-Arms in Skyrim is a Star Trek reference
Searchlights ยท 6 points ยท Posted at 18:48:40 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Sokath, his eyes open!
UsedRealNameFirst ยท 8 points ยท Posted at 18:32:19 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Temba, his arms wide
rickjamesbeach ยท 17 points ยท Posted at 18:18:24 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Darmok and Jalad at Tanagra...
balls4xx ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 20:32:01 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Picard and Dathon at el-adrel.
Kylearean ยท 15 points ยท Posted at 18:19:39 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Kailash, when it rises.
[deleted] ยท 5 points ยท Posted at 18:23:16 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Loved this episode!
random_fucktuation ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 18:39:53 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Zinda, his face black, his eyes red"
fuckmekylo_saidhux ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 18:44:01 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Uzani, his army with fists open
TheyCallMeStone ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 00:04:34 on February 22, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Gilgamesh, a king. Gilgamesh, a king. At Uruk. He tormented his subjects. He made them angry. They cried out aloud, "Send us a companion for our king! Spare us from his madness!" Enkidu, a wild man... from the forest, entered the city. They fought in the temple. They fought in the streets. Gilgamesh defeated Enkidu. They became great friends. Gilgamesh and Enkidu at Uruk.
The... the new friends went out into the desert together, where the Great Bull of Heaven was killing men by the hundreds. Enkidu caught the Bull by the tail. Gilgamesh struck him with his sword.
They were... victorious. But... Enkidu fell to the ground, struck down by the gods. And Gilgamesh... wept bitter tears, saying, "He who was my companion through adventure and hardship, is gone forever."
balls4xx ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 20:30:42 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Temba, his arms wide.
xenithflare ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 22:33:52 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
HOW, Reddit, HOW? Someone always seems to know when I've just watched an episode of something and references it within hours.
PM_ME_YOUR_HAMMER ยท 12 points ยท Posted at 18:15:37 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Where are you
All_that_glitterz ยท 8 points ยท Posted at 18:37:12 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I need to find you... to tell you...
congelar ยท 7 points ยท Posted at 18:41:30 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
"I'm not a very good actress!"
AutismAmmo ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 23:15:32 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Everyoneโs been amazing seeing some of the lessons to learn in that game....
Anyway, any other combo deck, only deck I've bothered to include a paid-off house if a mortgage/rent is factored into the popularity of its charactes), and Riot's got the money, yet still loved the story of her death they wouldn't get it so why not have the core problems we have and of course with strippers and prostitutes and of course endless wars of expansion because THEY felt that communism would work for 4-5 hours tops before I wake up sarnt canโt do nudity then I could see myself in you, historical knowledge of this subject. It mentions how so many well-meaning people mess each other up in a Great Depression. Gambled all its money from Disney? Does it even occur to you to find your classes. All of whom claimed to be done months ago, lost a 1v1 to it. What sucks is when people of all sizes. As a joke btw. I hope Steam will get a roping effect from the fabric bunching up and twisting, which I'm not arguing to change the subtitles without leaving the comfort of his billionaire lifestyle where he was essentially god emperor. Sometimes things really are, a bag of bread and milk
All_that_glitterz ยท 26 points ยท Posted at 17:49:30 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
one of my favorite eps
walksalot_talksalot ยท 20 points ยท Posted at 18:01:38 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
As a teen that episode gave me the creeps. Still makes my neck hairs stand up whenever I think of it.
MadDogMccree ยท 16 points ยท Posted at 18:16:46 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
This was the first episode of TNG I saw when it was new on the air. I was probably 7 or 8 years old. The scene in the cargo bay when all of the covered bodies sat up freaked me the fuck out.
moviefreaks ยท 6 points ยท Posted at 18:21:01 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I was disappointed when we never saw the other stranded ship
MadDogMccree ยท 12 points ยท Posted at 18:22:43 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Doesn't it come flying through the explosion they create?
[deleted] ยท 7 points ยท Posted at 18:32:01 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Yup. It zooms by very briefly.
robodrew ยท 16 points ยท Posted at 18:20:21 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Gotta love the creepy episodes of TNG... like when the parasitic insect species tries to infiltrate the Federation high command, or when Dr. Crusher gets trapped in a collapsing warp bubble, or when the crew starts to devolve
But I'm not sure if anything tops the scene with Crusher in the morgue as far as being hair raising.
DreadNephromancer ยท 21 points ยท Posted at 18:23:59 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
"What is the nature of the universe?"
"The universe is a spherical region, 700 meters in diameter."
milkand24601 ยท 8 points ยท Posted at 18:26:02 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I love how sassy Beverly gets with the computer sometimes
robodrew ยท 4 points ยท Posted at 18:26:49 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
"HA! I got you."
Generic_Handel ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 18:37:07 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
The aliens from subspace kidnapping, experimenting on the crew, then erasing their memories was really creepy.
"I've been in this room before"
"We have all been in this room before"
robodrew ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 18:49:24 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
YES how could I possibly forget about this one.
click click click click click click
sidepart ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 19:09:34 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
click-click-clack-click-click-clack
[deleted] ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 18:32:39 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
"Schisms" is a good episode, too.
mcc5159 ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 21:50:43 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
The episode where Worf spews acid into Dr. Crushers face, Troi turns into an amphibian, and Riker becomes a caveman was one of the most "What the fuck?!?!" moments of the series.
Sindawe ยท 9 points ยท Posted at 18:09:33 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
As a 20-something that episode gave me the creeps Still a might bothersome...
[deleted] ยท 4 points ยท Posted at 18:25:07 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
For me itโs the one where thereโs those things living in their chest that comes out of their mouth. Picard saw it heading to that guy, going up his arm, heโs freaking out but the guy is like, oh, hello, then opens his mouth to let it in.
Windex007 ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 18:23:15 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
That episode where she has a vague feeling of unease and is freaking out? That one?
TheGreenShepherd ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 18:39:49 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
What is the name of this episode?
All_that_glitterz ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 18:40:47 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Night Terrors
TheGreenShepherd ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 18:46:08 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
oh right! thanks!
SuperAleste ยท 4 points ยท Posted at 18:49:19 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
That episode gets so much hate but there is something I really like about it. It's got that creepy things in space vibe.
catslikecatnip ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 18:40:12 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Load up the Bussard collectors...
MrHyperion_ ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 18:29:05 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Totally unexpected
HelpMeOnceMore ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 18:30:46 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Hahahah love it
OwlExtermntr922 ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 18:37:10 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
For some reason that episode creeped me out until the end.
fzammetti ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 18:50:22 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Shut up with your Troi-centric episodes!
Medicine_Machine ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 18:56:04 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Easily one of my favorites. Watching Troi 'Fly' through her dream with her hands waving around never ceases to encourage a boisterous, loving, guffaw.
FPTN ยท 67 points ยท Posted at 17:49:28 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I sort of want to pet it and tell it how great a job it's doing.
Seakawn ยท 4 points ยท Posted at 18:38:03 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Imagine all of the tiny tippy taps it would dance if it was happy.
Rockonfoo ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 18:53:53 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I mean just pet around you and I'm sure your petting at least one atom. I just don't think it understands speech so that part might be harder.
BLZ333 ยท 5 points ยท Posted at 19:02:06 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Itโs doing itโs fucking best ok
Rockonfoo ยท 6 points ยท Posted at 19:19:02 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
ok
Forbidden_Froot ยท 5 points ยท Posted at 19:03:57 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
H-hydrogen kun ^โข^
y-yes master senpai?
*blushes* I wanna pet uuu~ UwU
hehe okayz ^.~ be g-gentle hehe
*sweats profusely*
Zay_Okay ยท 5 points ยท Posted at 20:13:48 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Um
carsausage ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 21:54:38 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I'm calling the police
stanhhh ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 19:11:04 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Dude, no. Reality is quite horrible.
masteraddavarlden ยท 63 points ยท Posted at 17:51:31 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
How come the picture look just like the most famous atom model (you know the one with KLM-layers) but every time the model gets brought up I also get to hear "but this is just a model and not how the atom really looks like"
king13579 ยท 55 points ยท Posted at 18:17:12 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Well, generally the accepted model of the atom is the "quantum" model that, in the case of a small atom like hydrogen, may look like that older model. However when you start to deal with more complex atoms the similarities break down and the KLM layers are just too simplistic to actually model what the atom looks like.
veridicus ยท 8 points ยท Posted at 18:28:50 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
This is why I come to reddit. Great question, informative answer.
Smelly-cat ยท 15 points ยท Posted at 18:21:38 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Yeah I thought the nucleus was supposed to be like less than 1% of the width of the electron field. Unless that isn't the nucleus in the middle.
Kosmological ยท 9 points ยท Posted at 18:40:40 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Far less than even 1% the width. Youโre seeing the electron orbitals, the overall structure of the atom, not the nucleus.
Pseudoboss11 ยท 7 points ยท Posted at 18:55:43 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
That's not the nucleus, the red bit is just where the electron wants to be the most.
It wants to be inside the nucleus so it can be as close as possible to the positive charge of the proton. But its low mass leads to it spreading out due to Heisenberg uncertainty. It's "too fat" to actually fit in the nucleus, because of its low mass.
xu85 ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 21:33:28 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
So if the nucleus is the tiny core and the electrons are existing in a probability cloud around it attracted to the positive proton charge, what is holding up the outer โshellโ of the electron, at rest?
yodadamanadamwan ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 18:40:59 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Because hydrogen only has one electron and it's in the lowest quantum level it is held very close to the nucleus.
Lalaithion42 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 18:44:26 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
That isn't.
AndyYumYum ยท 4 points ยท Posted at 18:14:43 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
So does this mean that atom model is confirmed and we won't use anything new for the history of time?
