Why do these molecules look like ping pong balls?

[Independent voter]

So this is a sign IBM made, I guess IBM is still a thing, but each dot is a molecule, I think they said a CO2 molecule. That's fine but why does each molecule look like a ping pong ball? Do all molecules look like spherical blobs?

[Krekal]

Do all molecules look like spherical blobs?

Yes(no matter what molecule with such an instrument, they would look about the same kind of roundness*). I know why, but I can't put it into words in a good way

But I'll give it a shot:

They don't look like what you get when you google "molecule" (ie. a static ridiculously simple 2D/"3D"-structure), they're much more complicated.

1st Edit: Here's a video that could help https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FmQoSenbtnU a little bit I think

2nd Edit: Here's the video that I was looking for, it's really interesting! But I don't know if it's as much of an answer. Seriously though, watch it. It's amazing :O ->
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BMIvWz-7GmU

[Deleted]

The same reason planets are spheres, gravity ?

I guess.

[Deleted]

lots of stuff in nature is spherical. Have a google, I think it's something to do with either fairies chiseling them to be pretty or lowest energy states, I can't remember which.

[Syld]

Yes. I know why, but I can't put it into words in a good way

Molecules aren't spherical at all, I highly doubt the image in the OP are CO2 molecules

The same reason planets are spheres, gravity ?

I guess.

Gravity is extremely weak compared to the other forces

[Independent voter]

[Deleted]

the molecules arent spheres perse, the electromagnetic force of the electron cloud just looks like a sphere to these microscopes because its omnidirectional.

[Deleted]

the molecules arent spheres perse, the electromagnetic force of the electron cloud just looks like a sphere to these microscopes because its omnidirectional.

is it perhaps likely that the image was captured over time so is recording the total emissions of the quanta rather than any "instant" configuration?

[AwkwardSquirtle]

It's likely due to lack of resolution. The image was probably made using electrons, and so you get an image of the electrons around it. There's some complexity to electron orbital shapes further out from the nucleus, but suffice to say that most electrons float around within a sphere. This reflects them back to the detector, you see a spherical atom.

Also I don't think they are CO2. CO2 is a molecule made of 3 atoms. Those look like single atoms.

[Deleted]

is it perhaps likely that the image was captured over time so is recording the total emissions of the quanta rather than any "instant" configuration?

no its just difficult to explain what molecules are. for all practical purpose that sphere is (the outer edge of) the molecule. about at that border is where all chemical reactions happen.

but what such spheres usually mean is that there is a x% chance (like 90%+) that the electrons of the atom are somewhere within that sphere. 99.999% of the sphere is actually empty. it's all pretty weird stuff, look up atomic orbitals on wiki.

[Deleted]

It's likely due to lack of resolution. The image was probably made using electrons, and so you get an image of the electrons around it. There's some complexity to electron orbital shapes further out from the nucleus, but suffice to say that most electrons float around within a sphere. This reflects them back to the detector, you see a spherical atom.

Also I don't think they are CO2. CO2 is a molecule made of 3 atoms. Those look like single atoms.

Reportedly single carbon atoms.
http://www.extremetech.com/extreme/1...y-placed-atoms

- - - Updated - - -

no its just difficult to explain what molecules are. for all practical purpose that sphere is (the outer edge of) the molecule. about at that border is where all chemical reactions happen.

but what such spheres usually mean is that there is a x% chance (like 90%+) that the electrons of the atom are within that sphere. 99.999% of the sphere is actually empty. it's all pretty weird stuff, look up atomic orbitals on wiki.

I think the physics B.Sc. I found in a packet of cornflakes in '94 or something will probably get me through it, though I confess to having forgotten much. I was more wondering how the image was created.

[Deleted]

I think the physics B.Sc. I found in a packet of cornflakes in '94 or something will probably get me through it, though I confess to having forgotten much. I was more wondering how the image was created.

probably used atomic force microscope or something similar to pick up and drop molecules

[Deleted]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xA4QWwaweWA
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oSCX...ature=youtu.be

For the animated movie they used carbon monoxide. I assume that we end up seeing a sphere because each is polarised in the low temp medium? In effect you see it end on maybe.

