Physicists have observed relatively stable "macrodimers" made from two cesium atoms and used their predictive model to refine the binding energy and distance required to create macrodimers:
Experiments confirm the existence of 1-micrometer-sized molecules made of two cesium atoms by showing that their binding energies agree with predictions. Strongly bound diatomic molecules such as H2 or O2 are less than a nanometer across. Surprisingly, scientists have been able to create two-atom molecules more than a thousand times larger by using exotic atoms that attract one another only very weakly. Now, a pair of physicists have calculated what makes these "macrodimers" stable, and they have verified their predictions by creating micrometer-sized molecules containing two cesium atoms. The macrodimers could have applications in quantum computing.
Interest in these macromolecules stems from the challenges they pose to conventional understanding of molecules and bonds. More than a decade ago, physicists predicted that molecules with interatomic distances as large as 1 micrometer might be created by using a pair of atoms in so-called Rydberg states. These are atoms in which a single outer-shell electron has been excited to a high quantum state so that it orbits far away from the nucleus. Although Rydberg atoms are unstable, they can live as long as tens of microseconds, and experimenters have succeeded in creating macrodimers from them, confirming their existence indirectly by destroying them and detecting specific spectroscopic signatures.
However, physicists Heiner Saßmannshausen and Johannes Deiglmayr of the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology (ETH) in Zurich, Switzerland, say that the earlier theoretical argument for the existence of macrodimers included some significant assumptions. To examine the argument more rigorously, they developed a sophisticated model of the interaction of Rydberg atoms and used it to predict in more detail the properties of stable macrodimers, such as the amount of energy binding them together. They then tested their model by creating the predicted molecules.
Observation of Rydberg-Atom Macrodimers: Micrometer-Sized Diatomic Molecules (DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.117.083401) (DX)
(Score: 2) by MichaelDavidCrawford on Monday August 29 2016, @12:24AM
I learned in Caltech Chemistry that when two atoms approach each other, they have some possibility of antibonding. Doubtlessly that was explained by the instructor but I wasn't getting a whole lot of sleep back in those days. What is it?
Yes I Have No Bananas. [gofundme.com]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 29 2016, @04:01AM
Look up molecular orbital theory.
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 29 2016, @04:13AM
To expand on my last post there are several models to consider. I will list them here
Bohr model (obsolete but worth reading about for background intuition)
Lewis Bond Theory
VSEPR (Valence Shell Electron Pair Repulsion Theory)
Valence bond theory
Molecular Orbital Theory
You can Google or Youtube search these for more details
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Snotnose on Monday August 29 2016, @03:13AM
I pride myself on keeping up with sciency stuff. I was proud when I told my kids, teenagers both, that not only was the universe not going to be steady state, re-big bangable, or expand forever, but it was in fact accelerating from it's big bang center (late 90s). I'm the guy in the corner at birthday parties trying to explain to my wife's ex what the Higgs Boson means and why it's a big deal (7-8 years ago). He teaches elementary school. I'm the guy, who, when Voyager made it's closest approach to Jupiter, I saw it on TV in the Planned Parenthood waiting room while my gf was getting The Pill (don't ask, I'm old).
But this shit is just getting past my casual sciency guy affections. I feel I can't even keep pace with new discoveries, let alone understand them.
When the dust settled America realized it was saved by a porn star.
(Score: 1, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 29 2016, @03:25AM
Even the scientists' names are intimidating. Imagine being the MC in charge of introducing these two gentlemen to the audience.
(Score: 3, Informative) by takyon on Monday August 29 2016, @04:12AM
It's not so bad. A lot of these physics-chemistry discoveries don't have a lot of use - unless you want to go along with the article and call this an enabler of quantum computing. The half life is just too short.
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 29 2016, @09:00PM
Your wife's ex. Disgusting whore.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 30 2016, @12:37AM
I find that prideful people tend to be the ones that overrate what they know. I'm not saying I'm anywhere near perfect but I find that the more intelligent people are humble because they have a better idea of how much they don't know and there is a whole lot of information that any one person doesn't know. Knowing this brings about humility but it takes some knowledge to have a better idea of how much you don't know. Those that are clear about the limits of their understanding are the ones that tend to have the best understanding within what they know and where their limits stop.
Pride is the enemy of knowledge because it takes an open mind to be willing to listen to and learn from others. What I often find out is even those that you least expect often have something to contribute to my knowledge, understanding, and wisdom if I'd just listen instead of acting like I know everything already.
(Score: 3, Funny) by Gravis on Monday August 29 2016, @07:35PM
Sure, when I play with cesium everyone gets upset and say things like, "you're going to poison the water supply" and "you're a monster" but when these guys play with cesium everyone calls them brilliant and geniuses. This is such double standard bullshit! (ノಠ益ಠ)ノ彡┻━┻