Pseudoboss11 ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 19:12:52 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
It's unlikely that the model will be overturned for small atoms, but this is literally the simplest possible atom. Larger atoms have have more complex orbital structures and interactions. Then the orbitals distort and change as they bond and interact with other, nearby atoms. Covalent bonds have atoms sharing 1 or more electrons in their outer shell. How that looks gets more complex still. And we're trying to make more bigger and bigger atoms, which could lead to entirely new shapes of orbitals being discovered.
So, it's possible that there'd be a major shift in our idea of how atoms look at the most fundamental level. But at the same time, we arrived at the point that we're at right now with a lot of data, reasoning, and effort, by a lot of people smarter than I. We think we're right, but we'll never know for sure.
ahmvvr ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 20:32:54 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
If we can get a photo like this of a small atom, are large atoms even easier to photograph?
812many ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 18:32:57 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
A couple lines from the article:
Basically, they mapped it over time, which comes out looking exactly like the model. Which is a good thing! The fact that it looks just like the model means that the model is correct. What's truly amazing is that human beings were able to figure out what atoms looked like without actually seeing them.
[deleted] ยท 5 points ยท Posted at 18:53:16 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
He's talking about the bohr model, which only coincidentally looks similar to this picture because hydrogen's 'used' electron orbitals (1s here) happen to look also like rings (but are in fact spherical 'shell cloud thingies'). As you can see from this image the shape of the non-hydrogen orbitals quickly begin to look less and less like the bohr model would predict until they start looking like that weird windows 95 wallpaper with the bouncing spiky beach ball
So the image in the OP does match both the current understood orbital model and the bohr model, but in actual fact it only matches the bohr model by coincidence.
Igotbored112 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 18:36:03 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Because there has been like a dozen models and no one was ready to believe this was the last, but I suspect that'll soon change.
TaruNukes ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 18:38:08 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Camelot!
CAMELOT!
itโs only a model...
yodadamanadamwan ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 18:39:40 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
hydrogen is the simplest element. It only has one electron so it's very easy to represent visually compared to heavier elements. What you're referring to is Bohr's atom. Also, as your quantum level increases you get more and more different types of orbitals i.e. p, d, and f which have different shapes from the s orbital. They're much more difficult to visualize, especially when you're applying them to molecules vs elements and to bonding.
Lalaithion42 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 18:46:48 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
What you're seeing here is one electron, most likely, in one (excited) quantum state, not a bunch of electrons in different layers.
slithery_snek ยท 18 points ยท Posted at 18:12:15 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
The trick is to use a tiny camera
fulminic ยท 6 points ยท Posted at 22:43:37 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Or, really large atoms
DatAperture ยท 16 points ยท Posted at 18:07:32 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I don't get it. Didn't we just see that photo that said "first ever photo of an atom?" And now there's this from 2013. What is the truth?
[deleted] ยท 6 points ยท Posted at 21:15:06 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
That new one is genuinely a photo i.e. taken with a light detecting camera. This is just an electron density map. In fact, we have been recording 'images' of atoms since the invention of scanning tunnelling microscopy in the 90s.
blankerino ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 06:35:30 on February 22, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Isn't HRTEM before the STM?
[deleted] ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 06:43:44 on February 22, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I think so, yes. But that shows you lattice points rather than electron density. It has atomic resolution but images 'gaps' between atoms using an external electron source by transmissive diffraction. Whereas STM measures the electron density of the material directly, which allows you to image a single molecule rather than a crystal.
SuperAleste ยท 150 points ยท Posted at 17:42:24 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
The camera? An iPhone.
Oilfan94 ยท 127 points ยท Posted at 17:44:14 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
iPhone-1X
Pipsquik ยท 6 points ยท Posted at 18:33:10 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
1 / iPhoneX
AtomicKittenz ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 18:53:23 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
For $2k, you can get the 2x which is the exact same thing but has a slightly better camera and we made it more sparkly.
Searchlights ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 18:34:12 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Underrated comment
dzwright2 ยท 45 points ยท Posted at 18:23:41 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
That iPhone? Albert Einstein
TheMoves ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 18:30:30 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
That Albert? Apple EinPhone
Degenerateweeb21 ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 18:55:31 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
That phone? Phone PhonePhone
TheMoves ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 18:31:52 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
That Albert? Apple EinPhone
Seakawn ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 18:36:56 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
-Abraham Lincoln
[deleted] ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 18:40:49 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
-Michael Scott
themedicduck ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 18:25:31 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Clearly not as this picture was free and apple products generally cost at least $900
the_purple_sloth ยท 13 points ยท Posted at 17:44:56 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
The one hydrogen atom in existence
heisenberg747 ยท 9 points ยท Posted at 19:11:16 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
They're all exactly the same, so yeah, kind of.
atazian ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 20:32:25 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
On the quark scale they're probably different.
syllabic ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 21:26:18 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
No they aren't
Any form of ionized hydrogen is different
JMental ยท 20 points ยท Posted at 17:48:00 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
You could tell me thatโs anything at all and Iโd have to believe it
[deleted] ยท 13 points ยท Posted at 18:31:27 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Thatโs an image of dividing by 0
[deleted] ยท 14 points ยท Posted at 17:54:17 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Relevant
heisenberg747 ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 19:20:32 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Who is that guy?
[deleted] ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 19:29:32 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Dr. Manhattan from Watchmen
wggn ยท 13 points ยท Posted at 18:03:42 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
WHO DID THIS?
WhoDidThisBot ยท 23 points ยท Posted at 18:03:52 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
๐๐๐ who did this ๐๐๐
cycl1c ยท 7 points ยท Posted at 18:12:19 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
LMAOOOO WHO DID THIS ๐๐๐๐๐๐
Forbidden_Froot ยท 7 points ยท Posted at 19:05:58 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
WhoooOoOom ๐ ฑ๏ธi๐ ฑ๏ธst the'se ๐๐๐๐ ฑ๏ธ๐ญ๐ฏ
Raskov75 ยท 6 points ยท Posted at 17:57:09 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
And that, my friends, is what a byte looks like from inside a simulation.
slimjoel14 ยท 8 points ยท Posted at 18:25:44 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
After zapping the atom with laser pulses, ionized electrons escaped and followed a particular trajectory to a 2D detector (a dual microchannel plate [MCP] detector placed perpendicular to the field itself). There are many trajectories that can be taken by the electrons to reach the same point on the detector, thus providing the researchers with a set of interference patterns โ patterns that reflected the nodal structure of the wave function.
NyagiNeko ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 01:18:42 on February 22, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Upvote this user^
Loopchute ยท 15 points ยท Posted at 17:43:32 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Atom bomb, baby!
anchorwind ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 18:50:55 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
https://youtu.be/PHMzCpy0fXc baby got an atom bomb
Perfectclaw ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 17:51:58 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Sweet as a plum!
ReubenZWeiner ยท 29 points ยท Posted at 17:21:38 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Its so cute.
Loopchute ยท 26 points ยท Posted at 17:40:24 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
You're cute.
Spacecowboy78 ยท 11 points ยท Posted at 17:42:36 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
You're cute.
dieseldog09 ยท 26 points ยท Posted at 18:08:28 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Lotta flirtation in this thread. Must be chemistry.
[deleted] ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 18:30:09 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
A magnetic attraction
random_bots ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 19:13:46 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
That what produces the spark
AlexSouthard ยท 6 points ยท Posted at 17:43:56 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
no u
Leifbron ยท 4 points ยท Posted at 17:48:21 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Me too thanks
NateBlaze ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 18:07:55 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
No, thank YOU!
ChristianSurvivor_ ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 18:24:43 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Ur mom gay
Dzekoninho ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 18:46:50 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
no u
[deleted] ยท 10 points ยท Posted at 18:22:59 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
[deleted]
Der_Baba ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 18:26:13 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Came looking for this
Forbidden_Froot ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 19:05:09 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Came finding this
wthbbq ยท 17 points ยท Posted at 17:32:39 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
<insert generic jpg joke>
Stewie_the_janitor ยท 10 points ยท Posted at 18:10:33 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Do I look like I know what a jpeg is? I just want a picture of a god dang hotdog!
epicurean56 ยท 4 points ยท Posted at 18:11:46 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Needs more jpg
812many ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 18:37:24 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
What's actually pretty cool is that our best pictures of some of the smallest objects is very near our best pictures of the largest objects, namely, this is the level of detail we can get if we take our best telescope and point it at our nearest star.
somebodyliedtoyou ยท 16 points ยท Posted at 17:34:12 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Itโs amazing that the entire universe is a series of ever expanding circles.
Ahegaoisreal ยท 10 points ยท Posted at 17:52:54 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
You're my entire universe.
Amesb34r ยท 7 points ยท Posted at 18:05:04 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Iโll take โThings a Stalker Might Sayโ for $400, Alex.
scorpionjacket ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 18:50:40 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
ever expands
Ahegaoisreal ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 19:13:39 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I prefer to think of the universe as infinite, just like my love is.
StreetsRUs ยท 4 points ยท Posted at 18:08:07 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Ah, but they are spheres my lad!
somebodyliedtoyou ยท 4 points ยท Posted at 18:11:42 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Is a sphere not an infinite series of interconnected circles????
As in you can have a circle without a sphere but not a sphere without a circle
StreetsRUs ยท 4 points ยท Posted at 18:28:51 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Shit I donโt know man, Iโm not a real scientist
Edit: I shouldnโt assume you are a man.
heisenberg747 ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 19:10:33 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
And disks. Don't forget the disks.
yodadamanadamwan ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 18:42:49 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Spheres, but that only for hydrogen and helium because they only have a s orbital. Other types of orbitals are different shapes.
somebodyliedtoyou ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 19:04:05 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Is a sphere not made up of circles???
Blowmychode321 ยท 15 points ยท Posted at 18:30:02 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
These comments are total garbage.
vilketaventyr ยท 7 points ยท Posted at 20:32:18 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Sad that someone named /u/Blowmychode321 had to point that out.
