Doesn’t Maillard refer to the browning/toasting of foods though? I know there is some overlap like cheese browning on a pizza, but room temp cheese tastes better than cold. Genuinely curious and couldnt find any info myself
I’ll see if I can find any supporting articles, but IIRC, it has to do with the fats being softer or more reactive with your taste buds at warmer temps.
I would think that the heat releases flavors or causes chemical processes in the cheese that produce additional aromas not present in the normal state. I have no idea and am not qualified in any way.
Temperature affects the taste of many foods. Temperature change doesn’t affect the specific basic flavours (e.g. salty, bitter, umami, sweet) in the same way. So increasing or decreasing the temperature of a food item will change its taste profile.
The source I found says that it is difficult to tell if temperature change will make a food taste “better” or “worse”. It depends on too many factors.
In your case it seems that increasing the temperature of cheese makes it taste better for you. It’ll probably be because you like the taste profile of melted cheese over solid cheese. Maybe try and perceive what specifically it is about the taste profile that changes for you. Maybe you perceive it as more or less salty, more or less umami.
I spent the last couple of years selling and eating fancy cheeses and I’d say that isn’t true. Some are better melted, some I let come to room temperature long before eating and some (almost none, though) I prefer cold.
Trust me, some cheeses will turn into an oily puddle when melted.
My guess is your experience is with young, semisoft, and American cheeses?
I left to work for a non-profit a little bit ago. I seriously miss getting invited out to visit cheese, beer and wine (and whatever else local) producers. I spent my vacations just going from place to place.
My dream is to produce goat cheese, so maybe someday I’ll be back in the life.
Very much depends on the cheese. Most American type cheeses? Yeah, probably. But there are so many great aged cheeses out there, which are infinitely better not melted.
Speciation is really a judgment call. We don’t really have objective criteria that says “99% or more genetic similarity is the same species”.
But that assumes that there is evolution happening in the first place. Plenty of organisms are quite happily living in the same form as they did hundreds of millions of years ago. The nautilus, for example, evolved about 500 mya, and remains largely unchanged today (though many of its siblings are extinct, and the nautilus itself is endangered). For simpler organisms, you can probably find examples much older.
Edit: forgot to answer your question directly. It could be never.
If I could add, it’s likely impossible to say, because evolution is driven by selection pressures.
If the original strain AA has descendent strains AA, AB, and AC, we can’t know with any certainty which is more fit to survive, because it could be one, two, or all of them simultaneously.
“The high–spatial resolution phase image of Fig. 2A is borne out by quantitative analysis. In real space, the Pr–Pr dumbbells with a separation of only 59 pm are resolved with a contrast of 63% (Fig. 2B), which is better than the 73% contrast for two point objects separated at the Rayleigh criterion. Therefore, the Rayleigh resolution of the image is much better than 59 pm. Nevertheless, the exact resolution can be determined only after considering the finite atomic size instead of assuming point objects (28). We can also resolve the O–Sc–O triple atom projections, even though the light O atoms are only 63 pm (26) from the heavier Sc atoms “
It helps those that know how to read the text… It clearly states that those are Pr-Pr dumbbells in the PrScO3 lattice that you are seeing. Also, you should be seeing some O-Sc-O triplets, but I didn’t look for them.
This is a picture of a crystal of a molecule made up of three different types of atoms.
Or you could just accurately answer the question. This community is called “AskScience” after all. Then use the links or excerpts from the papers or articles as a backup.
To put it in English, each blob is an atom, the thing as a whole is a crystal lattice of praseodymium orthoscandate (PrScO3).
In the article, figure 1d and 1e annotate the image to tell you exactly which part is which. The bright pairs are Pr-Pr, the single bright blobs with wings are O-Sc-O, and the dimmer blobs standing alone are O.
By my count that means each repeating section has two Pr, one Sc, and four O, which doesn’t add up to me, given the chemical formula PrScO3. But maybe that’s because they’re arranged in three dimensions and we’re only looking at two. I haven’t read the full article.
Atoms are almost entirely empty space. And electrons themselves don’t really occupy a specific dot in space, they’re more of a blur that fuzzes out in a “large” region of space around the nucleus. So what’s shown here is most likely a visualization of the area that the electrons occupy.
But I’m no physicist and i didn’t read the article, so take this with a big grain of salt
EDIT
Another person here said the round things are actually the nuclei, and they sound like they know what they’re talking about. So while the informational stuff i said is right, it might not actually be a description of the image we’re looking at
Each of the orbs are the atoms. The brighter orbs that are nearest each other at the Praseodymium (Pr) atoms. The single orbs are the Scandium (Sc) atoms and the less prominent orbs are the Oxygen atoms. I believe based on the content of the article.The space between is just that, the space between the atoms. They are all in a lattice pattern due to how they are attracted to each other.
I have a followup question: When scientists are taking these images, are they just static snapshots or does the technology to see them doing their thing in real time exist? Are they even actually “pictures” in that sense, or are they just representations of things we can’t actually see?
These images are generated from processing many out of focus images while scanning across the area. They use the differences between the out of focus images to compute what must have caused those differences.
So this technique is pretty far from being able to capture real time events as it requires capturing hundreds of images to produce a single computed image. The paper talks about how thermal motion of the nuclei is what now dominates the limits of resolution for this method.
There are other ultrafast imaging techniques that can capture essentially real-time chemical reactions, but I believe those don’t come close to this spatial resolution.
Not 100% comparable, but synchrotron XRD allows for real-imaging of solid state chemical reactions and can, in a sense, resolve the unit cell structure of the crystal. However, what you get from an XRD is nothing like this “photo-like” image, but a diffractogram. I think you could probably re-create an image like this from a 2D diffractogram though, but I’m not sure.
I could be wrong, but I think XRD requires very pure crystals of sufficiently large size. That can help you ascertain the structure and composition of something you can synthesize and crystalize, but I don’t believe xrd can image specific regions of interest like single doping sites like this article talks about.
Synchrotron XRD also has a major drawback in having a very significant equipment requirement that requires being able send samples away for analysis at a dedicated facility. That puts limits on sample preparation and stability time, as well as sharing beam time with lots of other groups.
It’s been a while since I’ve read up on synchrotron xray diffraction though, so there could be workarounds for some of those limitation or I could be misremembering details.
You’re definitely correct that getting sychrotron time is hard :(
On the first part though: Yes and no. XRD will tell you about things like strain and unit cell size distribution, so in that sense, you can’t resolve a single doping site. On the other hand, if you have a reaction going on, or some dopant diffusing into your sample, synchrotron XRD is powerful/fast enough that you can “film” how the crystal structure changes in real time. That “film” will be a kind of average of many sites, but can still be focused to a relatively small region (don’t remember exactly how small off the top of my head, but I believe we’re talking nm-scale).
askscience
Oldest
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.