Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

IBM Measures Force Required To Move Atoms

Posted by CmdrTaco on from the i-bet-i'm-strong-enough-to-do-that dept.

Tjeerd writes "IBM scientists, in collaboration with the University of Regensburg in Germany, are the first ever to measure the force it takes to move individual atoms on a surface. This fundamental measurement provides important information for designing future atomic-scale devices: computer chips, miniaturized storage devices, and more." I've attached a video if you are interested.

128 comments

  1. OMG I AM FROST by VIGILANTROLL · · Score: -1, Offtopic

    It has been a long time, but now I am back for the FRST!

  2. too much money for too little by kevgaxxana · · Score: -1, Troll

    so much effort but so little gain. until it comes to a profitable point, it isn't worth it.

    --
    In Soviet Halo, the game kills you (socially anyway)
    1. Re:too much money for too little by Diomedes01 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      You are kidding, right? That is one of the most ignorant statements I have ever seen. Nothing would ever be "worth it" if it had to show an immediate profit.

      --
      "To hope's end I rode and to heart's breaking: Now for wrath, now for ruin and a red nightfall!"
    2. Re:too much money for too little by sm62704 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Dude, what are you doing at slashdot? This is a nerd site, not a greedhead site. This advances human knowlege, who gives a damn if it ever makes a profit?

      Does the Hubble bring profit? No. Do earth based telescopes bring anyone profit? No. Should they? Not as a primary function. There are more important things in life than money and profits!

      There was a beautiful sunrise this morning. Although nobody made any money off of it, I greatly profited by the experience. Mankind greatly profits by knowing how much force is required to move an atom, whether IBM makes any money from the exersize or not.

      Go back to the bank to worship your little green god and stop trolling us nerds.

      --
      mcgrew's razor: Never attribute to stupidity that which can be explained by greedy self-interest
    3. Re:too much money for too little by mwvdlee · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Yeah, it's just like all that research into electrons they did some years ago. So f**king small they weight next to nothing, so how are they ever going to be useful?

      --
      Slashdot social media options: AIM, ICQ, Yahoo, Jabber and Mobile Text. Why no MySpace?
    4. Re:too much money for too little by simcop2387 · · Score: 1

      it'll never be profitable if you think it isn't worth it to try to make it profitable.

    5. Re:too much money for too little by AmaDaden · · Score: 4, Funny

      In other news IBM has talked about a new "highly accurate" price system for shipping of their servers.

    6. Re:too much money for too little by Kenoli · · Score: 1

      What isn't worth what? It's a research project. It's not supposed to be profitable.

    7. Re:too much money for too little by louks · · Score: 4, Funny

      He obviously doesn't understand Part 3...

      1. Move individual atoms to make company logo

      2. Determine the force required to move those atoms

      3. ???

      4. Profit!

    8. Re:too much money for too little by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There are more important things in life than money and profits!

      Unless you're a Ferengi.
    9. Re:too much money for too little by hcmtnbiker · · Score: 1, Flamebait

      Does the Hubble bring profit?

      The Hubble not making profit is like saying that people don't pay taxes. Where do you think your money goes? NASA needs projects like the Hubble to keep getting its government checks. You're sunrise is a bad analogy, since no one created, except maybe a higher power if you believe in one.

      Secondly, I assume IBM has a bunch of ideas about how they could make money off of this. IBM is a company, and being a company it must turn a profit, otherwise it wont be a company for very long. They have at least one idea on how to make this a profitable adventure, just because they're not telling you it doesn't mean they don't have one.

      --
      If i had one dollar for every brain you dont have, i would have $1.
    10. Re:too much money for too little by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      A sunrise tax ... taxing people for watching the sun rise ... Brilliant !!!

      (/Hopes no one in congress notices this joke.)

    11. Re:too much money for too little by PJ1216 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      the hubble doesn't bring profit. its not like it's making more money then they are spending on it. we pay taxes, yes. yes, some it goes to nasa. however, nasa is putting that money into a project that isn't making extra money, therefore its not a profit.

    12. Re:too much money for too little by iknownuttin · · Score: 1
      Nothing would ever be "worth it" if it had to show an immediate profit.

      You've never dealt with Wall Street, have you? Look into "arbitrage". Hell, look into all of their business practices.

      --
      I prefer Flambe as apposed flamebait.
    13. Re:too much money for too little by sm62704 · · Score: 1

      Saying "The Hubble not making profit is like saying that people don't pay taxes" is like saying "eggs are like rabbits."

      Eggs and rabbits are alive unless they're dead, that's where the similarity ends. Taxes are money and so are profits, that's where the similarity ends.

      The sunrise isn't an analogy. I did indeed profit from it, and it doesn't matter whether or not the sunrise was created. It was there, it had value, it was priceless and costless. If it wasn't costless, if I had to pay money to construct it, I would have. IBM moving atoms isn't costless, but it is priceless.

      How valuable is the air you breathe? How much do you pay for it? I pity you and your pathetically narrow world view.

      Money is only a tool. You shouldn't worship your tools. Not because of any religious injunction but because worshiping your tools is retarded.