I couldn't quickly find any details on how they made the Star Trek stills.

[Deleted]

Gravity is extremely weak compared to the other forces

No it isn't.

[Forogil]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xA4QWwaweWA
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oSCX...ature=youtu.be

For the animated movie they used carbon monoxide. I assume that we end up seeing a sphere because each is polarised in the low temp medium? In effect you see it end on maybe.

You see that there are roughly two spheres next to each other in the "ball" - I believe those are the carbon and oxygen atom; and it is not really spheres but something more complex.
In the boy you see that the brighter spheres blend together - that is something you will expect as well.

The Star Trek logo was likely made with only carbon atoms.

- - - Updated - - -

No it isn't.

Well, it isn't in some cases - but when we talk about forces between a few atoms it is extremely weak; and can be ignored.

- - - Updated - - -

Yes(no matter what molecule with such an instrument, they would look about the same kind of roundness*). I know why, but I can't put it into words in a good way

But I'll give it a shot:

They don't look like what you get when you google "molecule" (ie. a static ridiculously simple 2D/"3D"-structure), they're much more complicated.

1st Edit: Here's a video that could help https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FmQoSenbtnU a little bit I think

2nd Edit: Here's the video that I was looking for, it's really interesting! But I don't know if it's as much of an answer. Seriously though, watch it. It's amazing :O ->
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BMIvWz-7GmU

Amazing, but it is misleading - since the orbitals are not solid spheres but various shades of probability; and there are no significant gaps in the orbitals as shown in that video.

Regarding the shapes of molecules - they can be ellipsoids or merged spheres. It seems carbon monoxide has anti-bonding ones that look more like two separate spheres: http://chemtube3d.com/orbitalsCO.htm - which is consistent with the video of the boy and his ball.

[Milchshake]

That's an image from IBM's STM micro scope from a few years back.

The background is copper 111, the molecule's are carbon monoxide. Carbon monoxide that has one carbon atom and one oxygen atom, stacked on top of each other.

Because of the orientation and lack of depth perception, you think you're seeing a singular sphere.

[Forogil]

That's an image from IBM's STM micro scope from a few years back.

Yes, http://www.research.ibm.com/articles...ithatoms.shtml

The background is copper 111, the molecule's are carbon monoxide. Carbon monoxide that has one carbon atom and one oxygen atom, stacked on top of each other.

I don't see how you would easily stack them on top of each other.

And I cannot see IBM saying that, but in the longer movie they stated they used CO molecules and that look different (something about CO being stable for movies).

[Deleted]

Yes, http://www.research.ibm.com/articles...ithatoms.shtml


I don't see how you would easily stack them on top of each other.

And I cannot see IBM saying that, but in the longer movie they stated they used CO molecules and that look different (something about CO being stable for movies).

They have a slight dipole and low temps often involve magic with magnets (I'm pretty much pulling this out of my arse as a guess)

[Milchshake]

Yes, http://www.research.ibm.com/articles...ithatoms.shtml


I don't see how you would easily stack them on top of each other.

And I cannot see IBM saying that, but in the longer movie they stated they used CO molecules and that look different (something about CO being stable for movies).

Because its in the 9th paragraph down. It might involve using a mouse scroll wheel to find it.

[Forogil]

Because its in the 9th paragraph down. It might involve using a mouse scroll wheel to find it.

You should try reading what you reply to first, since I had read that - and understood the details.

What you see is in the section named "The world's smallest movie set" where they discuss using CO.
But the star trek logo is in "Science fiction at the atomic level"; and isn't a movie.

The images from those two things look different: in the movie there are two spheres of different shades of grey next to each other. If that is CO on top of each other they do a pretty poor job of standing up. In the star trek logo there is only one sphere - thus it is not at all clear that is done in the same way, nor that it is CO.