Lolobeatboxjams ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 06:14:51 on February 22, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
:( i kno
ErikGryphon ยท 5 points ยท Posted at 18:51:28 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Just FYI, you canโt see the nucleus in this image. The electron cloud of a hydrogen atom has a radius of .5 angstroms, whereas a hydrogen nucleus radius is 1 femtometer. Approximately 1/5000th in length. That red in the center is the electrons wavefunction at the nucleus.
CaptnCarl85 ยท 8 points ยท Posted at 17:18:19 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Science!
someguysomewhere573 ยท 7 points ยท Posted at 18:16:49 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Yeah science!
DuctTapeNinja99 ยท 5 points ยท Posted at 18:20:31 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Bitch!
heisenberg747 ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 19:46:09 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
No swearing in the lab, Jessie.
WorkingClassAmerican ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 22:14:09 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iGpoEPcmOK4
rico21r ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 18:02:33 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
A
[deleted] ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 18:35:32 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I thought real life had better graphics.
escalation ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 06:23:48 on February 22, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
They're better than it looks in this image. It's zoomed way in so you can see the pixels. Zoom back out a bit and it's so life-like you'd swear it's real
n3onis ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 11:28:50 on February 22, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
it's on low ok?
ayyyybro ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 18:36:35 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
#nofilter #allnaty #beautifulinsideandout
Leerzeichen14 ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 18:43:19 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Doesnโt this picture defy Heisenbergs law? Because we now exactly know where this atom is and we probably know that it wasnโt moving because if it was the image would pretty sure be blurred... Can somebody explain this to me ๐ค
beehphy ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 18:51:30 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
It is the averaging of millions or billions of individual scans. They are finding the location of the electron in its' various orbital shells only, not sensing the nucleus at all. And they are only sensing location in this test, not momentum. The Heisenberg Principle still applies.
Leerzeichen14 ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 18:53:34 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Ah, I see. So this isnโt really a picture of one hydrogen atom but more like the average of a hydrogen atom. Thanks for the clarification.
btcftw1 ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 05:45:35 on February 22, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
And that, my friends, is what a byte looks like from inside a simulation.
hello_there247 ยท 27 points ยท Posted at 17:29:16 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
What am I supposed to do with this information
SchleftySchloe ยท 56 points ยท Posted at 17:34:21 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Understand the universe better so that one day we may manipulate it
CubeOfBorg ยท 7 points ยท Posted at 18:43:59 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Well we are part of the universe so whenever we do anything, even just having a thought, we are manipulating the universe.
SchleftySchloe ยท 6 points ยท Posted at 19:17:33 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
We are the universe's way to understand itself.
ChilliHat ยท 8 points ยท Posted at 18:30:36 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Slow down there Dr. Manhattan
MisterNotNicePants ยท 34 points ยท Posted at 17:47:43 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Says the guy surfing the biggest website dedicated to distributing useless information.
hello_there247 ยท 10 points ยท Posted at 17:57:48 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Im body boarding bro
RockRobster1 ยท 6 points ยท Posted at 18:02:48 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Go forth and multiply
812many ยท 4 points ยท Posted at 18:39:35 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Before this picture was taken we were only mostly sure what a hydrogen atom looked like. Visually confirming it looks just like our models is actually pretty cool.
alllthewebs ยท 4 points ยท Posted at 18:54:36 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Sell it on eBay.
Zexks ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 21:51:25 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Say /r/woahdude
TheMaestro20 ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 17:38:55 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Aww, look, it's blushing!
Jackrwood ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 17:50:00 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Look at all of that power.
Jorgwalther ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 17:58:04 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Do we have a recent image taken of a hydrogen atom to compare it to?
stevex42 ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 18:02:16 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
It could not be any more clear what this is, but I still feel like I need somebody to explain it to me.
cycl1c ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 18:11:47 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
It's a lonely hydrogen atom
yodadamanadamwan ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 18:43:44 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Welcome to chemistry.
KillerKowalski1 ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 18:14:56 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Ask it about the Hindenburg!
compactcornedbeef ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 18:20:22 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
And they used the bloody jet colour map?
relk42 ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 18:21:08 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I'm a bunch of atoms holding a handheld structure of atoms with a picture composed of atoms of an subatomic sized atom. And my name is Adam. Wow.
4dams ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 15:30:14 on February 22, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Last name is Adams, and you just made me say "wow."
Willbo ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 18:21:45 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Is this where weapons of mass destruction are being hidden?
Jeekayjay ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 18:22:47 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Great, its a whole nother solar system down there!!
DRIZZYLMG ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 18:26:07 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Why do scientists need microscopes, its right there!
Weewa20 ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 18:27:07 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I definitely thought this was going to be a Tide ad.
FairlyBenevolent ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 18:30:32 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
What do we do if there's a swastika in the middle?
[deleted] ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 18:40:46 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Now all we need is the enhancement technology we see in CSI and we can finally witness subatomic particles.
zomboromcom ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 18:40:52 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I need Venus Flytrap to explain this to me in a language I understand. So far I've got tron = dude.
LosSoloLobos ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 18:42:44 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I think thatโs just a Ghastly.
dadfrombrad ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 18:45:39 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Now show us the zoomed out image-
Jesus christ itโs jason bourne....
itsaj3 ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 18:45:59 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Still No.1
AllHopeIsLostSadFace ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 18:48:03 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
thicc
stanhhh ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 18:50:24 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
"And if you gaze long enough into an abyss, the abyss will gaze back into you.
flappers87 ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 19:24:22 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
And this is a progressional picture of Pluto that we took over the last 20 or so years.
If we can get that much clarity in just over 20 years with technology, what's stopping us getting clearer imagery of an atom in 20 years time.
Technology is fucking great.
DistinctFreedom ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 20:19:35 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
What is stopping one thing is not stopping the other. What do you think the maximum resolution of a light microscope is. Beyond that is an electron microscope. How are you going to resolve electrons using electrons?
adanipse ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 20:27:16 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Iโve seen older AFM images of hydrogen atoms before.
blaziken8x ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 20:29:03 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
more jpeg
arkansah ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 20:38:30 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Taken with a Motorola Z
Steb20 ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 21:19:42 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
False. That is clearly a Smurfโs 2-hole after eating Chipotle.
EnIdiot ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 22:23:10 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Does anyone know how fast that electron is going and where is is?
[deleted] ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 22:33:37 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
[removed]
jimmyco2008 ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 22:36:23 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
ENRIQUE!
[deleted] ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 23:04:24 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
thats cool
https://soundcloud.com/user-388499037/sets/spacey-craziness-vol-1
Fauvarc ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 07:18:43 on February 22, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
3 rings on the Hydrogen atom. HALF LIFE 3 CONFIRMED GUYS OMG.
forkl ยท 6 points ยท Posted at 18:00:17 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Dr Manhattan hit it spot on.
Valexand ยท 5 points ยท Posted at 18:03:10 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Looks like the power UPS in Metroid fusion
Loopchute ยท 4 points ยท Posted at 17:45:28 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Needs more jpeg.
NotMR_President ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 18:36:37 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I just took a screenshot so I guess you could say I room the 2nd ever image of the hydrogen atom.
Brave_Samuel ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 18:42:34 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Fake, atoms look like little solar systems, that looks more like a dart board.
Source: 6th grade science class
TopTrumpWANKER ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 19:00:33 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Not impressed. I'll wait until there's an HD version.
allowableearth ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 19:32:13 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Needs more jpeg
JeffSC94 ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 17:36:00 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
That's neat.
LAZYTOWWWWWN ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 17:33:27 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Nice
elmerson ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 17:33:38 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Really cool
memyselfandeye ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 17:39:38 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Just think how small it really is.
heisenberg747 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 19:13:28 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
A gram of hydrogen contains 602,200,000,000,000,000,000,000 of these.
memyselfandeye ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 19:20:25 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Given your username, I'm sure your right!
heisenberg747 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 19:41:05 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I'm actually uncertain about that.
TheNotoriousCHC ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 17:53:54 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Hy there
dkdream21 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 17:56:06 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
So what weโre seeing is a density of subatomic particles, correct?
heisenberg747 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 19:29:29 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
It's the structure of the wave function.
Article can be found here.
defhimself ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 18:05:52 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I hope they discover its not like anything my Science teachers taught me.
Fuck you Mr Rasmussen.
NEN21 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 18:10:18 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Ya, that's great in all but I won't be impressed until I see a photo of it split in half... A cross section if you will.
Kamrn_ ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 18:10:25 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Coloring
[deleted] ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 18:14:40 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Technically its not THE FIRST image ever taken of the Hydrogen atom. Images have been around for years before this one was taken.
Example from 2008.
editorgolden ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 18:16:08 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
anyone else reminded of the evangelion intro or has my ohtts kicked into full gear https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jYZfeY8Vg0E
oldmeat ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 18:16:45 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
This needs more jpeg.
ImDankest ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 18:17:46 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
C'mon, it's 2018, why this looks like it was taken on a vga phone camera
/s
dancingdeadswan ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 18:17:56 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
can we see the image we have now?
omni_prime ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 18:18:18 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
IT'S UNICRON!
udayserection ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 18:20:00 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Dude, woah.
BrandonThe ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 18:21:01 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I felt a tiny bit of my brain explode when I saw that
girlyteengirl1 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 18:21:35 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
It looks pretty...
...lonely
Randyh524 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 18:24:42 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
The all seeing eye.
mumlehoved ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 18:25:34 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
OP would you by any chance have more info on the pic or a link where to find it?
City_of_Paris ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 18:25:57 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
One day I'll see a big fuckin microscope in the sky at this rate
Dar_Karyan ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 18:26:26 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Original Concept Art for SpongeBob SquarePant's character Plankton.
