molecular

Unfortunately, to get molecular and sub-molecular resolution on single molecules you have be pretty close to the target (nanometers/Angstroms).

The specific impulse of the fuel is going to be inversely proportional to the square root of the molecular weight of the propellant, which is why they use hydrogen.

So there isn't a useful concept of sound when you're dealing with atomic or molecular phenomena.

Aesthetically, it would be lovely to have a master equation that works from the molecular scale up to the bulk scale.

Genome annotation, in the absence of molecular work, is always boring because it can only find what is already known from other organisms.

They use the relatively-nonvolatile fluoride ion (F-), not the gaseous molecular fluorine (F2).

I listened to this with a friend of mine who just got his PhD in molecular biology.

I am well aware of the basic molecular biology of the cell, as well as the RNA world hypothesis.

Also, I'd expect those gases to not disperse in upper atmosphere, because of their molecular weight.

More and more we're able to handle things at the sub-molecular level, so it's probable that soon we'll have spare organs.

Most all of that experiment you linked was molecular work.

I tend to believe that molecular technology and AI are the great filter.

'A molecular biologist is finding what could be dangerous levels of heavy metals in plants like kale, often called the “queen” of the vegetable kingdom.

(Think of it as several different kinds of "endianess." There would be a coin-flip for each molecule type with chirality.) So at worst, if we ate each other, we'd give each other molecular "indigestion." More complicated operations, like that of viruses hijacking our cells to replicate themselves are probably right out.