Stop Motion Movie Animated Using Individual Atoms

H

HardOCP News

[H] News
Joined
Dec 31, 1969
Messages
0
IBM Research made the world's smallest stop motion film called "A boy and his atom" by manipulating single atoms. The movie had to be magnified 100 million times just so you could see it. :eek:
 
As soon as I read the video description I said "this sounds like something IBM would do"

Sure enough.
 
your telling me we can move atoms around and make a stop motion movie, yet we still cannot cure cancer
 
Moving individual atoms...In the explanation of how they did it, didn't they say it was individual molecules ...not atoms?
 
crashbox said:
your telling me we can move atoms around and make a stop motion movie, yet we still cannot cure cancer
Click to expand...

it's probably all about money. They could probably target individual cancer cells and eliminate them but think how much it could cost and what the wait times would be. sometimes you have to wait months for a simple MRI.
 
DogChainX said:
Moving individual atoms...In the explanation of how they did it, didn't they say it was individual molecules ...not atoms?
Click to expand...

yeah.. one of the girls says its CO molecules.. carbon monoxide, while the guys say atoms.

even if it is a pair of atoms for each spot.. thats still pretty damn spiffy

plus.. is it me.. or is the 2nd girl really hot?
 
That was a cool video, thanks. :D As far as curing cancer, that would be far more complicated and even then, doctors do not know everything. (A lot of them are just stuck at what they know and are not willing to think outside the box.)
 
crashbox said:
your telling me we can move atoms around and make a stop motion movie, yet we still cannot cure cancer
Click to expand...
There's no money in actual cures, but there's LOTS of money in prolonging life through continual use of medications and medical procedures.
 
crashbox said:
your telling me we can move atoms around and make a stop motion movie, yet we still cannot cure cancer
Click to expand...

Don't worry. Give it time and in the near future, they'll be making cancer molecules dance too.

Oh it won't cure them, but it will sure be cute.
 
M'ichal said:
it's probably all about money. They could probably target individual cancer cells and eliminate them but think how much it could cost and what the wait times would be. sometimes you have to wait months for a simple MRI.
Click to expand...

mynamehere said:
There's no money in actual cures, but there's LOTS of money in prolonging life through continual use of medications and medical procedures.
Click to expand...

When you know you're completely ignorant on a topic, it's probably better not to comment.
 
Curious...if those are atoms they are manipulating...then what is the backdrop that they are sitting on made of...it appears, at least by the way they "sit" that they lay on a uniform surface made up of something smaller...yet there isn't anything smaller than an atom (except the parts of an atom...that we can't layout like that)
 
The trick is that they can place the molecules so one atom protrudes, wherever they want it.

Ultra dense memory.
 
SBSuperfly said:
When you know you're completely ignorant on a topic, it's probably better not to comment.
Click to expand...

Actually, he is not wrong. Over the last 20 or so years the FDA has shown it is more interested in treating than curing. Look at all the drugs that have come out, found to be dangerous, then sued for all the other medical problems they "helped" with. If you want further proof, look at how the FDA is trying to kill of e-cigs. If they were really about the health of people they would be behind e-cigs since they do what smoking cessation products don't, they get people to stop smoking. But, since the pharmaceutical companies rake in billions a year on patches, gum, inhalers and chantix, they want Americans to keep smoking so they can bilk them for more money on products that don't help. Not to mention all the drugs and medical gear used to treat health issues from smoking. They make a fortune of you being sick from one thing or another, why should they lose their cash cows?
 
Tanis143 said:
Actually, he is not wrong. Over the last 20 or so years the FDA has shown it is more interested in treating than curing. Look at all the drugs that have come out, found to be dangerous, then sued for all the other medical problems they "helped" with. If you want further proof, look at how the FDA is trying to kill of e-cigs. If they were really about the health of people they would be behind e-cigs since they do what smoking cessation products don't, they get people to stop smoking. But, since the pharmaceutical companies rake in billions a year on patches, gum, inhalers and chantix, they want Americans to keep smoking so they can bilk them for more money on products that don't help. Not to mention all the drugs and medical gear used to treat health issues from smoking. They make a fortune of you being sick from one thing or another, why should they lose their cash cows?
Click to expand...