MsStarstruck ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 18:26:41 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
looks like nothing to me - Bernard
Jigga9792 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 18:27:47 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Is this the first image of an atom ever? Am i late? Can we see atoms now?
NoDadyNotTonite ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 18:27:58 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Nephew
caseyl ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 18:29:43 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Hope they took a few more, this one's blurry as shit
valleyblog ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 18:29:52 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
So what are we looking at here? what is that outer ring? I thought the electron proportionately is supposed to be miles from the nucleus, is this just the nucleus or are we seeing the electron spinning around it too?
moviefreaks ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 18:30:03 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I thought so. Later I just chalked it up to debris
BN27 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 18:30:04 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Focus, dammit. Is that too much to ask?
Fishstall ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 18:30:18 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Thank you
[deleted] ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 18:30:48 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
What do the varying colours represent?
Pups_the_Jew ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 18:31:10 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Big deal. I could do that in MS Paint.
OptionalAccountant ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 18:31:14 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I have a degree in chemistry and am curious as to what I am seeing. Is this H2 or a single H atom? Why does it appear that electrons are occupying orbitals higher than 1s? Is that 2s orbital and the probability of an electron occupying it is much smaller so thatโs why it appears to have lower density than the first ring?
Gweenbleidd ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 18:31:28 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
No idea what am i looking a there, isn't atom is 99.9999...% empty space?
Krysys ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 18:32:16 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Remember our first images of Pluto? I'm excited to see how the resolution increases in the years to come!
ThatBrownGuy10 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 18:32:44 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Its crazy that we can view atoms now.
[deleted] ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 18:32:48 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
[deleted]
AutoModerator ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 15:59:13 on March 1, 2019 ยท (Permalink)
Oh, you think you make your choices? Which part of you? The part that's governened by electrochemical processes? I guess I have free will too then, lmao.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
DefacedReality ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 18:33:56 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
In before Russia
Ass_man420 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 18:34:19 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I can see all the sub orbitals
[deleted] ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 18:35:25 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
So, can someone explain to me: Is this a long exposure mapping the probable position of electrons over time? Or Is this just what the atom looks like in a single frame?
FuckThatIKeepsItReal ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 18:35:31 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
So it that 1 electron just moving around so quickly it appears as a ring?
cosmonaut53 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 18:36:07 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
You're telling me this whole time, no ones ever ever seen it before?
Doby_Clarence ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 18:36:07 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
This was the atom that was out in the first atom bomb.
[deleted] ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 18:37:20 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Needs More JPEG
[deleted] ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 18:37:28 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
but what is on the outside of that atom? a pure vacuum?
peeweelucky ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 18:37:31 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Mom?
UpsTheDown ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 18:37:40 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Very hawt -swipes right
coldcupoftea_ ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 18:38:22 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
is that your dick in the background?
manubfr ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 18:39:03 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
An hydrogen atom has one electron, yet you can clearly see the Schrรถdinger cloud depicting where the electron could be according to quantum mechanics. However, this image leaves me puzzled because taking a picture of the atom would show only one electron in one location and not a cloud. Considering an electron is a much smaller than the nucleus, I suspect this picture is a superposition of thousands of pictures taken of a single atom. If a real scientist could jump in and give their opinion?
[deleted] ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 18:59:29 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
It's definitely a combination of several instances in time. I pulled this from someone else's comment so I don't know if it's true or not but they said the article claimed:
manubfr ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 19:13:40 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Thanks that makes perfect sense!
m0gul6 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 18:39:14 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
So the outer ring of "dots" are actually an electron in multiple states, correct?
[deleted] ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 18:39:59 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
It's... naked!
[deleted] ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 18:41:03 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
What are those concentric rings?
haywoodg ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 18:41:29 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
One moon circles.
bla2bla1bla ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 18:42:37 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
You can reallly make out the p1 shell. Cool!
[deleted] ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 18:42:41 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I always chose the Hydrogen Atom ship character on my Intellivision.
xkcd1234 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 18:42:55 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
sorry, but it is not. the title implies that the center is the nucleus and it is simply wrong. This is a velocity map image of electrons ionized from Hydrogen, see more discussion here ...
bigvahe33 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 18:43:03 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I wonder where this atom is right now
gizzardgullet ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 18:43:43 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
The fact that the light blue light is grainy and random - are we looking at probability here? Does that represent the location of the elections in the probability distribution?
Zoots_ ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 18:44:02 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Wait compared to a Hydrogen atom how large is a photon?
GheyGuyHug ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 18:44:05 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Quick some one split it and see what happens!
Specialis_Sapientia ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 18:44:09 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Related article from 2013.:
LesEnfantsTerribles ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 18:45:20 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Democritus: "Hello atom, my old friend"
Extahsi666 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 18:45:45 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
แฉแแแ แแแขแพ แขแปแฌ แแคแฅแ , แแปแแแ แกแแ.
แแ แฃแแฌแชแแฆแฌแ แแฝ แฅแขแฆ แขแแกแฅแขแฝ
wiggens ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 18:46:19 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I can see the Who's down in Whoville.
[deleted] ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 18:47:51 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Looks like a blue circle and a red dot to me.
Kidcolt ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 18:48:41 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
This is what I wish we would get excited about more often
JohaNoMoja ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 18:48:43 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Looks like my butthole (:
JamWat23 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 18:49:22 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
In 10 years time people will laugh at the quality of this picture
bob1689321 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 18:49:54 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Is this a new image?
saldb ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 18:50:13 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
non-trolls: any more info on this image? is there one without the weird blue filter?
LetsDiscourse ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 18:50:16 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I remember this WinAmp visualization, one of my faves!
conspiracyeinstein ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 18:50:35 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
"Enhance"
Colonel_Sus_McLek ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 18:50:42 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Can someone explain what exactly Iโm looking at? I thought atoms were smaller than visible light wavelengths.
Regg_Da_Veg ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 18:51:32 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Earth, complete with core and a visible atmosphere
pviollier ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 18:51:34 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
General Hydrogevous. You're shorter than I expected.
bobbyjihad ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 18:51:54 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Its blurry.
[deleted] ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 18:53:12 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
How can we see an individual proton, and are we seeing an electron cloud s orbital? Idk what that blue is. I'm so mind blown that we can even see something this small?
alllthewebs ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 18:53:19 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Those are the electron fields or what?
Peeka789 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 18:53:26 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Cut it in half!
internet_czar ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 18:53:38 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
When was this taken?
[deleted] ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 18:54:03 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
How do you know if it's real if nobody has ever seen an atom before?
HOW DO YOU KNOW IF ANYTHING IS REAL WHAT IF THE FIRST GUY THAT SAW SOMETHING JUST MADE IT UP
2HourToast ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 18:54:23 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
H
Aleksandrovitch ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 18:54:32 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
One moon circles.
backcrackandnutsack ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 18:54:56 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Meh
ohpee8 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 18:55:27 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
It would suck to be an atom.
knowses ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 18:56:41 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Definitely not (H)D
PebblesPotatoes ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 18:56:44 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Is this what you see when you zoom in on a zoomed in picture?
6ynnad ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 18:57:01 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Seen through the eyes of a predator
LORD-THUNDERCUNT ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 18:57:28 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Lame
PedanticPaladin ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 18:58:56 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Doctor Manhattan got really blurry.
adderation ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 18:59:28 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
a Hydrogen Atom in PREDATOR VISON!!
leothelion634 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 19:00:30 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
So im thinking about the space around the atom, its just empty space right? Like it will never move or do anything, its just space, almost like a blank canvas and the atoms are paint spots on the canvas?
Baltej16 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 19:01:41 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
the actual particle is a tiny fraction of the center dot, the rest is where u can find electrons
SethRogen-Not ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 19:02:26 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Why does this look like a 2s electron shell configuration? I thought Hydrogen was 1s1.
Robyx ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 19:23:02 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
IIRC itโs actually a picture of H-
Look here for H+, H and H- -
https://io9.com/the-first-image-ever-of-a-hydrogen-atoms-orbital-struc-509684901
erny83pd ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 19:02:26 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
8 bit picture
Itsjorgehernandez ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 19:02:49 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I do believe this is from 5 years ago. Still pretty neat, though!
ThisIsATrial ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 19:03:07 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
It looks almost like a distant object in space that we donโt yet have the capability of seeing in total detail.
CoNoCh0 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 19:03:38 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Sometimes I like to think that or galaxy is really just a tiny atom and if we zoomed in enough then we would see another galaxy.
Nintendope ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 19:03:45 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Meh
BarefootDogTrainer ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 19:03:57 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
First MS Paint image of a hydrogen atom..
ThatTrashBaby ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 19:05:27 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Dude what camera did you use
boatmurdered ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 19:05:56 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
The Universe is much smaller than it is bigger. And we're getting smaller all the time. That's because we got aten by a black hole. AMA.
J-J-Jameson- ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 19:05:56 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
so you're telling me it's easier to take the picture of an Hydrogen Atom then a picture of Spider-Man? You're fired.
PM_YourFavoriteSong_ ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 19:06:00 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
This reminds me of our archaic pictures of the planets a few decades ago. I can only imagine the advances that will be made in the years to come. This makes me happy :)
JWAxeMan ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 19:06:41 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Ah that explains it.
LewsTherinTelamon ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 19:07:14 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I remember when this was published! Probably about 5 years ago now. It was a very impressive image and remains so but I think it's been supplanted as my favorite quantum-scale science picture by the recent fluorescent strontium atom at Oxford.
Patrizsche ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 19:10:02 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Is it how scientists thought it was going to be?
_UsUrPeR_ ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 19:10:08 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Potato quality, guys. I mean, come on. Can't we get a higher resolution image of the absolute smallest thing I can think of?