      --
      mcgrew's razor: Never attribute to stupidity that which can be explained by greedy self-interest
    14. Re:too much money for too little by marzipanic · · Score: 1

      Dude, what are you doing at slashdot? This is a nerd site, not a greedhead site. This advances human knowlege, who gives a damn if it ever makes a profit?
      Does the Hubble bring profit? No. Do earth based telescopes bring anyone profit? No. Should they? Not as a primary function. There are more important things in life than money and profits!
      There was a beautiful sunrise this morning. Although nobody made any money off of it, I greatly profited by the experience. Mankind greatly profits by knowing how much force is required to move an atom, whether IBM makes any money from the exersize or not.
      Go back to the bank to worship your little green god and stop trolling us nerds.
      And there was a breath taking clear night sky full of stars which the beauty of goes beyond words and profit. Sadly profit seems to be a primary "goal" for some but not for others.

      Fingers crossed that the scientific "open source equivalent" geniuses who care about advance of science than money can work a way around it without the need for greed.

      We may get charged for breathing oxygen soon, which we all kind of need so it would stand top reason great scientific breakthroughs would be in it for the money, we presume though, we never know the full facts 100%.

      Regardless this is a great breakthrough and a step towards smaller and more effective technology.
      --
      In the name of sticking up for someone with autism, f**k you! Prejudiced bastard.... that is unlawful and linuc for dumm
    15. Re:too much money for too little by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Way to miss the point.
      If NASA stopped sending back pretty pictures of twinkling stars, they would have a much harder time generating interest and justifying their share of the taxes they receive.

    16. Re:too much money for too little by Oktober+Sunset · · Score: 1

      actually, the most important thing to Ferengi is cotton buds, to only reason they are so obsessed with profit is because they have to spend so much money on earbuds.

      --
      What if Tetris was invented by Nazis?
    17. Re:too much money for too little by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Now, if only we could apply that to everything.

    18. Re:too much money for too little by sm62704 · · Score: 1

      It's a shame that the technology to do science costs so much, but since it does it's a good thing that some rich people see their money for the tool it is and act accordingly, instead of worshiping it.

      Kudos to Branson, Carmak, IBM's leaders, etc.

      --
      mcgrew's razor: Never attribute to stupidity that which can be explained by greedy self-interest
    19. Re:too much money for too little by KevinIsOwn · · Score: 1

      Your argument is flawed on the basis that you are reversing cause and effect. You are saying NASA keeps doing scientific research on space primarily to receive money from the government. That's completely reversed. NASA receives money from the government in order to do scientific research. Those pretty pictures are just the byproduct of that.

    20. Re:too much money for too little by jmichaelg · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Some questions are expensive to answer. For example, how much is it worth to teleport materials at the speed of light?

      If you want to teleport something, you have to take the source material apart, atom by atom and rebuild it elsewhere, atom by atom. Can we do that? No, because we don't know how to tear something apart atom by atom, identify the atoms we've just torn off the source, transmit the x,y,z coordinates along with the atom type and put the same kind of atom at the translated x,y,z coordinates yet. We're on the way though.

      Initially, it'll be inanimate objects. UPS is currently capitalized at $75 Billion so there's a little bit of money to be made moving stuff around. Of course, why move stuff instead of just fab as needed? Once you've torn something apart, you know what you need to make as many copies as you want.

        If we ever get to the point where we can disassemble a person and rebuild people quickly enough then you're talking several orders of magnitude of value more. Take snapshots of yourself when you're especially healthy and use those as restore points for yourself. Add some patching software that merges your experiences which are stored as atom arrangements in your brain since your last snapshot and you have immortality. How much is that worth? Don't like your nose? There'll be body shops that use the photoshop equivalent to touch up your features. How much is that worth? Want a bigger cock? Not a problem. Whatever you can imagine, and then some could be possible.

      Will any of the above ever happen? Who knows? What we do know is it won't happen if we aren't willing to pay to answer the 'little' questions. Like how much force is needed to move an atom.

    21. Re:too much money for too little by heelrod · · Score: 1

      Yes, Telescopes make money.

      they take pictures.

      Go back to your computer and think up something that you dont want to make profit from.......

      And then I'll steal it, make millions, and steal your girlfriend

    22. Re:too much money for too little by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      mod parent up. Insightful!

    23. Re:too much money for too little by Jarjarthejedi · · Score: 1

      There's plenty of stuff that goes on on Wall Street that's not immediate profit making. Just look at Apple, they announce something that won't make any profit for a long time, and their stock goes up. Microsoft (or was it sony?) announces that their next gen console will start making a profit in 2010, and their stock goes up.

      Very few products make a profit the day they come out. For the most part the first month or so (on average) is just spent remaking the production costs, and then everything past that is pure profit.

      --
      There are two kinds of fool One says 'This is old therefore good' Another says 'This is new therefore better'- Dean Ing
    24. Re:too much money for too little by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes they thought the same thing when heron invented the Steam engine 2000 years ago. Nice toy for a king but nobody could ever make a profit from it.

          Funny thing though if somebody had thought hmm what if I took this and scaled it up and connected it to a wagon or to a mill or......

          They just might have sparked off the industrial revolution 1700 years earlier than it was or invented the first car or train who knows?

          But hey none of that could ever be worth while right?

    25. Re:too much money for too little by Luyseyal · · Score: 1

      There was a beautiful sunrise this morning. Although nobody made any money off of it, I greatly profited by the experience.

