Science!! Fucking magnets, how do they work?

Furry

<Gold Donor>
9,220
8,763
113d 21h 3m
This microscope has the potential to be huge in terms of advancements. A lot of things we know are basically inferred and even biology paper reproduction rates are pretty dog shit right now so this has the potential to clear up tons of misconceptions/bad papers out there. I'd be curious if it's good enough to see mRNA protein folding.. that shit right there is the holy grail of biotechnology. A clear predictable understanding of mRNA and protein folding turns DNA modifications into the equivalent of computer programming biology.
Did you read the paper? It's an improvement on visible spectrum microscopes, by condensing light into highly precise pulses to minimize damage to the target objects, though it still destroyed/damaged their targets. It's an interesting technology, but it's vastly inferior to electron microscopes in resolution.

We can already visualize incredibly small things such as individual atoms and to some degree the structure of an atom. The major issue to visualizing processes such as you describe is the speed and precision of our viewing. It's a step in the right direction, but in answer to your question, no. This will not allow that.
 
  • 1Like
Reactions: MusicForFish

Tripamang

Blackwing Lair Raider
1,528
2,621
85d 19h 57m
Did you read the paper? It's an improvement on visible spectrum microscopes, by condensing light into highly precise pulses to minimize damage to the target objects, though it still destroyed/damaged their targets. It's an interesting technology, but it's vastly inferior to electron microscopes in resolution.

We can already visualize incredibly small things such as individual atoms and to some degree the structure of an atom. The major issue to visualizing processes such as you describe is the speed and precision of our viewing. It's a step in the right direction, but in answer to your question, no. This will not allow that.
Boo and no I didn't read the underlying paper. Ain't nobody got time fo that. The fact that the science article failed to properly articulate the limitations and I'd have to read the paper is why I hate science reporting and just gave up entirely on phys.org. I don't have the knowledge to know I'm being fed bullshit and I don't have the time to read through the original paper to verify what's been written. Science news is more misinformation than information in fact it's so bad it makes CNN blush.

“The man who reads nothing at all is better educated than the man who reads nothing but newspapers.” - Thomas Jefferson
 
  • 1Like
Reactions: MusicForFish

Furry

<Gold Donor>
9,220
8,763
113d 21h 3m
Boo and no I didn't read the underlying paper. Ain't nobody got time fo that. The fact that the science article failed to properly articulate the limitations and I'd have to read the paper is why I hate science reporting and just gave up entirely on phys.org. I don't have the knowledge to know I'm being fed bullshit and I don't have the time to read through the original paper to verify what's been written. Science news is more misinformation than information in fact it's so bad it makes CNN blush.

“The man who reads nothing at all is better educated than the man who reads nothing but newspapers.” - Thomas Jefferson
Science reporting is garbage on a whole, which is why I typically read the underlying paper and skip the article. No idea what the article claimed it could do, but the science in the paper is good and reasonable. It's a step of progress, which is essentially what most good science is.
 

Tripamang

Blackwing Lair Raider
1,528
2,621
85d 19h 57m
Science reporting is garbage on a whole, which is why I typically read the underlying paper and skip the article. No idea what the article claimed it could do, but the science in the paper is good and reasonable. It's a step of progress, which is essentially what most good science is.
I was presuming this was a higher resolution than it was and that was my mistake and the article made no mention of it's limitations. Whenever we get a new tool that really changes the paradigm we make big advancements quickly and I was a bit too drunk on the hopium here.
 

wormie

<Gold Donor>
11,308
20,753
198d 35m
Did you read the paper? It's an improvement on visible spectrum microscopes, by condensing light into highly precise pulses to minimize damage to the target objects, though it still destroyed/damaged their targets. It's an interesting technology, but it's vastly inferior to electron microscopes in resolution.

We can already visualize incredibly small things such as individual atoms and to some degree the structure of an atom. The major issue to visualizing processes such as you describe is the speed and precision of our viewing. It's a step in the right direction, but in answer to your question, no. This will not allow that.
I think what we should all be concerned primarily with the use of complex numbers while modeling these microscopes.
 

Furry

<Gold Donor>
9,220
8,763
113d 21h 3m
I was presuming this was a higher resolution than it was and that was my mistake and the article made no mention of it's limitations. Whenever we get a new tool that really changes the paradigm we make big advancements quickly and I was a bit too drunk on the hopium here.

Protein interactions occur so fast that it's probably a long time before they leave the field of theoretical and enter the field of observational. That said, our basis for the theoretical keeps getting better and better. To give an example, here is an electron microscope image of the spike protein in a variant of covid bound to an antibody.

journal.pbio.3001237.g003.PNG
 

wormie

<Gold Donor>
11,308
20,753
198d 35m
Protein interactions occur so fast that it's probably a long time before they leave the field of theoretical and enter the field of observational. That said, our basis for the theoretical keeps getting better and better. To give an example, here is an electron microscope image of the spike protein in a variant of covid bound to an antibody.

View attachment 358393
These arent microscope images lol. These are space filling models with arrows to specific residues.
 

Furry

<Gold Donor>
9,220
8,763
113d 21h 3m
These arent microscope images lol. These are space filling models with arrows to specific residues.

It is an image produced from the workings of an electron microscope. Yes the data has to go through modeling. Next you'll say images from space aren't images, because almost all go through similar computer reconstruction of the data. That's a nonsense level of argument. Almost all extremely precise images require modeling/interpretive computing, because the raw images tend to be less informative. But since you want to be pedantic, they also exist.

wooop.jpg
 

Sanrith Descartes

I love my shiny new medal, LLR
<Gold Donor>
14,296
36,517
86d 1h 9m
It is an image produced from the workings of an electron microscope. Yes the data has to go through modeling. Next you'll say images from space aren't images, because almost all go through similar computer reconstruction of the data. That's a nonsense level of argument. Almost all extremely precise images require modeling/interpretive computing, because the raw images tend to be less informative. But since you want to be pedantic, they also exist.

View attachment 358401
Looks like my kid spilled rice krispies on the carpet.
 

wormie

<Gold Donor>
11,308
20,753
198d 35m
It is an image produced from the workings of an electron microscope. Yes the data has to go through modeling. Next you'll say images from space aren't images, because almost all go through similar computer reconstruction of the data. That's a nonsense level of argument. Almost all extremely precise images require modeling/interpretive computing, because the raw images tend to be less informative. But since you want to be pedantic, they also exist.

View attachment 358401
Every post of yours in this thread is fucking retarded. You stated the following:

'To give an example, here is an electron microscope image of the spike protein in a variant of covid bound to an antibody.'

and then posted an a cartoon that is not generated through modeling but by by a rendering program like PyMol.

Go back to sucking furry cocks in some other thread and keep your dipshit ignorance out of this one.

PS the modelling you are talking about uses negative numbers so why are you even talking about any of this fake shit?