What is Digg?51 Comments
- bfrank72, on 02/15/2008, -1/+27This just in: blood cells really do look like miniature doughnuts.
- makkaveli19, on 02/15/2008, -1/+14this is what my mom told me the female genitals look like before marriage.
- rutty, on 02/15/2008, -4/+13Even if you think science is boring you have to find these images stunning. Right?
Incredible stuff - Xerces, on 02/15/2008, -4/+12If you think science is boring, you are a jock.
- Chainheart, on 02/16/2008, -0/+5Your argument is obnoxious and a total non-sequitur, and it completely misses the point of science as well (how the beauty can be explained without having to invoke the supernatural to do so)
- caled, on 02/16/2008, -0/+4You actually make me want to hit my head against walls.
- supermajic, on 02/16/2008, -1/+5I'm pretty sure they are 3D renders.. they scan the topography and maybe the colours and then use that to create 3d models... i'm no scientist but that's what it looks like.
- YoctoYotta, on 02/16/2008, -0/+3Or a woman. Just sayin.
- cdawzrd, on 02/16/2008, -0/+3Artificial coloring and computer enhancement, maybe... not necessarily "rendered" per se. Some of them are "rendered" to give a better visual form, but not in the sense that they are fake, rather the information the microscope takes has to be "interpreted" through computer modeling in order to have a good visual reproduction of what it has measured
- Asidic, on 02/16/2008, -0/+3I feel your pain... No, I really mean it! Stop that, it hurts!
- poitzort, on 02/16/2008, -0/+3I have a ton of SPM images that look like these. They're not very neat and really it's the software that colors them and makes them actually look cool. If I knew I could win an art contest with my SPM images I would have submitted them. I guess it's not that impressive if you're used to seeing things like this. You can see a lot of images like these in research. Except when displaying them in papers they use a top down view and not a 3D view which is boring, but more compact.
For example:
http://www.almaden.ibm.com/vis/stm/images/stm.gif
and it's not even in an art contest - thebrawl, on 02/16/2008, -0/+2WTF is a GeSi quantum dot?
- wrathofg0d, on 02/16/2008, -1/+3Hahaha, does anyone else think the E.coli and blue-green algae ones look like bad 3D CG renders? I'm not saying they are, I know these are real. I'm just saying that the resemblance is uncanny.
- moletimer, on 02/16/2008, -0/+2The bromine atoms look like red mountains.
- littleBear84, on 02/16/2008, -0/+2This is just a reminder about how much untapped potential lies in understanding the incredibly small. As Feynman said, "There's plenty of room at the bottom."
- Thayin, on 02/16/2008, -0/+2How unbelievable is the depth of reality...seriously. The deeper we look the more amazed I am.
- bdrevniok, on 02/16/2008, -0/+1Not all of these images are produced with a scanning tunneling microscope. In fact, quite a few of them are not. While many of them are quite nice, they don't quite capture what the STM can perform. Basically, Wired got it wrong.
A scanning probe microscope (the "SPM", in SPMIMAGE) is not always an STM. There are many other techniques (atomic force and electrostatic force are displayed in the gallery) which share some features but vary wildly in method of transduction. - spacecoyote1966, on 02/16/2008, -0/+1mmmmm... blood cells.. (drool)
- ennTOXX, on 02/16/2008, -0/+1there's nothing NANOscale at how awesome those pictures are.... me likey :||
- Wugie, on 02/16/2008, -0/+1I liked that one as well, but the blood cells were my favorite.
- rkef, on 02/18/2008, -0/+1Ferme la ***** bouche, bouche.
- bdbElysian, on 02/18/2008, -0/+1Very nice. Nanotech rocks but some high rez widescreen images would have been nice. can't have a nanowire desktop with a thumbnail.
- BingoPower, on 02/16/2008, -0/+1Mother nature in it's microscopic form can be just as beautiful as the scenes she provides us at our regular level of viewing. Dugg for nano-beauty.