      In fairness, there is that HD channel that just shows sunrise in various locations every morning. Talk about starved for content...

      -l

      --
      Help cure AIDS, cancer, and more. Donate your unused computer time to worldcommunitygrid.org. Join Team Slashdot!
    26. Re:too much money for too little by sm62704 · · Score: 1

      I never said they didn't nake money you fucking moron, I said that wasn't their primary purpose. Now get the fuck off my lawn and back to the fifth grade you stupid boy.

      --
      mcgrew's razor: Never attribute to stupidity that which can be explained by greedy self-interest
    27. Re:too much money for too little by IL-CSIXTY4 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      With the sizes of traces on CPU dies these days, I imagine having a technology like this waiting in the wings will pay in a few years.

    28. Re:too much money for too little by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      "Of course, why move stuff instead of just fab as needed? Once you've torn something apart, you know what you need to make as many copies as you want."

      Dang you! You just out-moded my transporter invention! Not even invented yet, and I'm already out of business. Maybe I can sue you in some European Anti-Trust court...? ;)

    29. Re:too much money for too little by sm62704 · · Score: 0, Offtopic
      Talk about starved for content...

      Uncyclopedia bills itself as "the content-free encyclopedia". Excerpt from today's front page...

      Did you know...
      • ...that the eleventh secret herb and spice is LSD?
      • ...that John Cage has never made silence sound more golden?
      • ...that you can always pay your credit card bills using your credit card?
      • ...that air guitars are similar in shape to normal guitars, with the notable difference that they are made entirely out of air?
      • ...that Sperm are like hippies: they all stink, all of them are the same, but we can't just have enough of them?
      • ...that the Bavarian Illuminati used "That's what she said" as a secret code? No one knows exactly which she they were referring to, as they were a very sexist organization and had vowed collectively forsake the female species. Go figure.
      --
      mcgrew's razor: Never attribute to stupidity that which can be explained by greedy self-interest
    30. Re:too much money for too little by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Does the Hubble bring profit? No. Do earth based telescopes bring anyone profit? No. Should they? Not as a primary function. There are more important things in life than money and profits!

      There was a beautiful sunrise this morning. Although nobody made any money off of it, I greatly profited by the experience.

      Which side of the argument are you on? Hubble doesn't bring profit but a sunrise does?

      How about profiting as a secondary function? Afraid to answer? Somewhere down the line you should be attempting to recover the R&D costs, and if you make more money than what you spent, what do you call it? So the answer is YES.

      Who the fuck modded you 5;insightful?
    31. Re:too much money for too little by i_ate_god · · Score: 1

      Eggs and rabbits are alive unless they're dead, that's where the similarity ends.

      Saying eggs are alive is like saying your tupperware container is alive just because you put a mouse and some nuts in it.

      --
      I'm god, but it's a bit of a drag really...
    32. Re:too much money for too little by heelrod · · Score: 1

      Wow! I didn't think you would stoop to words like "Fuck" and "Lawn".

      I find that people scream the loudest when they are shown they are wrong.

      Pow!

      still gonna steal your girlfriend. even if she is fat

    33. Re:too much money for too little by bishiraver · · Score: 1

      At least it's not incredibly precise at the cost of being accurate!! ..Or is it?

    34. Re:too much money for too little by sm62704 · · Score: 1

      Both the sunrise and the Hubble bring profit, but neither brings monetary profit.

      How about profiting as a secondary function?

      In the case of IBM's atom movement, it may indeed bring profit some day. But as with telescopes, profit is not its primary purpose. Gaining knowledge is its primary purpose.

      Who the fuck modded you 5;insightful?

      Certainly not bankers and stockbrokers! I'd say most likely some nerds who know the value of knowledge, and know that money is not the answer to everything. It's simply a tool to facilitate barter, nothing more.

      We slashdot nerds don't worship our tools, unlike you Wall Street Journal greedheads.

      --
      mcgrew's razor: Never attribute to stupidity that which can be explained by greedy self-interest
    35. Re:too much money for too little by sm62704 · · Score: 1

      No, a tupperware container with nutty mice is not alive. The eggs on your mom's ovaries are alive, as is every other cell in her body.

      --
      mcgrew's razor: Never attribute to stupidity that which can be explained by greedy self-interest
    36. Re:too much money for too little by sm62704 · · Score: 1
      People scream the loudest when they're annoyed by morons. And yes, "lawn" is a four letter word. As to "fuck" you obviously haven't been reading my journals. From Dork Side of the Moon-

      The next week Tami, AKA "the psycho bitch from hell", went off on Lance on the phone. Tami had never liked Lance.

      Actually nobody liked Lance, but all felt sorry for him and tolerated him. The man badly needs psychaitric help.

      "Fuck off and die" Tami had told him.

      So he left a message on her answering machine pretending to be me. "Hi, lover, this is Steve" the message started, and he continued, saying how much he'd enjoyed the sex with her and was looking forward to it again. Nobody was fooled; it was unmistakably Lance. Tami's alien husband, who thinks I'm fucking her anyway (I'm not), seemed to want Lance's blood.

