super atoms

[William Gaatjes]

Hello everybody i found this article to be very interesting.
Especially when you extrapolate this finding to proteins...
I wonder if this technique is used by our cells to mimic more "aggressive" elements that are to hostile for our cells. When a very energetic reaction is needed, a protein would fold itself in another way when triggered and uses some of the atoms to form a superatom. Then the reaction would start as long as it is needed.


Superatom :

The newly discovered cluster, consisting of one vanadium and eight cesium atoms, acts like a tiny magnet that can mimic a single manganese atom in magnetic strength while preferentially allowing electrons of specific spin orientation to flow through the surrounding shell of cesium atoms. The findings appear online in the journal Nature Chemistry.

Through an elaborate series of theoretical studies, Shiv N. Khanna, Ph.D., professor in the VCU Department of Physics, together with VCU postdoctoral associates J. Ulises Reveles, A.C. Reber, and graduate student P. Clayborne, and collaborators at the Naval Research Laboratory in D.C., and the Harish-Chandra Research Institute in Allahabad, India, examined the electronic and magnetic properties of clusters having one vanadium atom surrounded by multiple cesium atoms.

They found that when the cluster had eight cesium atoms it acquired extra stability due to a filled electronic state. An atom is in a stable configuration when its outermost shell is full. Consequently, when an atom combines with other atoms, it tends to lose or gain valence electrons to acquire a stable configuration. According to Khanna, the new cluster had a magnetic moment of five Bohr magnetons, which is more than twice the value for an iron atom in a solid iron magnet. A magnetic moment is a measure of the internal magnetism of the cluster. A manganese atom also has a similar magnetic moment and a closed electronic shell of more tightly bound electrons, and Khanna said that the new cluster could be regarded as a mimic of a manganese atom.

"An important objective of the discovery was to find what combination of atoms will lead to a species that is stable as we put multiple units together. The combination of magnetic and conducting attributes was also desirable. Cesium is a good conductor of electricity and hence the superatom combines the benefit of magnetic character along with ease of conduction through its outer skin," Khanna said. "A combination such as the one we have created here can lead to significant developments in the area of "molecular electronics," a field where researchers study electric currents through small molecules. These molecular devices are expected to help make non-volatile data storage, denser integrated devices, higher data processing and other benefits," he said.

Khanna and his team are conducting preliminary studies on molecules composed of two such superatoms and have made some promising observations that may have applications in spintronics. Spintronics is a process using electron spin to synthesize new devices for memory and data processing. The researchers have also proposed that by combining gold and manganese, one can make other superatoms that have magnetic moment, but will not conduct electricity. These superatoms may have potential biomedical applications such as sensing, imaging and drug delivery.

Protein finding :

The scientists say their discovery, published in the online Early Edition of in The Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS) on June 8, 2009, emphasizes that such shape shifting by proteins is a common way of regulating cellular activities. This direct view provides a neat example of the dynamic and complex nature of proteins, contrasting with a single preferred folded structure that is determined by the energy balance between the amino acids that make them up.

The group of Scripps Research Associate Professor Ashok Deniz has conducted a series of studies that use novel fluorescence methods to show that both simple and complex proteins can swiftly change their structures. In March, Deniz and his Scripps Research team published a study, also in PNAS, demonstrating how a simple protein associated with development of Parkinson's disease can switch shapes back and forth between different structures, depending on its binding to molecular partners.

Now, a collaboration among the Deniz laboratory, the group of José N. Onuchic of the University of California, San Diego, (UCSD) and the laboratory of Thomas J. Magliery of Ohio State University, has shown that a protein dimer made up of two identical parts can actually twist itself so that one copy of the protein is turned upside down if its environment is only slightly altered.