I won't rely again since this is not on topic, but I'm not sure you understand what the FDA is and how it works. Also, my comments were specifically addressing the disrespect for cancer treatment and research, not the FDA and "e-cigs".
 
kattana said:
yeah.. one of the girls says its CO molecules.. carbon monoxide, while the guys say atoms.

even if it is a pair of atoms for each spot.. thats still pretty damn spiffy

plus.. is it me.. or is the 2nd girl really hot?
Click to expand...

Yeah, I was thinking, ok an atom is roughly an angstrom in size, magnify it by 100M and you get basically 1cm size which looks to be about right for what I saw, but then when you add the molecular size you get a few cm, which starts to get a bit larger than what you see on the screen... of course they did say "about" 100M times so maybe there's some wiggle room there

And yes she's hot... but I couldn't stop looking at Moley McMolerson holy crap that guy has fat ass moles all over his face.
 
mynamehere said:
There's no money in actual cures, but there's LOTS of money in prolonging life through continual use of medications and medical procedures.
Click to expand...

There was a huge cavity in a metatarsal? caused by a bone infection in my wife's foot 2 weeks ago.

There is a new pharm that uses cadaver bone stem cells, that you pack into a bone.

It is completely healed as of 9am this morning. Years ago, that kind of damage would not ever heal.

Exactly how is this pharm abusing her?
 
Qinsp said:
There was a huge cavity in a metatarsal? caused by a bone infection in my wife's foot 2 weeks ago.

There is a new pharm that uses cadaver bone stem cells, that you pack into a bone.

It is completely healed as of 9am this morning. Years ago, that kind of damage would not ever heal.

Exactly how is this pharm abusing her?
Click to expand...

Umm have you seen the Resident Evil movies?? Make sure you have a gun on standbye... I know you love your wife but she's bound to zombify on you!
 
Star-Trek replicators don't seem so far-fetched after watching this. Combine super-precise molecular imaging scanners and a super-fast atom-scale 3D printer using some kind of laser to suspend individual atoms in the beam, and a second, high-energy laser for molecular binding, and you could literally "print" the atomic structure of something on the fly. Sure, not right now, but 23rd century? Seems quite doable in principle.
 
Now, are we technically looking at the atoms, or a field generated by the atom and converted into something our eyes perceive as a dot?
 
Phoenix333 said:
Sure, not right now, but 23rd century? Seems quite doable in principle.
Click to expand...

But I want it now. :(

That was awesome. :) Manipulating single atoms, even on a small scale :) is awesome. The nerds are "AWESOME! AMAZING!", the other people are "Who's Adam?" or "Duh. We have always been able to see atoms. Remember 'Our friend, the Atom?'" :D
 
Woah that is insane. Sprites... using atoms. I think I've seen it all. We need molecular Super Mario Bros now. :D

I did not realize it was possible to actually view or manipulate atoms like this. Crazy!
 
Tanis143 said:
Actually, he is not wrong. Over the last 20 or so years the FDA has shown it is more interested in treating than curing. Look at all the drugs that have come out, found to be dangerous, then sued for all the other medical problems they "helped" with. If you want further proof, look at how the FDA is trying to kill of e-cigs. If they were really about the health of people they would be behind e-cigs since they do what smoking cessation products don't, they get people to stop smoking. But, since the pharmaceutical companies rake in billions a year on patches, gum, inhalers and chantix, they want Americans to keep smoking so they can bilk them for more money on products that don't help. Not to mention all the drugs and medical gear used to treat health issues from smoking. They make a fortune of you being sick from one thing or another, why should they lose their cash cows?
Click to expand...

Just a quick note...with many cancers survival rate isn't that great if not caught early. Take my dad for instance. He's about to die of prostate cancer. From detection to death, probably 4 years. Not very long to "rack up billions" in revenue for treating a terminally-ill patient.

I'd gladly pay out $500,000 for a one-time cure to save my dad than the $17,800 or so he's spent in treatments so far that maybe has given him an extra few months.
 
Prostate cancer survival rates are going up each year.

It's not because of new age medicine.

When I was a kid, medical encyclopedias said cancer was >99% lethal and virtually untreatable.
 
SBSuperfly said:
When you know you're completely ignorant on a topic, it's probably better not to comment.
Click to expand...

Elaborate? In my post I did not mean to insinuate that there's some drug-corporation conspiracy to keep cancer unbeatable. I meant it rather literally, that some procedures cannot be done on a massive scale due to costs.

Not sure why you call me ignorant, I know quite a bit about cancer (though definitely not as much as people whose careers are dedicated to it). Perhaps if you can post something constructive I can learn more.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top