      Nobody had much more to do with him after that, especially me, and including the woman he wanted to fuck that he thought I was fucking that triggered the violent outburst against me the week earlier.
      I seldom mince words. Nobody here seems to mind much.
      --
      mcgrew's razor: Never attribute to stupidity that which can be explained by greedy self-interest
    37. Re:too much money for too little by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This sounds a whole lot like Technological Determinism, a theory widely acclaimed of being utterly wrong. And this whole "if we don't pay"-attitude is intirely wrong, this reseach was carried out by IBM, because they belive it's profitable.

    38. Re:too much money for too little by bob.appleyard · · Score: 1

      The industrial revolution started before steam power was effectively harnessed.

      Loads of mills next to canals in the town where I live are a testament to this.

      --
      How dare you be so modest!! You conceited bastard!!
    39. Re:too much money for too little by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Want a bigger cock? Not a problem.

      Nice people tell me by email this is possible even today.

    40. Re:too much money for too little by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Want a bigger cock? Not a problem.

      No, I want THE BIGGEST cock.

      //Anonymous Coward, hereafter Anonymous "Big Dick Mike" Coward

    41. Re:too much money for too little by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Important things do not ever turn a profit. Important things are what you spend your profits on.

      -me

    42. Re:too much money for too little by Vvaghel1 · · Score: 1

      its cute when idiots like this guy think the profit motive is a virtue. The only reason we have a society that has built this profit motive is because of medeiocre asses, like the aforementioned guy, who need to be motivated to make a contribution to humanity. You generally don't need to hang a carrot in front of a geek or any intellectual really to have them make contributions to humanity and behave w/ civility.

      But Joe Schmoe, he needs to believe that if he gets a college education, he can make the big bucks some day, so he drags his ass through "higher education". And the reason he simply doesn't take the wealth he dreams of, well we disincentivised such behavior with prisons and fines and whatnot.

        It's not that intellectuals don't have the same pitfalls as everyone else. I'm just saying when real intellectuals have those pitfalls, it more an abberation than the norm.

      --
      Res Ipsa Loquitor "The facts speak for themselves"
    43. Re:too much money for too little by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I would like to say one thing...

      kernel

    44. Re:too much money for too little by StrategicIrony · · Score: 1

      You know what cost a ton of money but took 20+ years to develop into something profitable?

      The Integrated Circuit.

      So I imagine... we should have just gave up when it was in theory labs "too small, not practical, too expensive to produce" and continued with the discreet electronics approach right?

      And we'd all be typing on 80 pound computers that wouldn't run DOS6.

      Sweet. Good idea!

      You're so smart!

    45. Re:too much money for too little by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1

      There are more important things in life than money and profits!

      Ask yourself this: how many of those telescopes would have been built if NOONE made a profit.

      Answer: None. Basically, SOMEONE paid for them. Out of the profits that that someone made doing whatever it was that made him rich enough to afford a telescope.

      Note that this is true for Hubble as well. Income taxes are, to all intents and purposes, taxes on profits. If noone made any money, noone would pay any taxes, and Hubble would never have been built.

      Does this imply that everything must make a profit? No. But remember, without profits, none of this neato-keeno science stuff would ever get done.

  3. Did I get it? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1, Offtopic

    Did I get the phrosty post?

  4. Negative by VIGILANTROLL · · Score: -1, Offtopic

    Failure is yours. ())==D Yes, the Ascii penis is yours as well.

    1. Re:Negative by mpathetiq · · Score: -1, Troll

      I think this is the ASCII penis you were looking for: 8===D

      --
      Post-rock/Ambient/Drone and other noise.
    2. Re:Negative by RicardoGCE · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      Your ASCII testicles are grossly deformed. Painfully so.

    3. Re:Negative by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You are the dumbest troll ever. And you have no balls apparently.

  5. That's not their first try at atomic engineering by Enleth · · Score: 4, Interesting

    They've been the first (only?) company to construct their logo with individual atoms - and that was in 1990. Looks like they don't give up researching the basics, despite turning more and more into a consulting/support company, not the big iron provider they've always been.

    --
    This is Slashdot. Common sense is futile. You will be modded down.
  6. Bravo for the video... by webword · · Score: 1

    As I was reading the article I was trying to visualize what
    this looked like. I was pretty frustrated until I came back
    to /. and realized there was not only an image -- but a
    freakin' video.

    So, bravo for including that video. It really added value. Thanks.

    --
    How to Download YouTube Videos
    1. Re:Bravo for the video... by Kamokazi · · Score: 1

      You should know by now that you're not actually supposed to RTFA here. The videos are incentive to prohibit this reckless behavior.

      --
      As our way of thanking you for your positive contributions to Slashdot, you are eligible to disable Slashdot 2.0.
    2. Re:Bravo for the video... by Cokeisbomb · · Score: 1

      How long have they been able to embed videos in the article?

  7. Re:That's not their first try at atomic engineerin by snl2587 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Well, yes, they did move atoms with precision in 1989 (from TFA), but moving things and measuring the force required are two different things. If you know the exact forces you can automate the process much more effectively as no manual checking is needed.

  8. Should read by esocid · · Score: 3, Interesting
    IBM measures force required to move a cobalt atom over a platinum (and copper) surface. I would gather that the force for different atoms is minutely different, as well as whatever friction or molecular interactions b/w the atom and surface material.