"It has long been a puzzle as to how proteins, which can theoretically adopt an extremely large number of structures even with a single chain of amino acids, end up folding themselves to a well defined three-dimensional structural basin," says Deniz." While the concept of a funneled energy landscape explains folding, protein function often requires more than one stable three-dimensional shape. Theoretical work generalizing energy landscape theory combined with these experiments shed light on how symmetry can result in proteins being able to populate structures that are dramatically different, a feature very important in cellular regulation and function.

superatom

protein

 

[Gibsons]

I don't see the connection between superatoms and protein folding. In particular, this sentence:
"When a very energetic reaction is needed, a protein would fold itself in another way when triggered and uses some of the atoms to form a superatom."

When a reaction requires a lot of energy, the biological solution is often to couple it with ATP hydrolysis. Proteins don't typically contain vanadium or cesium, nor is there much of either in a human body. I'm failing to understand how or why it might be helpful if they did.

 

[William Gaatjes]

Originally posted by: Gibsons
I don't see the connection between superatoms and protein folding. In particular, this sentence:
"When a very energetic reaction is needed, a protein would fold itself in another way when triggered and uses some of the atoms to form a superatom."

When a reaction requires a lot of energy, the biological solution is often to couple it with ATP hydrolysis. Proteins don't typically contain vanadium or cesium, nor is there much of either in a human body. I'm failing to understand how or why it might be helpful if they did.

I think you got me all wrong.
Afcourse i am not writing about literally using the same atoms of the same elements as used in the research.

I am writing about the principle behind it. I am writing about how the 3d shape of the protein affects what its function is and i was wondering if some clusters of atoms in that protein would mimic another atom by using this "super atom" principle.

EDIT:

This principle may very well be used in ATP, i really do not know know.
I was wondering if the superatom principle could be used in proteins.

 

[Gibsons]

Originally posted by: William Gaatjes

Originally posted by: Gibsons
I don't see the connection between superatoms and protein folding. In particular, this sentence:
"When a very energetic reaction is needed, a protein would fold itself in another way when triggered and uses some of the atoms to form a superatom."

When a reaction requires a lot of energy, the biological solution is often to couple it with ATP hydrolysis. Proteins don't typically contain vanadium or cesium, nor is there much of either in a human body. I'm failing to understand how or why it might be helpful if they did.

I think you got me all wrong.
Afcourse i am not writing about literally using the same atoms of the same elements as used in the research.

I am writing about the principle behind it. I am writing about how the 3d shape of the protein affects what its function is and i was wondering if some clusters of atoms in that protein would mimic another atom by using this "super atom" principle.

EDIT:

This principle may very well be used in ATP, i really do not know know.
I was wondering if the superatom principle could be used in proteins.

I don't think any conventional protein would be capable of forming superatoms. That is, I don't think you can form a superatom with just C, H, O, N, and S. Cyclowizard knows this sort of pchem stuff fairly well (I don't), maybe he'll comment....

In theory you could probably engineer a protein which could form the vanadium-cesium superatom, but I don't see how that's useful?

 

[William Gaatjes]

I don't think any conventional protein would be capable of forming superatoms. That is, I don't think you can form a superatom with just C, H, O, N, and S. Cyclowizard knows this sort of pchem stuff fairly well (I don't), maybe he'll comment.... In theory you could probably engineer a protein which could form the vanadium-cesium superatom, but I don't see how that's useful?

Well, i would not think about building a vanadium-cesium atom.

Sometimes proteins just looks like a programming language with elements.
And the more i read about proteins, the more it seems quantummechanical effects like tunneling are being used all the time within life forms. And when you see that everything we know is carbon based and carbon has all these extraordinary properties. The various different lattice arangements of the atoms that give it special properties, like for example buckyballs and diamonds or graphite.

Ordinary newtonian physics work but it sometimes seems quantummechanics is needed to support life.


I sure hope cyclowizard does not respond, his writings are not interesting to read. Seems to me more of a flamewar kind of person. Nothing to learn form...

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: Gibsons
I don't think any conventional protein would be capable of forming superatoms. That is, I don't think you can form a superatom with just C, H, O, N, and S. Cyclowizard knows this sort of pchem stuff fairly well (I don't), maybe he'll comment....