- web2pointYo, on 02/16/2008, -3/+4yes and NOT BAGELS. I hate bagels. Anything you have to shmeear a ton of stuff on top of just to choke it down is not good.
so to surmise. Striking images=Good, Scanning microscopes= Good, Bagels=BAD
"Hey! No bagel, no bagel, no bagel... - straylight08, on 02/16/2008, -0/+1Awesome images, the E-coli one in stood out in particular for me
- kryx2, on 02/16/2008, -0/+1Is "breathtaking" the new "amazing"?
- Dimalinch, on 02/16/2008, -0/+1I don't know much about Nano-tech, but I do know that it will have a major impact on society in the near future. It will bring up questions that have never been dealt with before. Humanity Vs. Production will be truly recognized.
- moxillaq, on 02/16/2008, -0/+1Even your RBCs?
- ccxftw, on 02/16/2008, -1/+2You have a bad experience or something?
/sarcasm (so someone doesn't take me seriously) - likwidfuzion, on 02/16/2008, -0/+1Image 9 looks more like donuts if you ask me.
- Sonic84, on 02/16/2008, -1/+1buried for overuse of "breathtaking" on the front page. I mean seriously! Buy a thesaurus or something.....
- i4gotmypassword, on 02/16/2008, -0/+0Candy corn. Willy Wonka was right!
- tikiman453, on 02/15/2008, -1/+1i thought that first picture was an electric water lily. but you know, redder.
- PhilMoskowitz, on 02/16/2008, -1/+1Every single one of those things gives you cancer.
- tabularosa, on 02/16/2008, -1/+1Check it out . . . wierd science . . . The Republican War On Science by Chris C. Mooney
A stinging indictment of how the G.O.P. has ignored good science, & used junk-science to justify it's political agenda, from evolution to global warming to stem cell research. The G.O.P.'s disregard for scientists & the scientific method is lubriciously lickerish. But Bu$h likes to licorice @ the Y . . . Condoleeza lick "O' Rice. http://www.scienceblogs.com/intersection/ - chihpih, on 02/16/2008, -1/+1thats some crazy microscopes they got!!!
viruses got pwn! - humangrenade, on 02/16/2008, -0/+0A quantum dot is a ball-like shaped semiconductor, in this case made of germanium and silicon, that because of its small size (measured in nanometers), its electrons display quantum mechanical effects.
- web2pointYo, on 02/19/2008, -1/+1just as long as theres no bagels in the waiting room.
because they suck. - gbgood, on 02/16/2008, -0/+0The closer we look, the greater and greater amounts of info we aquire? It all tends to make it clearer and clear... how little we really know... What a cool universe, or iteration thereof, to be part of ... Right Now!!! Wow...
- moletimer, on 02/16/2008, -1/+1You need therapy :P
- PanKracjenty, on 02/18/2008, -0/+0great pictures, love it.
- bizmowacka, on 02/16/2008, -1/+0mmm... blood cell donuts
- Daevlong, on 02/16/2008, -2/+1Your favorite SPM image sucks.
- r4ge, on 02/16/2008, -2/+1all i can say is.. WTF
The nanoscale is very important in Technology! Look at this link and indeed the true reality in nanoscale Rock! http://www.spymac.com/details/?2344172 Click here - INDOAZZ, on 02/15/2008, -4/+3Stalagmite Forest
- bouche, on 02/16/2008, -2/+1"oooh! IT's BREATHTAKING!"
fag. - JDoggMac, on 02/15/2008, -7/+6I don't know about breathtaking, but they look cool I guess
- RedRoomGames, on 02/15/2008, -4/+1#9 makes me want donuts
- fasda, on 02/15/2008, -4/+1Isn't STM electron microscopes awesome
- cockaroachie, on 02/16/2008, -11/+0I don't know how anyone could look at this and be an atheist. The beauty alone testifies of God.
Browsing Digg on your phone just got easier with our enhancements to the 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is 