    ...the force required to move a cobalt atom over a smooth platinum surface is 210 piconewtons, while moving a cobalt atom over a copper surface takes only 17 piconewtons
    An almost factor of 13 between the two surfaces. Maybe due to the valence electron difference between the two materials, but it is right that this is important for nano-technology, something about which I know less than physics and chemistry.
    --
    Absolute power corrupts absolutely. indymedia
    1. Re:Should read by aproposofwhat · · Score: 1

      Well, it was teflon coated copper :P

      --
      One swallow does not a fellatrix make
    2. Re:Should read by Fx.Dr · · Score: 1

      FTFA: To put this in perspective, the force required to lift a copper penny that weighs just three grams is nearly 30 billion piconewtons...

      Heh, next time I go to the gym, I'm not measuring anything in lbs/kgs, I'm measuring everything in piconewtons. Who's the lazy bastard now, ladies? I just lifted a freakin' penny.

    3. Re:Should read by Gewalt · · Score: 0

      Just curious, but how do you plan on measuring a mass in units of force?

      --
      Modding Trolls +1 inciteful since 1999
    4. Re:Should read by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's easy enough - as stated in the article a 3 gram penny requires 30 billion piconewtons of force to lift. Just apply it on a larger scale.

    5. Re:Should read by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      By multiplying by 4.45×10^12 piconewtons/pound (9.8 m/s^2)?

      mass!=weight yadda, yadda; I'm assuming he'll be doing this on earth, so sue me

    6. Re:Should read by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He's not measuring mass, he's measuring weight. If you know the nearby gravitational field it's easy to do a conversion between the two.

    7. Re:Should read by SQLGuru · · Score: 1

      If you stack two atoms (only one contacting the surface), how does the force required change? Three? More?
      If you chain two atoms (both touching the surface), how does the force change? Three? More?

      It would be really interesting to see if applying force in "the right spot" could make moving things around much easier.....think "Moving Men" (http://www.asseenontv.com/prod-pages/Movingmen.html/ but at an atomic scale.

      Layne

    8. Re:Should read by Kamineko · · Score: 1

      Way to go, Patrick Swayze.

    9. Re:Should read by hardburn · · Score: 1

      Everyone in the US already does it. Pounds are technically a unit of force, but we normalize away the gravitational pull of the earth in the equation so we can pretend pounds are equivalent to kilograms.

      --
      Not a typewriter
    10. Re:Should read by toppavak · · Score: 1

      The forces needed to move an atom on a surface would indeed vary wildly depending on the atom. You're right about valence playing a role, but very often you will see London dispersion forces having a very significant impact at extremely close ranges. These forces have more to do with the overall electron distribution and the resulting interactions rather than direct valence interactions.

  9. Could've saved them some time and money... by chemguru · · Score: 0, Redundant

    F = .5mv^2

    --
    --Chemguru
    1. Re:Could've saved them some time and money... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      you fail!

      F=ma

      confused with KE=.5mv^2 maybe?

  10. I hope this isnt Digg by imsabbel · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Because when this story was there a week or two ago, 90% of the comments were stupid jokes.

    This is a really interesting part of surface science, which in itself is more important than people give it credit for.
    The force to move that atom meassured _directly_ is something new, that will also allow more educated guess on the dynamics of self-assembling layers.

    To illustrate a point: All those nice pictures like shoing "IBM" in atoms are usually done on a nice surface (Pt-111), and cooled down to helium temperatures. At room temperatures, those atoms just around on a timescale faster than you can meassure a picture.
    This is also (or even more) the case when creating thin layers on a substrate, where there are lots of different ways for layers to grow (some substrate material combination first grow "islands", others form a single layer, and islands later, others grow layer by layer). This is hard to detect in situ (a LEED picture only shows that much...). So anything we know about those forces helps understanding this behaviour.

    And yeah, about practical applications: Everything from solar cells (organic ones have _very thin_ layers in their CIGGSE sandwitch) to lithography (dielectric mirrors for EUV-lithography is a hot topic)

    --
    HI O WISE PRINCE. WHT TOOK U SO DAM LONG?
    1. Re:I hope this isnt Digg by sm62704 · · Score: 1

      Because when this story was there a week or two ago, 90% of the comments were stupid jokes.

      What's wrong with stupid jokes, so long as they're funny?

      Q: How many IBM engineers does it take to change a lightbulb?
      A: (insert punch line here)

      --
      mcgrew's razor: Never attribute to stupidity that which can be explained by greedy self-interest
    2. Re:I hope this isnt Digg by Stanistani · · Score: 5, Funny

      Q: How many IBM engineers does it take to change a light bulb?
      A: (this line intentionally left blank)

      Subscribe to IBM Gold Class Hardware Maintenance for those oddly insoluble problems!

      --
      You can't talk about Wikipedia's flaws on Wikipedia
    3. Re:I hope this isnt Digg by RandoX · · Score: 1

      A: 30 billion picoengineers.

    4. Re:I hope this isnt Digg by MobileTatsu-NJG · · Score: 3, Funny

      Q: How many IBM engineers does it take to change a lightbulb?

      A: Just one. The real question is how many patent attorneys got involved! =)
      --

      "I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)

    5. Re:I hope this isnt Digg by AdamThor · · Score: 1

      Q: How many IBM engineers does it take to change a lightbulb?

      A: Just one. But it takes a team of PhDs to measure the forces involved.