In theory you could probably engineer a protein which could form the vanadium-cesium superatom, but I don't see how that's useful?

There are at least a handful of people here who know a lot more about this stuff than I do. The concept of a "superatom" is pretty poorly defined at this point as far as I can tell, but if it's based on magnetism, it seems unlikely that non-metallic elements would be able to be part of superatoms.

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: William Gaatjes
I sure hope cyclowizard does not respond, his writings are not interesting to read. Seems to me more of a flamewar kind of person. Nothing to learn form...

Really? That is a shame because I was going to share a paper I wrote detailing the role of structure-property relationships in protein solutions. Oh well. I guess HT will be stuck with your nonsensical ramblings rather than anything highly technical.

 

[Gibsons]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: Gibsons
I don't think any conventional protein would be capable of forming superatoms. That is, I don't think you can form a superatom with just C, H, O, N, and S. Cyclowizard knows this sort of pchem stuff fairly well (I don't), maybe he'll comment....

In theory you could probably engineer a protein which could form the vanadium-cesium superatom, but I don't see how that's useful?

There are at least a handful of people here who know a lot more about this stuff than I do. The concept of a "superatom" is pretty poorly defined at this point as far as I can tell, but if it's based on magnetism, it seems unlikely that non-metallic elements would be able to be part of superatoms.

Yeah, but you post more.

 

[William Gaatjes]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: William Gaatjes
I sure hope cyclowizard does not respond, his writings are not interesting to read. Seems to me more of a flamewar kind of person. Nothing to learn form...

Really? That is a shame because I was going to share a paper I wrote detailing the role of structure-property relationships in protein solutions. Oh well. I guess HT will be stuck with your nonsensical ramblings rather than anything highly technical.

I would say : "enlighten us with your knowledge oh great one !"

I could say : "Get off your high horse".
But i do not. Continue to sit on your shetland pony. It suits you.



And as always :

"Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people. " --Eleanor Roosevelt

Maybe this will mean something to you.

"Physical and/or intellectual superiority does not make you a better human, It is how you choose to use those characteristics that define you... "


EDIT :

i was right, you still have nothing usefull to add. Shame...

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: William Gaatjes

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: William Gaatjes
I sure hope cyclowizard does not respond, his writings are not interesting to read. Seems to me more of a flamewar kind of person. Nothing to learn form...

Really? That is a shame because I was going to share a paper I wrote detailing the role of structure-property relationships in protein solutions. Oh well. I guess HT will be stuck with your nonsensical ramblings rather than anything highly technical.

I would say : "enlighten us with your knowledge oh great one !"

I could say : "Get off your high horse".
But i do not. Continue to sit on your shetland pony. It suits you.

And as always :

"Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people. " --Eleanor Roosevelt

Maybe this will mean something to you.

"Physical and/or intellectual superiority does not make you a better human, It is how you choose to use those characteristics that define you... "


EDIT :

i was right, you still have nothing usefull to add. Shame...

Pointing out your ignorance does not make me arrogant. However, letting ignorance and pseudo-intellectualism pass without comment would lead to the ignorance of others. If you want a useful discussion, post a useful thread. You have posted two completely unrelated ideas, then pretended as if they're peas in a pod. For some reason, you think this makes you an intellectual when in reality, you're simply demonstrating your ignorance. Superatoms: cool little things that have cool properties. Protein folding: cool bigger things that behave in specific ways under specific conditions. Where is the relationship between the two?

 

[Paperdoc]

The authors of the original paper chose a "sexy" name, "Superatom" and got what they needed - attention to their work. Besides that, the term is technically correct. However, it has distorted the understanding of their work.

The Vanadium-Cesium clusters they studied are quite correctly "superatoms" in the sense that they behave like one atom for purposes of the work in magnetic and electrical conductive properties, but are in fact composed of several atoms bonded together in a stable compound. However, they never intended readers to understand that their compounds have some kinds of "Superpowers" that can provide infinite energy, cure cancer, or even cure common colds. The term refers to the structures they studied, not to their imagined abilities.