DwellerMike ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 19:10:40 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
At least he smiled.
blh1003 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 19:12:52 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
What is the blue space aroiund it made out of
freekacy ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 19:13:02 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
looks like a waste of funding to me. way too much money is going into science these days
JZeus_09 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 19:13:18 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
ONE SMALL RED DOT BOI
nooshaw ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 19:13:36 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
God's bellybutton.
BiggieBitcoin ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 19:13:38 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Can't we step up the resolution, it's 2018 already. (Only half joking)
HomerrJFong ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 19:13:58 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
The first picture even taken period was the first picture of the hydrogen atom. It just wasnโt increased in size for human eyes.
CCNNCCNN ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 19:14:58 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I just got back from an absolutely brutal chem exam, open up reddit so I can try to think about literally anything other than chemistry, and this is the #1 post right now on r/all. The whole universe just conspired to fucking play me.
Cervix_Pounder_ ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 19:15:03 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Looks like a titty
OneObi ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 19:15:06 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Needs a banana for scale
Shurae ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 19:16:39 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
The red part looks like a running homer simpson from the side
j__tt ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 19:19:19 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
At first I thought this was a really bad blown out picture of Mike Wazowski before I realized what the title was
ElBravo ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 19:19:27 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
k
griffinx607 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 19:19:49 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
This crazily statistics are what keeps me around
scoopdeuce ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 19:19:51 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I cant help but think about the pixel density in video games 20 years ago compared to now. And invision how this image will be upgraded in 20 years from now
filmfiend999 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 19:20:20 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I Am Hydrogen
GoofyPoltergeist ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 19:21:16 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Where the Phish phans at?
Jokerantagonist ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 19:20:39 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
How to get karma points
Gorbachof ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 19:20:41 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Is it to scale?
dnick ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 19:24:00 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Guessing it has to be to scale, but possibly difficult to tell the perspective because the different โpartsโ are seen as ranges...itโs not like weโre seeing an electron or the proton, just the interference they produce which is more of a wave than what we expect when looking at a picture.
SenpaiPolish ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 19:21:39 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
How was this taken? Electron microscope or something else?
a_northern_soul ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 19:22:06 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
When was this taken?
Dizneymagic ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 19:22:40 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Amazing that so much power can come from splitting something so small in half.
mattbag1 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 19:24:04 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
So in how many more years will we be able to get HD resolution of a hydrogen atom?
UtCanisACorio ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 19:25:06 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
just to be clear, it's not a picture of the atom itself, but rather a probability distribution.
neeks_the_sneek ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 19:26:27 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Can someone ELI5 what exactly we're looking at
Towersofcoco ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 19:26:34 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
This interactive infographic lets you zoom into the hydrogen proton all the way from the observable universe
AlphaPhiKappa ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 19:26:36 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Someone put their flashlight up close on a Nokia Camera.
[deleted] ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 19:26:44 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
wonder if this image will be seen as primitive in 100 years just like the early photos of say pluto
sheikhy_jake ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 19:29:31 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Looks asymmetric.
PotatoWisperer ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 19:29:45 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Hogwash, I've take pictures of millions of hydrogen atoms.
licklicklickmy3balls ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 19:30:07 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I love Woahdude people. Fucking awesome comments.
thawatch ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 19:30:50 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
needs more pixels
williafx ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 19:31:38 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Literally a health energy ball from Metroid NES
Artiquecircle ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 19:32:28 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
So was this take. In slo-mo? Or 50,000,000 fps?
JamesA27 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 19:32:49 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
That's definitely balls.
(Arrested development)
yodadamanadamwan ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 19:33:25 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Chemistry is cool, guys. Go be chemists.
broken_llama ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 19:35:51 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
So a proton? As I understood it the space between the nucleus and electrons in an atom is relatively large and considering the size and density(if that is the correct word) of each particle. So considering the rendering of the photo am I correct? Asking for a friend.
Pandamonius84 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 19:36:09 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
No that is clearly a Jigglypuff seen from above!
garfunkl3 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 19:38:12 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
If you look really hard you can see the electron floating around
GeMar17350101 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 19:38:23 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
an I of wholly incomprehensible beauty
JUST_PACE ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 19:38:33 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Yep, I can see the huge nucleus and the shell around it... although no electrons are seemed to be seen :D THIS IS HYPE!
Kachalla ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 19:38:37 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
spectacularly beautiful
ZmeiOtPirin ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 19:39:11 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Wait, isn't the core of an atom (which contains almost all of its mass) supposed to take only a very minute part of its volume? In that case the core shouldn't even be visible without zooming in.
[deleted] ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 19:39:31 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Can someone please explain how they were able to do this?
InhalatorOfChronic ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 19:39:46 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Finally, a way for OP to view his own penis.
PsycoMonkey42 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 19:40:44 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Doctor Manhattan.
Dozck ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 19:40:55 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Why is there no scale with this? It would make understanding the size of the atom a lot better.
RexUmbra ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 19:41:19 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Is the Shell just made of the one electron orbiting it so fast that it makes an almost complete physical barrier?
HugeHungryHippo ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 19:42:48 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Why are there two rings?
RedditMayne ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 19:44:33 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
And still I continue to shrink...
Radfolio ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 19:44:39 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
That looks like Plankton from Spongebob.
BurkeTSAS ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 19:45:16 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Needs more jpeg
My_Maz3 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 19:45:59 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
What is it?
Whycantwesee ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 19:46:11 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Eye of Adam Atom Aton
HTownWeGotOne ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 19:46:23 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
What's its spin?
MjrLeeStoned ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 19:47:21 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
You are not actually seeing any particles in this image. You are seeing residual ionization of path of the electron as it orbits the proton.
There is no matter in this image. Most people will think "Look at that proton in the middle and the electron in the outer ring." That's not what you're seeing.
You're looking at the orbital "waves" of the electron traveling around the proton, which would be smaller than a fraction of a fraction of a fraction of a pixel in this image.
The smaller orbital rings are shown in the red/orange, and the rings become darker the further out from the proton the waves are.
To say this is a hydrogen atom is like saying the path light takes from our star is the sun.
cloop417 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 19:47:54 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
What does this image tell us?
TallSpirit ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 19:49:30 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
"Honey, you are zoomed in too much"
Aphobos ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 19:49:40 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Is this really 5 years old?
myrand920 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 19:50:55 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Nelson, What we looking at here?
tew13til ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 19:51:17 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
!dreambot7
snods5 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 19:51:49 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
That's awesome
unilateral9999 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 19:51:58 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
someone needs to use the deepfake ap to put hermione's head on it
FragRaptor ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 19:52:16 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
So is the electron field so big because of quantum mechanics? Or am I just being retarded?
Lefty_22 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 19:53:45 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Enhance.
ultratropic ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 19:54:00 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Rad
[deleted] ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 19:55:58 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Zombas.
fuckedbymath ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 19:56:25 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
You mean a hydrogen atom.
Argblat ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 19:58:23 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
False. Literally every picture ever taken is a picture of billions of hydrogen atoms
Fallingice2 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 19:58:32 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I feel like I could draw that in ms paint...
PixlProphet ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 19:58:36 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Evolution is amazing! /s
ikbenhoogalsneuken ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 19:58:58 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Are there any better quality images of the heaver atoms?
physxhax ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 20:00:32 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Is this recent or ancient?
catnamedkitty ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 20:00:47 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Why does it look like it has a 1s and 2s orbital
The_Internet_Pixel ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 20:01:08 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
So like, did they hire a camera guy/astronaut,
SHRINK DOWN HIS AND HIS CAMERA'S ACTUAL ATOMS, then put him and A SINGLE HYDROGEN ATOM into a box of space/anti-matter?
What I mean is how can you take a picture of an atom if the camera and the area around it consists of atoms themselves?
pokeapple ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 20:01:12 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I think thatโs just a heat map of a nipple.
Insightful_Digg ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 20:01:46 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
1S1 for life.
sirkevun ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 20:03:09 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Nope, still cant see my dick
TerryFlapFolds ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 20:03:26 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I was going to suggest that they ask it to sit still for the photo but I'm confident it would cease to exist at that point since matter is simply a description and in fact it is illusory.
red_firetruck ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 20:03:42 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Nearly ever picture taken includes hydrogen atoms, just not zoomed in.
Maverick4POTUS ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 20:04:06 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Why is it in SD? This is 2018, I want at least 1080p Hydrogen Atoms.
themagicbong ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 20:04:43 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Correct me if im wrong, but that ring I assume is the outer shell of electrons. If that's the case, then is it just literally empty space between the outer shell and the nucleus itself? It's weird for me to think about because when I think of something in a given area, if nothing is there, there is usually air filling gaps. This is so small that I feel like its weird to even consider it being say in a vacuum or something, how are those particles there if there isn't anything else besides the electrons and the protons/neutrons. I guess I'm just rambling incoherently for most people at this point, but it fascinates me.
Ikinhaszkarmakplx2 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 20:05:02 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
That's disappointing.
AllahRakha ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 20:06:01 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
never coincided in my life
Harlo ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 20:10:21 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Almost every photo ever taken is a picture of hydrogen atoms.
lasdavegas ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 20:10:35 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Itโs copyrighted ยฉ
bitaxx ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 20:11:12 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Using pixels to describe something incredibly smaller than a pixel. woah
slavmaf ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 20:11:54 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I'm thirsty now.
AccidntlyFkdYoSister ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 20:13:31 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Looks like Auralux logo
[deleted] ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 20:15:53 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Woah dude, thatโs like, 1/3 of water man
LAlakers4life ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 20:16:31 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
So its a little universe...
fnordstringthing ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 20:17:48 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
BOHR-ING!
KriminalDrama ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 20:17:57 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Looks like a heatmap for a tit
being_here ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 20:18:13 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Is it a selfie?
Towns-a-Million ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 20:18:20 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I wonder what it looks like when we're not observing it.