      --
      -- "Oh. This guy again."
  11. A step forward by meko360 · · Score: 1

    A step forward towards an universal constructor. Did I spend too many hours playing Deus Ex?

    1. Re:A step forward by sm62704 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      A step forward to the Star Trek Matter Replicator.

      When you have a machine that can construct anything out of atoms or even molecules (perhaps nanometer sized machines doing the constructing, in the scale of billions of the little things), then physical property will in fact be equal to intellectual property.

      In short, the only thing that will have monetary value will be land. The "IP" wars being waged today are setting the stage for the future wars between the "have nots" and the "we have but don't want anyone else to"s.

      The matter replicator will cause more upheaval than any invention earth has ever seen. Blood will be shed just to maintain the rich's illusion of superiority.

      --
      mcgrew's razor: Never attribute to stupidity that which can be explained by greedy self-interest
    2. Re:A step forward by residieu · · Score: 1

      You still need raw materials and energy. Some atoms are pretty cheap (oxygen, carbon, hydrogen), but if they thing you're replicating requires gold or other rarer elements that's going to make certain things cost a lot more than the IP of their design. And I don't even know how to estimate the energy involved, but I assume it will be non-trivial.

    3. Re:A step forward by sm62704 · · Score: 1

      Since you;re working with atoms and molecules raw materials are free; even gold and platimum, which are surely in and on the dust floating around in this room, and there are gold and platinum in the computer I'm typing on. You'll have little "seeker" nanobots flying around inspecting dust and searching for the needed raw materials. As to energy, if you can make anything without cost, you can construct solar panels and windmills and batteries other such energy producers for free as well.

      --
      mcgrew's razor: Never attribute to stupidity that which can be explained by greedy self-interest
    4. Re:A step forward by I(rispee_I(reme · · Score: 2, Funny

      Why, then we'll build an atom constructor to assemble subatomic particles into the necessary elements.

      "Will work for electrons."

    5. Re:A step forward by Billy+the+Mountain · · Score: 1

      Hey look, my nano-replicator just made me a Gold and Platinum Ferrari for free! Too bad I weigh 10^17 piconewtons!

      BTM

      --
      That was the turning point of my life--I went from negative zero to positive zero.
    6. Re:A step forward by sm62704 · · Score: 1

      You or the Ferrari? I mean, a guy like you is going to need a BIG car!

      And I thought the FBI put you in prison for draft evasion, when did you get out? And how's Ethel doing?

      --
      mcgrew's razor: Never attribute to stupidity that which can be explained by greedy self-interest
  12. On a surface? by drewmoney · · Score: 1

    measure the force it takes to move individual atoms on a surface

    Wouldn't that surface be made of, ummmm, atoms?

    1. Re:On a surface? by dominious · · Score: 1

      May I be the first to say WTFV! ( i suppose /. does not need explanation on what WTFV means)

    2. Re:On a surface? by boarder8925 · · Score: 2, Informative

      Wouldn't that surface be made of, ummmm, atoms?
      I doubt yo have or will RTFA or WTFV, so I'll answer: The surface in the experiment was crystalline .
      --
      Keep your eyes to the sky.
    3. Re:On a surface? by drewmoney · · Score: 1

      You mean the person that wrote the summary could have said, "individual atoms on different surfaces" or "specific types of atoms on different surfaces". Then I wouldn't have to RTFA. Yeah, like I come here for the articles!

  13. people patents projects by Pulse_Instance · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The intro to the video has "people patents projects" it is almost scary to see that patents is that entrenched in their business plans. Although at the same time IBM has done a lot to increase the research and knowledge in the whole nano-tech field. When I was a tech in a lab the prof running the lab told me that most of the time when there was some barrier that no one could cross in the nano-tech field IBM would throw a ton of money at it and solve the problem. So it is nice to see they are still working on solving problems and advancing the field.

    1. Re:people patents projects by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      The intro to the video has "people patents projects" it is almost scary to see that patents is that entrenched in their business plans...when there was some barrier that no one could cross in the nano-tech field IBM would throw a ton of money at it and solve the problem.

      What's really "almost scary" is that you nitwits can't seem to connect the dots between those two points. Oh, well. I'm sure the Pirate Bay and RMS will have their own patent-free implementation soon.

    2. Re:people patents projects by Pulse_Instance · · Score: 1
      I started off with the thinking that patents as a business model are a bad thing. Then realized that there are cases where patents, when used as they were intended, are a good thing which is why I changed stance in the middle of the post. I should have finished the sentence

      Although at the same time IBM has done a lot to increase the research and knowledge in the whole nano-tech field. with, so it isn't that bad, they deserve to profit off of all the money they are spending.

      It would have made my change in position much more clear.
    3. Re:people patents projects by geekoid · · Score: 1

      and IBM can do it BECAUSE of patents.
      Patents are not 'evil' Yes some are abusive, and yes process patents and software patents have borked the system, but for stuff like this I am glad we have a patent system.

      If IBM tried to keep this a trade secrets. they might have gotten 5 years of production, if they where extremely good at keeping secrets.
      OTOH, if everything was trade secrets I suspect industrial espionage would be a much larger problem.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    4. Re:people patents projects by autophile · · Score: 1

      It's even worse than that. Did you see what "people patents projects" was the object of? "Made in IBM labs". People! Made in IBM labs!