 

[William Gaatjes]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: William Gaatjes

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: William Gaatjes
I sure hope cyclowizard does not respond, his writings are not interesting to read. Seems to me more of a flamewar kind of person. Nothing to learn form...

Really? That is a shame because I was going to share a paper I wrote detailing the role of structure-property relationships in protein solutions. Oh well. I guess HT will be stuck with your nonsensical ramblings rather than anything highly technical.

I would say : "enlighten us with your knowledge oh great one !"

I could say : "Get off your high horse".
But i do not. Continue to sit on your shetland pony. It suits you.

And as always :

"Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people. " --Eleanor Roosevelt

Maybe this will mean something to you.

"Physical and/or intellectual superiority does not make you a better human, It is how you choose to use those characteristics that define you... "


EDIT :

i was right, you still have nothing usefull to add. Shame...

Pointing out your ignorance does not make me arrogant. However, letting ignorance and pseudo-intellectualism pass without comment would lead to the ignorance of others. If you want a useful discussion, post a useful thread. You have posted two completely unrelated ideas, then pretended as if they're peas in a pod. For some reason, you think this makes you an intellectual when in reality, you're simply demonstrating your ignorance. Superatoms: cool little things that have cool properties. Protein folding: cool bigger things that behave in specific ways under specific conditions. Where is the relationship between the two?

See, that is exactly what i mean, you have not provided any information. You just play the man, not the ball. That is cheap politics, politicians for example who use these kind of tactics have nothing usefull to say. Please do not lower yourself to this kind of behaviour. When considering that other people speak highly of you i can only state that it does not suit you. Now i have that of my chest, i can continue...

I was simply wondering and asking if this principle could apply to other atoms as well.
Since i do not have readily available knowledge about it, it would seem fair to ask such a question. After all , this is a forum. And i am not insulting anybody by asking these questions. If i would have such confirmed knowledge i would not ask for it but would share it with anybody who would be interested.

I am not stating that what i proposed is exactly that what is happening , i am merely wondering and hoping to start a usefull discussion about it. I have been reading pure out of interest for a few years about proteins. And since the 3d shape of a protein determines its function(EDIT: and afcourse the atoms it is build from) i was wondering if this principle of combined atoms of different but specfic elements would also be behaving as the atoms in this so called "Superatom". Again i remind you i am not stating, i am merely considering the option that it could be the case.
I do not have the means to confirm or deny this thus all my writings are thought experiments.

Another example what i find fascinating is about the quantum mirage.
I am not saying it is the same, i am merely stating that similarities and differences might explain and predict very interesting phenomena.

quantum mirage.

 

[William Gaatjes]

Originally posted by: Paperdoc
The authors of the original paper chose a "sexy" name, "Superatom" and got what they needed - attention to their work. Besides that, the term is technically correct. However, it has distorted the understanding of their work.

The Vanadium-Cesium clusters they studied are quite correctly "superatoms" in the sense that they behave like one atom for purposes of the work in magnetic and electrical conductive properties, but are in fact composed of several atoms bonded together in a stable compound. However, they never intended readers to understand that their compounds have some kinds of "Superpowers" that can provide infinite energy, cure cancer, or even cure common colds. The term refers to the structures they studied, not to their imagined abilities.

Indeed.

And what i was thinking about that this may not be as unique as it seems. Maybe it is, but i doubt it. Please read my other post where i mention the quantum mirage discovered by ibm researchers years ago. I am not an expert, not at all but i am wondering if this is the case. And if this phenomena is seen more often in lifeforms. That is why i thought proteins could be using these kind of principles as well.

Maybe the typical key and lock examples of proteins uses these kind of principles as well. I am just guessing here. But it does not seem impossible to me.