NayMarine ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 20:18:24 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
stahp you got his ugly side
inthemovie_idiocracy ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 20:18:52 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Looks like a little solar system, orc cloud and everything...
skillestilla ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 20:20:16 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Needs banana for scale
I_love_Coco ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 20:20:16 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
enhance
mcguyver0123 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 20:20:53 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
What are we going to name this molecular boi?
nice-wood ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 20:21:04 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I'm wondering what the rings represent. Shouldn't hydrogen only have one electron in the 1s orbital? Or do the rings represent probabilities of an electron being at different energy levels?
superman654716 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 20:21:44 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Imagine how it must have felt to be the first person to see this atom. Something so infinitesmally small that we couldn't even begin to comprehend it.
jadrian512 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 20:21:53 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
BS
bodhbh_dearg ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 20:23:16 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I knew it was going to look like that.
baineschile ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 20:23:27 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
What are the pixels made from.
willflameboy ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 20:26:00 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Sorry, can we take that again, I wasn't smiling.
desimaldevil ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 20:26:16 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
banana for scale please
Froktor ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 20:27:17 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
This is just completely amazing
JohnnyTT314 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 20:30:35 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Which Hydrogen atom? There are a lot of them.
hypnos126 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 20:30:39 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
And itโs a tide ad
ahmvvr ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 20:30:51 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
This should be the United Earth flag
theproblemdoctor ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 20:33:21 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I have taken many pictures of water though...
wtfdidijustdoshit ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 20:33:36 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
shouldn't this be in r/aww ?
AnimaVestaIsMine ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 20:34:02 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I often wonder of these so called scientist arenโt just trolling us with these low res, pixelated, easy to photoshop and fake images to keep their financial backers satisfied and fool the rest of us.
I can make an image like this in 2 minutes in photoshop. Its not very hard.
[deleted] ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 23:17:38 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
[deleted]
AnimaVestaIsMine ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 00:45:16 on February 22, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Sure, having/publishing a theory on how something works and how a machine or device achieves that goal is on thing. Proving it works is another. Science results with crappy 240p images dont really prove anything. Its just hard to buy.
Im not a science guy so i wont claim this isnโt genuine or real.
Indigobeef ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 20:34:11 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I feel as though in 20-30 years time this will be the comparison photo of then and now on atomic photos, just like those photos you see of Jupiter and Pluto.
robinpeknik ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 20:34:29 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Potato camera
sauwarter ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 20:35:01 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Zzzzzzzz
green-dreamer ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 20:35:09 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Why is it circular?
ClevelandSteamerBrwn ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 20:39:16 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Yeah but can it 4K and 60FPS?
NextedUp ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 20:41:22 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Have some decency, your S orbital is showing!
The_Godlike_Zeus ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 20:41:23 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
It's so weird if you think about it. We've been making models of atoms, and models are meant to represent the world in a way so that we can work with it. But the model (based on this picture) seems really close to what it looks like in reality.
MissingMemory34 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 20:42:47 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Boom
Ymir_from_Saturn ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 20:45:06 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I thought there was more empty space in atoms than that
Botonoslo ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 20:45:55 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Looks like a planet with an atmosphere lol neat
assetsmanager ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 20:47:15 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Are you sure that's not a thermal image of someone's nipple on a REALLY cold day?
IsniffFarts ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 20:47:16 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I always have a fear that the smallest particle we can find will be just a bunch of binary, and in trying to find out more about the universe we will realise life is pointless.
eastkent ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 20:48:09 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
What if they discover that a hydrogen atom is in fact a whole universe with billions of galaxies inside it?
Art3sian ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 20:48:11 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I wonder what produces the colour at this magnification, and why these colours? Or is this the result of equipment taking the image?
JohnnyJay23 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 20:50:18 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Crazy how it looks exactly like how they predicted
trueluck3 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 20:50:27 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Iโm pretty proud of this bad boy, check it out! I I put a spatially tessellated void inside a modified temporal field until a planet developed intelligent life. I then introduced that life to the wonders of electricity!
bow_to_lucifer ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 20:57:02 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Technically, isnโt every photo with air around a photo of a hydrogen atom? Just like, a lot of them.
sillypickle626 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 20:58:51 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
h
baconsea ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 21:00:27 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I can make one of those for you right now. just need 1 lesser green mutagen, 1 vitriol, and 1 Blue Lotus Flower. BRB
ZombieJesusOG ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 21:02:01 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Thicc
ziggityzah ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 21:05:23 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
ooooooo ahhhhhhhhh
randomusername_815 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 21:07:20 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Doesn't every photo contain many hydrogen atoms? Not impressed.
bubbaa11 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 21:07:55 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
No. Thatโs not how reflection works. The light emitted by the atom is isotopic. Once it absorbs the light it emits the photon in a random direction. Maybe your definition of reflection is different than mine, but reflection seems to me to imply that there is a correlation between the incoming photon and the outgoing photon. Your definition of reflection includes the emission of a different frequency of light in a random direction on an arbitrary timescale, since the lifetime of the excited state could have a lifetime of thousands of years if you pick the right state. Iโm sorry but I donโt agree that that constitutes a reflection of the light. My understanding of reflection of light at the macroscopic scale i that it is the interference of many atoms absorbing and reemitting the light, resulting in the typical reflection we see off of normal surfaces. I don't think that reflection really makes sense on the single atom scale. You can have scattering but again i don't agree that that is reflection.
B-Knight ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 21:09:17 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Maybe I'm being an idiot but surely there should be other atoms in view here? If atoms make up absolutely everything and we've got a 'camera' which can take a photo of atoms then surely we should see the atoms that form the object/item/thing in the background too?
swedish_kid ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 21:09:23 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Man thatโs so big how come we donโt see them
PhatBitty862 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 21:09:28 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Split that shit
Krebstar_ ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 21:09:39 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
MS Paint
Tyrone_Mamzerovich ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 21:09:55 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Courtesy of Dr. Manhattan.
ZebraShark ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 21:11:27 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Dumb question but what is the space around the atom? As in, is it just nothing?
Pint_and_Grub ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 21:13:13 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
This looks like several dots making up the picture. What in the picture is the atom?
Whatโs all the smaller stuff floating around?
byrnsie ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 21:14:12 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Nah someone just made this in Paint
DeadEyeSarge ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 21:14:47 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
As a chemistry student, I am therefore an expert in the field and can confirm these findings, even though I have never achieved anything like this before
Sloppyjoeman ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 21:15:56 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
So I'm assuming that the photo sensor that took this photo is sensitive to electrons, does that mean that a higher resolution photo can't possibly be taken?
NiceFormBro ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 21:16:04 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
That's da bomb
ncelled ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 21:19:07 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I'm gonna trust that this is actually as cool as you guys are saying it is.
ThePolishDane ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 21:19:34 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Would swipe right
[deleted] ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 21:21:19 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
This is a map of the electric field, taken using a scanning tunnelling electron microscope. To put in perspective, a single particle of blue light has a wavelength 4000 times bigger than this atom.
piisfour ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 21:58:32 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Aaaahhhhhh thanks.
What do the colors red and blue stand for?
[deleted] ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 01:59:54 on February 22, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Iโm not 100% but the ST electron microscope maps how many negatively-charged electrons are pulled from its tip to the surface at each point, as it moves along. The nucleus (in red) is positively charged so there would be a surge in electron flow here, while those circular ripples are the electron shells where there would be very little flow due to electron-electron repulsion.
Hydrogen normally only has 1 shell occupied, not 2 as it seems to have here. The nucleus (one proton) can just about afford to hold onto one electron. If any more are added they are, in a millionth of a billionth of a second, dumped back out. So I wonder if the electron microscopy itself - in delivering so many electrons per second in an unnatural way - is responsible for filling up the 2nd shell. In either case, this isnโt how hydrogen normally looks.
tl;dr red positive charge, blue no charge, green negatively charged.
piisfour ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 16:55:11 on February 22, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
So in any event this is not a picture of a normal hydrogen atom.
[deleted] ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 17:20:52 on February 22, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I donโt think so. It has one shell. If this is a weird way of representing one shell then Iโm an idiot.
And bombarding it with electrons and energy will certainly get the 2nd shell occupied, if not filled.
Oddly enough thereโs probably no way to โseeโ a 1 shell Hydrogen atom because itโs so easily excited into higher shells.
Physics never stops being weird.
karankshah ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 21:24:18 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Neat
SteveGrabnormous ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 21:25:17 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
How come this thread isn't full of conspiracy theorists saying this is fake news? Why isn't anyone arguing about its validity? How come no one is correlating this image with funding? No one is even questioning the motive here! C'mon people! Now seriously, why don't the intelligent people rise up? Could that even happen? I wish it would.
stwillyb ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 21:25:31 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
mmm tide pod
owzleee ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 21:26:20 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Are those sp3 hybrid orbitals? They look weird.
piisfour ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 21:57:15 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I would have liked some more info, such as what do those colors represent?
BenderButt ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 21:26:37 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I got chills. Also, we learned how to SPLIT atoms before we could even SEE them??
a1eksanderr ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 21:28:43 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
One moon circles the other
euphoria84 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 21:31:38 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I'm not impressed
_Dilligent ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 21:32:03 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
is it 2d, or are we seeing a slice of a sphere like how MRI's do brains?
kompasroos ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 21:32:15 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Iโm sorry to disappoint you but Iโm pretty sure that that is a pokebal
[deleted] ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 21:32:39 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Boring
ConanInSpace ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 21:33:37 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Looks like a nipple. Which makes me think about boobies.
SpaghettiSaber ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 21:35:39 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Potato quality.
jesscwill ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 21:38:39 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
As I was zooming in, I was preparing for a Tide ad.
