...it might as well be here, too. (h/t Stuart Cantrill and Gavin Armstrong)
A pretty amazing feat by the IBM team. A long time ago, I wrote:
A pretty amazing feat by the IBM team. A long time ago, I wrote:
...it is my unfounded speculation that the future of chemistry does not lie in the life sciences, but in the physical sciences.I think that's still true.
Pretty amazing indeed; almost sends a shiver up your spine when you realize that humans (and only humans) can do something like this.
ReplyDeleteMy unfounded speculation is that the future of chemistry will lie in the information sciences.
picoputians?
ReplyDelete..I am losing my relevance as an organic chemist and that can't be good. First the big pharma jettisoned me off, the academy made me irrelevant and now the movie! CJ, is there anything left to be seen?
ReplyDeleteBetter than 1080P resolution!
ReplyDeleteYou make me feel small.
ReplyDeleteAfter all our history of scientific achievement, it all comes back to cave drawings.
ReplyDeleteI showed this to my daughter. Her first question was "what kind of atoms are they?" Anyone know?
ReplyDeleteFrom the BBC article: "The stop-motion animation uses a few dozen carbon atoms, moved around with the tiny tip of what is called a scanning tunnelling microscope (STM)."
DeleteAnd the surface is copper (atoms night visualized)
Delete*not ... not sure where my brain is today.
DeleteThe surface is a Copper (111). The boy is 'drawn' from CO molecules.
DeleteWhat are those wavy thingies around the atom? How come they don't interfere (two on the left) and interfere on the boy on the right in the still photo? Just some free electron hanging around the carbon?
ReplyDeleteOK folks, this is pretty much *exactly the same thing they did in 1990* when spelling "IBM" with atoms. They've just done it a bunch more times to generate a stop-motion thingy.
ReplyDeleteOn the broader point relevant for the Chemjobber audience, is there anything resembling novel and/or groundbreaking scientific research happening in the private sector anymore? Because we sure aren't seeing it here...