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: William Gaatjes
See, that is exactly what i mean, you have not provided any information. You just play the man, not the ball. That is cheap politics, politicians for example who use these kind of tactics have nothing usefull to say. Please do not lower yourself to this kind of behaviour. When considering that other people speak highly of you i can only state that it does not suit you. Now i have that of my chest, i can continue...

I was simply wondering and asking if this principle could apply to other atoms as well.
Since i do not have readily available knowledge about it, it would seem fair to ask such a question. After all , this is a forum. And i am not insulting anybody by asking these questions. If i would have such confirmed knowledge i would not ask for it but would share it with anybody who would be interested.

At this point, I am beginning to understand that English is probably not your first language, and perhaps that is why what you write is not what you mean. I posted in this thread after you insulted me - an insult based on your own ignorance (or, perhaps, inability to express your ideas in a coherent manner which I interpreted as ignorance). Either way, you did not ask any questions in your OP - you made statements, which I can only interpret as assertions. Therefore, in the future, it would benefit everyone if you could write what you mean rather than an indecipherable mash-up of ideas. A good start would be using question marks after questions, for example.

I am not stating that what i proposed is exactly that what is happening , i am merely wondering and hoping to start a usefull discussion about it. I have been reading pure out of interest for a few years about proteins. And since the 3d shape of a protein determines its function(EDIT: and afcourse the atoms it is build from) i was wondering if this principle of combined atoms of different but specfic elements would also be behaving as the atoms in this so called "Superatom". Again i remind you i am not stating, i am merely considering the option that it could be the case.
I do not have the means to confirm or deny this thus all my writings are thought experiments.

You said, "Hello everybody i found this article to be very interesting.
Especially when you extrapolate this finding to proteins... "
This seems to indicate that you think the study on superatoms had some implications for proteins. You then seem to indicate that proteins could behave like "superatoms" to somehow change the thermodynamic energy requirements of a chemical reaction. Since anyone who has studied thermodynamics and reaction kinetics can tell you, the net energy difference across a reaction is fixed. However, the activation energy may be changed by altering the reaction mechanism - exactly what is done in catalytic or enzymatic reactions. It is unclear how superatomic principles relate to do with any of this, so why not try to explain?

 

[KIAman]

Reading through both links, I don't see the connection. It's like trying to find a relationship between the ocean currents on Earth and the rotational pattern of a cluster of galaxies inside a supercluster.

 

[Born2bwire]

Originally posted by: Paperdoc
The authors of the original paper chose a "sexy" name, "Superatom" and got what they needed - attention to their work. Besides that, the term is technically correct. However, it has distorted the understanding of their work.

The Vanadium-Cesium clusters they studied are quite correctly "superatoms" in the sense that they behave like one atom for purposes of the work in magnetic and electrical conductive properties, but are in fact composed of several atoms bonded together in a stable compound. However, they never intended readers to understand that their compounds have some kinds of "Superpowers" that can provide infinite energy, cure cancer, or even cure common colds. The term refers to the structures they studied, not to their imagined abilities.

I'm going to have to see if I could work the "super" prefix into my next paper. "Super Happy Quantum Fun Vacuum Energy-Force Computational Simulation Supreme Object-Oriented Programming Spectacular!!!!111" It needs work to past muster (and advisor approval).

 

[Paperdoc]

Born2bwire, remember also the KISS Principle: Keep it Simple and Sexy. To appeal to the masses and the media (who cares about thesis advisors?) keep the Super and Happy and Fun, but eliminate most of the meaningful words!

 

[William Gaatjes]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: William Gaatjes
See, that is exactly what i mean, you have not provided any information. You just play the man, not the ball. That is cheap politics, politicians for example who use these kind of tactics have nothing usefull to say. Please do not lower yourself to this kind of behaviour. When considering that other people speak highly of you i can only state that it does not suit you. Now i have that of my chest, i can continue...

I was simply wondering and asking if this principle could apply to other atoms as well.
Since i do not have readily available knowledge about it, it would seem fair to ask such a question. After all , this is a forum. And i am not insulting anybody by asking these questions. If i would have such confirmed knowledge i would not ask for it but would share it with anybody who would be interested.