Dlrlcktd ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 21:39:09 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
It blinked, the pictures no good
Arithik ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 21:39:19 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Why is everything tiny always round?
piisfour ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 21:55:29 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Sounds like a wrong assumption to me. Very big things which are round are: the sun, the moon, every planet and star known and unknown.
Arithik ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 22:02:05 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Uhm, those are all flat./s
jolthax ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 21:41:48 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
If they had just not used the digital zoom it would look pretty in focus (just smaller).
Piscator629 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 21:42:10 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
A single strontium atom which won a science picture award this week.
https://www.livescience.com/61763-single-atom-ion-trap-photo.html
KopiteTheScot ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 21:43:10 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Now for the black holes
MahatmaGuru ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 21:44:07 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Hydrogen is a very photogenic atom.
piisfour ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 21:53:36 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Why doesn't it smile?
MahatmaGuru ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 23:08:01 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
It's smiling with its ions
tlche2 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 21:44:46 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Looks like earth.
UperMidleClasBrazlin ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 21:45:36 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I have one of these right in front of me now.
ShoMeUrNoobs ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 21:47:49 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Reminds me of Earth. Core, mantle, crust, atmosphere.
stanleyfarnsworth ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 21:51:02 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Are you people morons?
Thatโs clearly Lithium.
excelerater1 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 21:51:16 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
looks more like the shuttle going inside Doomsday machine in star trek
Schizoidgum ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 21:51:27 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
No matter how closely we can look, I am still amazed by the very existence of it.
piisfour ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 21:52:25 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
How do we know this is a picture of a hydrogen atom?
[deleted] ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 21:52:52 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Metroid?
drhagey ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 21:53:25 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
One moon circles.
Benjob0ss93 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 21:55:38 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Iโve got something else that magnifying glass might be able to detect ;)
Klarname ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 22:00:20 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Plankton!
rodneyjesus ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 22:02:29 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
What's awesome to think about is that someday in the future we'll get a crystal clear view of this shit. And it's probably not too far off the way imaging is evolving.
Scope_20 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 22:02:55 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Banana for scale?
defconx81 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 22:03:35 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Can someone ELI5 how this was captured?
crash893b ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 22:08:59 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
but how fast is it going!?!?!
okcomputer_ ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 22:09:40 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Atoms For Peace new album cover...
Granda_To_Nathan ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 22:13:42 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Someone remind me to give a shit
Momeet ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 22:14:23 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Why does it need two rings if it only has one electron? Iโm bad at chem please explain.
Im_a_Mime ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 22:16:26 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Why does it look like Plankton from Spongebob??
CalRipkenForCommish ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 22:17:21 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Would it be insignificantly significant or significantly insignificant?
Qwertical1 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 22:19:38 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Needs more jpeg
shytwombly ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 22:19:58 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
She thicc
MiamiPower ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 22:23:08 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Glamor shots yearbook pictures for the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Periodic_table
Make it the Sub Reddit happen. Team Periwinkle son All Day son!
galacticninth ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 22:28:08 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Isn't the nucleus so small that it wouldn't be visible at this scale? What does the red/orange/yellow represent?
CRRZ ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 22:28:50 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Yup. Thatโs about how I imagined it.
not_a_droid ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 22:29:42 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
was totally expecting dickbutt
Felixn99 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 22:29:59 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Plot twist: it's actually OP's anus in really cold weather, seen through a thermocamera.
volsund ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 22:31:13 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Doesn't look like anything to me
PenguinWithADHD ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 22:32:09 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
How is that even possible? I thought atoms were so small even our best electron microscopes couldn't see them?
GreekLogic ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 22:35:51 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Nice electron if you'll pardon the scientific parlance! I have no idea what this means.
fongaboo ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 22:40:31 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Objects in the microscope may be smaller than they appear
[deleted] ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 22:49:53 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
For those of you wondering why there are rings, it is because some electrons are being intentionally excited to higher energy levels by the experimenters. We would normally see just a cross section of a sphere (a circle) of electron density for hydrogen (as they also confirmed), but in this case we see a cross section of a few such spheres (the circle and some rings)
jackster_ ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 22:50:32 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Looks like a tiny universe.
WalterWhiteRabbit ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 22:50:52 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
So are all those dots in the outer ring the same electron, which is moving so fast that it appears to be a ring rather than a dot?
Jajakomopowers ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 22:56:40 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
โEvery picture you have ever seen has a hydrogen atom in it...โ
-Neil deGrasse Tyson
j909m ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 23:06:05 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Banana for scale?
RompeChocha ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 23:06:16 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Looks like a mini solar system.
Jaz_the_Nagai ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 23:10:23 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I'm not a religious man, but seeing that makes me uncomfortable...
joet131 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 23:14:52 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Mmmmmm send bob
prettybadmccree ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 23:15:37 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Which ones the valance shell?
TheMaster00 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 23:21:21 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
lil gay imo
kksuck2 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 23:23:47 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Enhance
DavidScubadiver ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 23:27:20 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Is that a Litecoin?
No1Catdet ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 23:28:08 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
It's crazy that one hydrogen can explode and destroy entire cities.
Tastypies ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 23:29:45 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
You heard that right. This isn't some no-name hydrogen atom. This is the Hydrogen Atom ladies and gentlemen!
Thumper-Comet ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 23:29:48 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I thought Trumpโs hands were the smallest thing ever photographed. Science has out-done itself again.
cgw3737 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 23:30:09 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Nice picture, but it's not the whole atom. If it were, it would be blank. Your mind is now blown.
Earguy ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 23:38:29 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
"It's all pixelated! Enhance! Enhance!"
Asrivak ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 23:41:07 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Whats with the second ring? Doesn't hydrogen only have an s orbital? Or does this atom have an extra electron? OR is that an electron from a lower energy level jumping to a higher energy level as its being measured?
BrewHa34 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 23:41:37 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I swear the more you get images of things like this the more it resembles space and planets.
Siren_Ventress ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 23:44:46 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
First image of a hydrogen atom? Then what the hell is an MRI??
butterjesus1911 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 23:46:27 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I see the nucleus and what seems to be an electron orbital, but what is with all that green stuff?
Shnazzyone ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 23:46:50 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
What's stopping me from making copies of this image and powering my hydrogen car?
afrostache123 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 23:46:55 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Why isn't it 1080p
Holycrackers33 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 23:49:31 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Where is the NSFW? Everything is exposed....
tygagreenjeans ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 23:55:07 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
This actually a tide commercial
OutragedBubinga ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 23:56:30 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Where's my 5K resolution?
Wulfplussix ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 23:57:59 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Voyager!
SamaSanChan ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 23:59:43 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
What's up with all these quote un quote photos of atoms? An atom is smaller then the wave length of light, you can't see an atom or even photograph them for that matter
They0001 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 00:01:32 on February 22, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
That doesn't look like a hydrogen atom.
I think this is a neon atom.
Photoshop!
Herpkina ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 00:13:22 on February 22, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
That hydrogen has so many electrons! And 2 shells!!! My year 12 chemistry teacher lied
Sw3Et ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 00:14:50 on February 22, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Wtf was this taken on, a potato?
on606 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 00:16:01 on February 22, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Just made this image my Reddit avatar.
alphalady ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 00:16:12 on February 22, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Hey it's me!
Sirus13 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 00:19:50 on February 22, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
What's that ring around the nucleus? Can't be the electrin cloud, can it? I was under the impression that it'd be much much farther away from the nucleus.
NoxiousQuadrumvirate ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 00:21:14 on February 22, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
The fact that this is using the "jet" colour map or similar disgusts me.
[deleted] ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 00:23:15 on February 22, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
This is what we thought they looked like. An electron is a point particle, but it looks "smeared" out over the atom, due to quantum uncertainty. Really cool picture, they probably applied artificial coloring, though. I'm suspecting this is more akin to a heat map.
Funny thing is, we kind of expected them to look like this, according to our books.
Dustin_00 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 00:23:53 on February 22, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
This is a lot more 2D than I'd expect -- if the outer circle is the electron shell, then this is some sort of time-lapse picture showing that electron in multiple locations and it should be all around the nucleus, not just a ring.
Or... I suppose, if you say that the Hydrogen atom is 1 atom thick and the camera was focused on just the middle .2 of the atom and all electron locations outside of that barely register for the picture, I guess the image makes sense.
ArmagedonOverdrive ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 00:24:49 on February 22, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
How does this square with Heisenbergโs quantum uncertainty principle?
Bocote ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 00:26:31 on February 22, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Terrifying. Just imagine the kinds of questions this will spawn on the exams.
ToTouchAnEmu ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 00:37:49 on February 22, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
And the search for OP's dick continues (got em)
caf323 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 00:39:33 on February 22, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I mean sure, why not? I'd have no way of knowing or proving otherwise.
ReadLegit ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 00:49:22 on February 22, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Iโll have several million with half as many oxygen atoms attached.
hackwriter69420 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 00:55:28 on February 22, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
All this tax dollar funding, and this is the best image quality they could get???
PacoTaco321 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 00:55:59 on February 22, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Is this in real color or one of those different spectrums? imjustkidding
kbs42142 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 01:04:54 on February 22, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Do we have a recent image taken of a hydrogen atom to compare it to?
seamusotoole1738 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 01:08:28 on February 22, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Unreal.
smol-egg-pls ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 01:16:06 on February 22, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Hydrogen atom looking ass
OrangeHippo376 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 01:17:24 on February 22, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
It looks like there are clearly defined electron orbitals similar to those in the Jimmy neutron logo. (More visible on left side)
[deleted] ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 01:29:01 on February 22, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
2013
Orgasmictendency ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 01:34:43 on February 22, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
So what makes up the empty space?