      I also kind of liked the IBM logo in the beginning and end that faded to black to the sound of electrical discharge.

      --Rob

      --
      Towards the Singularity.
    5. Re:people patents projects by toppavak · · Score: 1

      IBM is still the single largest patent holding entity in the US. The article is a bit old, but its still valid today. While I can sympathize with your concern as I believe the US patent system is in SEVERE need of a rethinking, IBM has, in relatively un-recent history, been a fairly benevolent patent holder. Much more so than most other large patent holding companies anyways.

  14. Transporter someday? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You know what would drive this idea to profit? Being able to transport boxes "Star Trek style" from one location to another over terabyte transmission lines. Cheaper than diesel, line haul trucks, tolls, and drivers by far! First we have to move the atoms... that will allow us to rearrange the pattern and transmit it via PGTP (pretty good transporter protocol) to destination site.

    1. Re:Transporter someday? by sm62704 · · Score: 1

      You're missing an importanat step in your transporter - converting mass to energy and back. We've been able to convert mass to energy since prehistoric times (a campfire converts mass to energy) but AFAIK we've never converted energy to mass.

      If we could you could conceivably unfry an egg, which would violate all three laws of thermodynamics.

      I think we'll probably break the lightspeed barrier first. That will likely happen right after Satan wins his first snowball fight, if Einstein was right.

      --
      mcgrew's razor: Never attribute to stupidity that which can be explained by greedy self-interest
    2. Re:Transporter someday? by Tangent128 · · Score: 1

      but AFAIK we've never converted energy to mass. Sure we have. We can make electron/positron pairs from high-energy photons. It's the principle behind PET scans. (Not sure how we got the antiprotons for the antihydrogen we've made.)

      Haven't done anything large-scale, though.
    3. Re:Transporter someday? by SQLGuru · · Score: 1

      Actually, what if we could move you atom by atom....physically. No "synced up particle" teleporting, no conversion from mass to energy and back, but honest to goodness movement. At that scale and along the right surface, could we theoretically approach "near instantaneous" speeds (for "small distances" like from Los Angels to Tokyo)?

      Layne

    4. Re:Transporter someday? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We've been able to convert mass to energy since prehistoric times (a campfire converts mass to energy) but AFAIK we've never converted energy to mass.

      If you consider a campfire as converting mass to energy (which technically it does), then charging a battery converts energy to mass. Maybe cracking water into oxygen and hydrogen is a better example, since it matches your fire better.

    5. Re:Transporter someday? by Lisandro · · Score: 1

      Maybe i'm wrong, but i'm positive a campfire DOES NOT convert mass to energy - you're just releasing chemical energy from the atomic bonds as heat. You're left with as much mass as when you started, only in a different form. If you could convert mass to energy in a campfire you'd see a lot of small mushroom clouds in the countryside :)

    6. Re:Transporter someday? by smaddox · · Score: 1

      Actually, the odds are decent that somewhere in that fire, one atom fused with another.

      Of course that one atom is one out of around 10^24 atoms per cc.

    7. Re:Transporter someday? by sm62704 · · Score: 1

      Hold on a minute... you get energy from fission. You get energy from fusion. Damn, I'm confused. As Pogo said, "nuclear physics ain't so new, and it ain't so clear!"

      However, PLANTS convert energy to matter. I forgot about plants. But we didn't invent those, not yet anway.

      --
      mcgrew's razor: Never attribute to stupidity that which can be explained by greedy self-interest
    8. Re:Transporter someday? by AdamThor · · Score: 1

      Hold on a minute... you get energy from fission. You get energy from fusion. Damn, I'm confused.

      There is one element, and it is the least energy state. I think it's lead, but I might be mis-remembering. Anyway, elements heavier than this mystery element break apart to release energy. Elements lighter fuse together to release energy. Fission (breaking) is heavy stuff like Uranium, Fusion (combining) is light stuff like Hydrogen.

      However, PLANTS convert energy to matter.

      I don't wanna go raining on your parade, but I think plants use energy to convert water and carbon dioxide into longer carbon-chains, with little bits of other stuff thrown in. I don't think they do any direct energy -> matter conversion.

      --
      -- "Oh. This guy again."
    9. Re:Transporter someday? by JesseMcDonald · · Score: 1

      Maybe i'm wrong, but i'm positive a campfire DOES NOT convert mass to energy - you're just releasing chemical energy from the atomic bonds as heat.

      Actually, the energy stored in the chemical bonds is also measurable as mass, according to the formula E=m*c^2. The change in mass when you break the atomic bonds and allow the resulting heat to conduct/radiate away is minuscule, but present.

      --
      "The state is that great fiction by which everyone tries to live at the expense of everyone else." - Bastiat
    10. Re:Transporter someday? by pcyrsph · · Score: 1

      There is one element, and it is the least energy state. I think it's lead, but I might be mis-remembering. Yeah, you misremember. There are two isotopes, Fe-58 and Ni-62, that have the lowest energy state.
  15. So? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Whats the big deal? Really small needles, people!

  16. he who can move atoms can move the universe! by peter303 · · Score: 1

    famous saying

    1. Re:he who can move atoms can move the universe! by Thanshin · · Score: 2, Funny

      He'd also need a place to stand.

      Anyway, he'd never know whether he was moving the universe, or just himself.