At this point, I am beginning to understand that English is probably not your first language, and perhaps that is why what you write is not what you mean. I posted in this thread after you insulted me - an insult based on your own ignorance (or, perhaps, inability to express your ideas in a coherent manner which I interpreted as ignorance). Either way, you did not ask any questions in your OP - you made statements, which I can only interpret as assertions. Therefore, in the future, it would benefit everyone if you could write what you mean rather than an indecipherable mash-up of ideas. A good start would be using question marks after questions, for example.

I am not stating that what i proposed is exactly that what is happening , i am merely wondering and hoping to start a usefull discussion about it. I have been reading pure out of interest for a few years about proteins. And since the 3d shape of a protein determines its function(EDIT: and afcourse the atoms it is build from) i was wondering if this principle of combined atoms of different but specfic elements would also be behaving as the atoms in this so called "Superatom". Again i remind you i am not stating, i am merely considering the option that it could be the case.
I do not have the means to confirm or deny this thus all my writings are thought experiments.

You said, "Hello everybody i found this article to be very interesting.
Especially when you extrapolate this finding to proteins... "
This seems to indicate that you think the study on superatoms had some implications for proteins. You then seem to indicate that proteins could behave like "superatoms" to somehow change the thermodynamic energy requirements of a chemical reaction. Since anyone who has studied thermodynamics and reaction kinetics can tell you, the net energy difference across a reaction is fixed. However, the activation energy may be changed by altering the reaction mechanism - exactly what is done in catalytic or enzymatic reactions. It is unclear how superatomic principles relate to do with any of this, so why not try to explain?

Well, i will answer that partially with a question, why does an protein have the shape that it does ? And why can a mirrored copy of a protein not function as the standard version of that protein ?

The link i posted, has some interesting information. When i first read about it, i was wondering that what they did with those atoms to make the electron wave interference behave as it does would be used in nature as well to mimic non existent atoms.
Now i read from the superatom article they could mimic the manganese atom, i was simply wondering that these 2 practices are used in nature. And to be honest, i would not be surprised if that is the case when looking at proteins. I am not going to prove it, I will leave that honour to a field specific specialistic researcher with the machines and the information to do research.

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: William Gaatjes
Well, i will answer that partially with a question, why does an protein have the shape that it does ?

The protein has the shape it does because of intra- and intermolecular electrical interactions.

And why can a mirrored copy of a protein not function as the standard version of that protein ?

Chirality.

The link i posted, has some interesting information. When i first read about it, i was wondering that what they did with those atoms to make the electron wave interference behave as it does would be used in nature as well to mimic non existent atoms.
Now i read from the superatom article they could mimic the manganese atom, i was simply wondering that these 2 practices are used in nature. And to be honest, i would not be surprised if that is the case when looking at proteins. I am not going to prove it, I will leave that honour to a field specific specialistic researcher with the machines and the information to do research.

So you made up a connection between two disparate fields of science, propose a common link between them, and assume that the link exists without even suggesting a thought process by which you arrived at said link. Then you have the audacity to call people closed-minded when they question your ramblings. :roll:

 

[William Gaatjes]

WG: Well, i will answer that partially with a question, why does an protein have the shape that it does ?

CW: The protein has the shape it does because of intra- and intermolecular electrical interactions.

Good.

WG: And why can a mirrored copy of a protein not function as the standard version of that protein ?

CW: Chirality.

i took the liberty to excerpt a part :
"Enzymes, which are chiral, often distinguish between the two enantiomers of a chiral substrate. Imagine an enzyme as having a glove-like cavity that binds a substrate. If this glove is right-handed, then one enantiomer will fit inside and be bound, whereas the other enantiomer will have a poor fit and is unlikely to bind."

And why does this happen ? Look up information about molecular orbital theory.