Alhomeronslow ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 01:38:20 on February 22, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Non dual - dual nature - stateless state Wonder of Being Power Self Awareness
Josh2204 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 01:46:26 on February 22, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
If the outer ring is so distinct why isn't it spherical hence blocking out inner detail.
oOBoomberOo ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 01:57:02 on February 22, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Annnnnd if we zoom out it somebody dick.
katsumiblisk ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 02:09:31 on February 22, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
So what's going on? Why has it got a ring? It can't be the electron because that's supposed to be anywhere and everywhere around the nucleus, not just in one plane
Lakanooky ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 02:39:48 on February 22, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Oooh pretty. It looks like it's smiling at me.
tanieboy2016 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 02:49:30 on February 22, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
That's un-photon-genic!
autosnappingturtle ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 02:50:35 on February 22, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Actually a really good example of the uncertainty principle.
diplomaticdingus ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 03:07:58 on February 22, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
shes so beautiful...
reddit_mutant ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 03:27:27 on February 22, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Um ... I donโt want to be that guy but this paper is almost 5 years old ...
CoryTV ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 03:30:38 on February 22, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Well, if that's not the cross section of a spherically rendered probability manifold of multidimensional bell curves ultimately composed of collapsing wavefuctions, then I don't know what to say.
Hight3chLowlif3 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 03:30:50 on February 22, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
spamwatch /u/ballard09876
cyanydeez ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 03:36:47 on February 22, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
[shy]
Category5worrycane ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 03:56:47 on February 22, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
A bit over 120 years ago we didnโt even know these little guys existed.
hacourt ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 03:57:58 on February 22, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
What lens? Canon or Nikon. Iโm guessing 60mm macro?
hacourt ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 03:59:33 on February 22, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
What lens? Canon or Nikon. Iโm guessing 60mm macro?
BugEyedMurphy ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 04:08:45 on February 22, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
When do we get the HD version?
mark503 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 04:12:51 on February 22, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Canโt wait til they upload the HD version.
yellowsub9 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 04:30:31 on February 22, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Orbilus, Look! It's Unicron!
MacDaddyT ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 04:36:29 on February 22, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I take pictures of atoms all the time. Theyโre literally everywhere.
Notyourdadsmom ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 04:41:08 on February 22, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
So atoms are made of Predator vision, got it.
[deleted] ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 04:41:30 on February 22, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Why does this have so many upvotes? This happened in 2013. Has this truly never been posted in r/woah
The_Watcher__ ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 05:05:13 on February 22, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
The whispering eye..
bigguwopo ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 05:07:44 on February 22, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
๐ ฑ๏ธydrogen Atom
clb135791 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 05:29:57 on February 22, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Lol this is a hoax!!
[deleted] ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 06:58:42 on February 22, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
https://soundcloud.com/user-388499037/sets/spacey-craziness-vol-1
Mr_Cripter ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 07:27:12 on February 22, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Is this essentially just a 'map' of how an electron stream is deflected when it is fired at a hydrogen atom?
MetalEngineering ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 07:44:08 on February 22, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Proof we are living in a sim, I can see the pixels!
AlphaDeanger ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 09:05:27 on February 22, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Predator's Bunghole
stevewillz ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 09:07:31 on February 22, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
could have made this on ms paint for yaโll.
Romboteryx ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 11:13:11 on February 22, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Sauron if he was a good guy
medium_pimpin ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 11:39:16 on February 22, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Is that Unicron?
_www_ ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 13:30:05 on February 22, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
First image ever taken of the electron waves
AlperenToprak34 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 13:36:23 on February 22, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
So EVIDENCE ??
sunshineshogun ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 14:02:20 on February 22, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Taken on an Android phone
Spamaster ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 16:05:21 on February 22, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Fingerprint of God
[deleted] ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 17:27:17 on February 23, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
The scientist who imaged this atom did it by averaging observations over time. They are now gonna try to image a helium atom, and they think it may allow them to actually see entanglement.
betterdenu123 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 17:12:25 on February 25, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Can someone ELI5 how you can possibly take a picture of an atom?
only20kmaccross ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 05:45:27 on February 26, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
It would suck to be an atom.
stealhbocrabfish ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 07:45:32 on February 28, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
How does this square with Heisenbergโs quantum uncertainty principle?
krakonHUN ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 20:20:31 on March 8, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I found the exact same picture posted here over 3 years ago
amazingoomoo ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 16:26:27 on March 9, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Needs more jpeg
patheticmisterman123 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 02:39:26 on March 18, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Wait a minute, I thought I the smallest thing we can take a picture of was like 40 nanometers or something like that, how was this picture taken?
arcticstoner ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 21:22:33 on March 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Dude its like that one pokemon
Odder1 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 01:54:37 on July 22, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Quite Fun looking
Hoedenplank ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 18:06:34 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Am I just not stoned enough, or does this not really fit this sub? Pretty interesting, but not really 'woahhhh dude' imo.
SFWreddits ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 17:50:11 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Any significance to this going forward?
TaruNukes ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 18:39:38 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Yes
ShittyAtGames ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 17:52:44 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Why is the nipple red?
3FiTA ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 17:55:24 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Selfies with iPhone X.
A_Dodgy_Pilot ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 18:08:39 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
The miracle of life.....taking.
heisenberg747 ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 19:45:04 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Are you referring to a hydrogen bomb? In theory we do that with any element, but hydrogen happens to work best. Hydrogen fuels the sun without which there would be no life, and is the most plentiful element in the universe.
A_Dodgy_Pilot ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 00:05:44 on February 22, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
You're absolutely right, I was just being a pessimist my dude.
sankanyo ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 18:22:11 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Image not taken on the Pixel 2.
hikerjawn ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 18:55:21 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Looks kinda like a planet with an atmosphere. Hmm..
heisenberg747 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 19:39:43 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Have you ever heard of the face on Mars? A lot of people thought it was evidence for an ancient Martian civilization because of this picture of Mars's Cydonia region. turns out, we were just using a shitty camera (taken back in 1976), here's a more recent picture taken with better resolution taken in 2001.
hikerjawn ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 22:50:54 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
?
unslept_em ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 18:55:46 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
grainy boi
HiggeldyPiggeldyPop ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 19:00:44 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Potato phone?
Kallelinski ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 21:17:19 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Looks like one of the first pictures of other planets. Decades later and we have highres photos of them, imagine what an atom will actually look like, if technology progress even more.
[deleted] ยท -2 points ยท Posted at 18:54:36 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Easily the most pointless element.
ShitInMyHandsAndClap ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 22:31:46 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Have you not heard of water?
[deleted] ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 19:18:50 on February 22, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Whatโs that have to do with anything?
ShitInMyHandsAndClap ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 22:31:15 on February 22, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
You said hydrogen is pointless but it makes up 2/3 of water, which is kind of important.
likely_wrong ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 02:39:56 on February 22, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Water is h2o
ShitInMyHandsAndClap ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 03:41:58 on February 22, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Which is 2 parts hydrogen
likely_wrong ยท 5 points ยท Posted at 04:31:46 on February 22, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
No it stands for hydroxygen 2 completely different element
notorioushackr4chan ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 00:06:50 on February 22, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Yeah fuck hydrogen! Garbage element anyways.
gridzbispudvetch ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 10:46:30 on February 25, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
The most pointless element is actually astatine, for the sole reason that it vaporizes in any non-microscopic amount.
slartibartfastr ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 18:41:27 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Shot on iPhone?
WriteInBernie ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 18:48:48 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Was this picture taken with a potato?
Extreme_NonBeliever ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 18:54:23 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Can it be possible that the atom is like a mini solar system? The rings can be planet rotations and they look like rings because they move so quickly
Dim_Innuendo ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 19:03:55 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I'm trying to see the electron, but every time I look it feels like it's moved.
R34CTz ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 19:15:14 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Does anyone know if we will ever have the technology to take HD pictures of atoms and molecules? Without the fuzziness and such, or are there real images out there already? I don't mean the artistic models or 3d renderings either, i mean legitimate photos.
Nortonlp ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 19:31:40 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
.
reacharound-handyJ ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 21:19:25 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Looks retarded
Lord_Malgus ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 23:08:49 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I knew Sauron was involved with dihydrogen monoxide
DerSpini ยท -1 points ยท Posted at 17:57:59 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Needs more jpeg!
guysnacho ยท -1 points ยท Posted at 17:58:56 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Meh
DukeJonty ยท -1 points ยท Posted at 18:33:21 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Did you take this with a potato?
Phillipinsocal ยท -1 points ยท Posted at 19:51:01 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I see the yin and yang symbol. It would be extraordinary to think that that symbol was the foundation of it all, or that it all is the foundation of that symbol.
tokyoburns ยท -5 points ยท Posted at 17:48:19 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Meh
Anikan2002 ยท -2 points ยท Posted at 18:13:13 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
It looks like a mouldy vagina
potatodust1 ยท -4 points ยท Posted at 18:38:36 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I Have BIG gaY
grillmaster6969 ยท -22 points ยท Posted at 16:43:27 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Bull
Edit: 1st thanks for downvoting 2nd. Iโve read multiple articles by now. Is it not more of a projection of highest probability of electrons etc of the atom? Maybe I misunderstood something. Eng isnt my first languge.
BubbhaDunkh ยท 10 points ยท Posted at 17:09:35 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Not bull.
PitchforkAssistant ยท 13 points ยท Posted at 17:24:04 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Definitely not a bull, bulls look like this.
HighVulgarian ยท 4 points ยท Posted at 17:37:04 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Or this
[deleted] ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 18:27:22 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Yeah, why is the atom round when the earth is flat?
[deleted] ยท -21 points ยท Posted at 17:07:12 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
[deleted]
LORDS810 ยท 9 points ยท Posted at 17:24:46 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
No bull my dude.
https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21829194-900-smile-hydrogen-atom-youre-on-quantum-camera/
[deleted] ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 18:28:37 on February 21, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I know, if the earth is flat then shouldn't the hydrogen atom be flat too? Lots of sheeple in this thread.