  17. Re:That's not their first try at atomic engineerin by Actually,+I+do+RTFA · · Score: 4, Funny

    They've been the first (only?) company to construct their logo with individual atoms -

    To be perfectly fair to other companies, IBM has a very simple logo. It is also black and white. Now that we can finally see atoms in color, other companies can get in on that action.

    If you could make circuits like that, it would be really interesting, although useless. For instance, I can imagine an Air where the CPU (at the atomic level) looked like the Apple logo tesselated again and again.

    --
    Your ad here. Ask me how!
  18. Easy problem by johnw · · Score: 5, Funny

    Surely all you need to do is measure the force required to move mountains and then divide by the number of atoms in a mountain?

    1. Re:Easy problem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I can lift a person, plus or minus 500 people.

    2. Re:Easy problem by mseidl · · Score: 1

      Good thing I take steroids or I'd never be able to move an atom!

    3. Re:Easy problem by Xmastrspy · · Score: 0

      There has to be a Chuck Norris joke here somewhere!!!

      IBM called Chuck Norris to.....

  19. Force? Surely not! by LecheryJesus · · Score: 0

    Force to move atoms?

    Surely not - everybody knows that they're all moved by His Noodly Appendage

    Spaghetti not Science!!!

    --
    Jesus was an invention of the Romans - watch "The Pharmacractic Inquisition" for something more credible...
  20. UAC by Mortiss · · Score: 1

    Funny that this video has instantly reminded me of UAC promotional videos in Doom3.
    I am still waiting for the Elementary Phase Deconstructor!

  21. Oblig... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    1. Measure force required to move 1 atom
    2. ??? <-- (this probably involves patenting the process)
    3. Profit!

  22. SlashTube by StikyPad · · Score: 2, Funny

    Thank God we have embedded YouTube videos on Slashdot now. Now if only we could get people to post a bunch of asinine and off-topic comments below each video...

    --
    https://www.eff.org/https-everywhere
  23. mo3 down by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1, Troll

    Slings are limited, 3veryday...We used to. SHIT ON

  24. Heisenberg will be rolling in his grave... by puppetman · · Score: 1

    From El Wikipedia: "In quantum physics, the Heisenberg uncertainty principle is the statement that locating a particle in a small region of space makes the momentum of the particle uncertain; and conversely, that measuring the momentum of a particle precisely makes the position uncertain."

    IBM is blowing smoke up our five-hole.

    1. Re:Heisenberg will be rolling in his grave... by smaddox · · Score: 2, Informative

      The diameter of an atom is on the order of 1 Angstrom (0.1 nm).

      Planks constant is on the order of 10^-34 J*s.

      Basically, the uncertainty is dominated by the size of the atom.

  25. Intel Announcement by Nom+du+Keyboard · · Score: 1

    If IBM has announced this now, expect Intel to announce within a week that "We're doing it too." After all, Intel cannot afford to be perceived as being behind anybody in advanced integrated circuit design.

    --
    "It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
  26. I agree completely! by GameboyRMH · · Score: 3, Funny

    Such a frivolous waste of money! I can't stand it when people do things that will never see a profit! That's what I tell my kids whenever they ask me to take them to the cinema or go to an amusement park or other silly wasteful things like that. They should be setting up lemonade stands on the roadside during their summer vacation.

    Why just the other day I told my wife not to have sex with me because it's a complete waste of time and energy, which could be better spent packing coins into little rolls to change at the bank. Speaking of which, semen is quite valuable at sperm banks, so blowing it elsewhere is just shooting money out the window.

    Wasteful people >:(

    --
    "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
    1. Re:I agree completely! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      I think they don't want yours.

    2. Re:I agree completely! by Hektor_Troy · · Score: 1

      semen is quite valuable at sperm banks, so blowing it elsewhere is just shooting money out the window.
      Yeah, well, you're not supposed to make a deposit at the drive through ...
      --
      We do not live in the 21st century. We live in the 20 second century.
  27. Re:That's not their first try at atomic engineerin by ILuvRamen · · Score: 1

    you forgot one thing you also need. The power of gravity is different at different altitudes. So they can measure it all they want, it's still going to change. Who thinks they were smart enough to remember that? I sure don't think so.

    --
    Google's Super Secret Search Algorithm: SELECT @search_results FROM internet WHERE @search_results = 'good'
  28. Re:That's not their first try at atomic engineerin by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    you forgot one thing you also need. The power of gravity is different at different altitudes. So they can measure it all they want, it's still going to change. Who thinks they were smart enough to remember that? I sure don't think so.

    Gravity is by far the weakest of the fundamental forces. At that scale, its effects are negligible.

  29. Am I smarter than a Scientist? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    No, you are not. Damn that's the dumbest thing I've read on Slashdot in a while. You aren't a physicist, okay? Don't pretend like you have any idea what you're talking about. Don't assume that you know more than Ph.D.s who've been studying this shit for decades. Just shut up, you're making Slashdot a stupider place with your very presence.

    1. Re:Am I smarter than a Scientist? by ILuvRamen · · Score: 1

      hey, it's you again! I missed you so much lol. I see you have a degree in copy and pasting. Well you know what, for all you know I am a physicist.

      --
      Google's Super Secret Search Algorithm: SELECT @search_results FROM internet WHERE @search_results = 'good'
  30. so... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...how much force was it?