When looking at the particles as only effects of wave interference, i think that it is pretty sure that when i take a chunk of material, all these wavesinteference results called atoms affect eachother. And i mean in a 4d plane.
Although wikipedia should not be used as an only reference i will post this part anyway because of time constraints.

"One of the reasons for calling the field "condensed matter physics" is that many of the concepts and techniques developed for studying solids actually apply to fluid systems. For instance, the conduction electrons in an electrical conductor form a type of quantum fluid with essentially the same properties as fluids made up of atoms. In fact, the phenomenon of superconductivity, in which the electrons condense into a new fluid phase in which they can flow without dissipation, is very closely analogous to the superfluid phase found in He 4 at low temperatures and He 3 when two of these atoms pair and thus take on boson properties."

So you made up a connection between two disparate fields of science, propose a common link between them, and assume that the link exists without even suggesting a thought process by which you arrived at said link. Then you have the audacity to call people closed-minded when they question your ramblings. :roll:

Oh well. i have the audacity to call people that when they would not even take the time to think about it. When i get a proper explanation why something is impossible with undeniable proof, then i will accept and announce i was wrong and it is not possible.

I have to digg up all the science articles on these subjects i have on paper and pdf and then i will give you an idea of what i mean in words.


And for not being able to see the connection, i mentioned wave interference before... But then again do not see it on 2 axis. Wave interference with a 3d result is much more fun, because then it is easier to visualize. Orbitals of electrons are just one such example. In time i wil be able to finish my plans to write a program that exactly does that. Using result information from experiments from seemingly unrelated fields of science. That is my plan.


I have seen many times When 2 unrelated fields of science are joining forces, always missing links come up and connecting the dots is easier. But to be able to do that one must not be arrogant. It is a bad habit and can close your mind.

 

[Gibsons]

Why don't you just write a program that correctly predicts the 3d structure of a protein with only the amino acid sequence as input data? Do it well enough (i.e. within about 2 angstroms at any given location) and you'll certainly win a Nobel. Start now!

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: William Gaatjes
i took the liberty to excerpt a part :
"Enzymes, which are chiral, often distinguish between the two enantiomers of a chiral substrate. Imagine an enzyme as having a glove-like cavity that binds a substrate. If this glove is right-handed, then one enantiomer will fit inside and be bound, whereas the other enantiomer will have a poor fit and is unlikely to bind."

And why does this happen ? Look up information about molecular orbital theory.

When looking at the particles as only effects of wave interference, i think that it is pretty sure that when i take a chunk of material, all these wavesinteference results called atoms affect eachother. And i mean in a 4d plane.
Although wikipedia should not be used as an only reference i will post this part anyway because of time constraints.

Yes, all atoms affect each other in three dimensional dynamics. What's your point? I'm pretty sure I already said that.

"One of the reasons for calling the field "condensed matter physics" is that many of the concepts and techniques developed for studying solids actually apply to fluid systems. For instance, the conduction electrons in an electrical conductor form a type of quantum fluid with essentially the same properties as fluids made up of atoms. In fact, the phenomenon of superconductivity, in which the electrons condense into a new fluid phase in which they can flow without dissipation, is very closely analogous to the superfluid phase found in He 4 at low temperatures and He 3 when two of these atoms pair and thus take on boson properties."

What does this have to do with superatoms?

Oh well. i have the audacity to call people that when they would not even take the time to think about it. When i get a proper explanation why something is impossible with undeniable proof, then i will accept and announce i was wrong and it is not possible.

I have to digg up all the science articles on these subjects i have on paper and pdf and then i will give you an idea of what i mean in words.


And for not being able to see the connection, i mentioned wave interference before... But then again do not see it on 2 axis. Wave interference with a 3d result is much more fun, because then it is easier to visualize. Orbitals of electrons are just one such example. In time i wil be able to finish my plans to write a program that exactly does that. Using result information from experiments from seemingly unrelated fields of science. That is my plan.


I have seen many times When 2 unrelated fields of science are joining forces, always missing links come up and connecting the dots is easier. But to be able to do that one must not be arrogant. It is a bad habit and can close your mind.

Yes, but generally people can at least verbalize how the two fields might be related before making sweeping statements about the consequences of that relationship. So far, you have said nothing except what everyone already knows: the atomic structure of proteins is important in determining their shape. So what have you brought to the discussion except wild conjecture?

 

[RedArmy]

Dude, my field of study isn't even close to anything that's talked about in this thread and I know you're full of it. Want to know how? It's the exact same stuff that's written in college when students need to pad their paper or make a talking point out of thin air to meet the minimum requirements.

The worst case is when you have a student that's so far gone that they interrupt the professor with statements that start out with "well, what if..." and then go on to completely wreck any credibility they had in their question by going so far out of the scope of reality that everyone in the class just wishes they would shut up.

What I'm trying to say in a round-about way is that you're 'that' student. I come to HT to read about interesting subjects such as "Why do DSLRs have mechanical shutters?" or "The future of computer input devices". Every time I come here and see one of your threads I know two things: 1) It will have a lot of replies 2) All subsequent replies have little to do with the subject and more to do with how the hell it relates to anything at all.

I have a lot of respect for the people that can answer any of the questions in this sub-forum with a definitive answer, especially given the level of detail that some of these questions involve. I suggest that you take a close look at other threads in this sub-forum and see how people conduct themselves.

I know this posting is against the rules for HT, but then again, this entire thread is for the most part. You can admonish me all you want but, in a way that should get through to you since you seem to love quoting other people so much, "It is better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to open one's mouth and remove all doubt."

Peace out, I'm going back to OT.

 

[Born2bwire]

Originally posted by: William Gaatjes
Oh well. i have the audacity to call people that when they would not even take the time to think about it. When i get a proper explanation why something is impossible with undeniable proof, then i will accept and announce i was wrong and it is not possible.

Hah, I see. Instead of presenting a hypothesis, the derivation of the theory and comparison of the theory's results with known results or experimental data, you want us to do all the work of trying to disprove a theory without any real basis.

Good luck with that.

 

[William Gaatjes]

Originally posted by: RedArmy
Dude, my field of study isn't even close to anything that's talked about in this thread and I know you're full of it. Want to know how? It's the exact same stuff that's written in college when students need to pad their paper or make a talking point out of thin air to meet the minimum requirements.

The worst case is when you have a student that's so far gone that they interrupt the professor with statements that start out with "well, what if..." and then go on to completely wreck any credibility they had in their question by going so far out of the scope of reality that everyone in the class just wishes they would shut up.

What I'm trying to say in a round-about way is that you're 'that' student. I come to HT to read about interesting subjects such as "Why do DSLRs have mechanical shutters?" or "The future of computer input devices". Every time I come here and see one of your threads I know two things: 1) It will have a lot of replies 2) All subsequent replies have little to do with the subject and more to do with how the hell it relates to anything at all.

I have a lot of respect for the people that can answer any of the questions in this sub-forum with a definitive answer, especially given the level of detail that some of these questions involve. I suggest that you take a close look at other threads in this sub-forum and see how people conduct themselves.

I know this posting is against the rules for HT, but then again, this entire thread is for the most part. You can admonish me all you want but, in a way that should get through to you since you seem to love quoting other people so much, "It is better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to open one's mouth and remove all doubt."

Peace out, I'm going back to OT.

I understand what you mean, unfortunately.

Fortunately, i am not one of them. I am the one you never hear although i am very present, but i prefer to work ahead. In that way i have more time to think about what i have learned and do not need to bother with learning for tests. At least that was how i did back in the days.

Nowadays, my work is usually still finished ahead of time. Now however to much unforeseen consequences keep me very busy. Another reason why i cannot spend enough time.

In time i present my idea's and will backup them. I can always be wrong afcourse, but i have tendency to always find something others overlooked. And that can be more of a curse then a blessing... Alas we will see. Maybe my grasp is too high, maybe i can cling on.