Atoms, Empty Space and the Universe.

[herme3]

Wrong again. Take a look at the STM Gallery at the website of IBM (Almaden) Labs. Not only have scientists looked at individual atoms' date=' they have picked them up one by one and moved them around (into different shapes) to draw funny pictures and write words.

 

Oh, scientists have also looked at individual electrons, by the way. Look into the MRFM measurement of a single electron spin by Rugar et al (sometime in the summer of last year).

 

Not only is it possible, it's history.[/quote']

 

Those are computer generated images. Those pictures are not scientists looking at atoms under a microscope. It may be a prediction of what scientists believe atoms look like, or atoms detected using another type of technology, but those are not real photos of atoms.

 

Anyway, I do agree that we should get back on YT's question.

[ydoaPs]

Those are computer generated images. Those pictures are not scientists looking at atoms under a microscope. It may be a prediction of what scientists believe atoms look like' date=' or atoms detected using another type of technology, but those are not real photos of atoms.

 

Anyway, I do agree that we should get back on YT's question.[/quote']

herme3, those ARE images made by a microscope!

[DQW]

Those pictures are not scientists looking at atoms under a microscope. It may be a prediction of what scientists believe atoms look like, or atoms detected using another type of technology, but those are not real photos of atoms.

Those are actual pictures taken by a scanning tunneling microscope. They are not computer generated images; they are not predictions. I am not trying to deceive folks here by showing one thing and calling it another. Do visit the linked website. It's quite fascinating, what they've been able to image, over at the IBM Labs !

 

Anyway, I do agree that we should get back on YT's question.

Okay, lets !

[herme3]

Those are actual pictures taken by a scanning tunneling microscope[/u']. They are not computer generated images; they are not predictions. I am not trying to deceive folks here by showing one thing and calling it another. Do visit the linked website. It's quite fascinating, what they've been able to image, over at the IBM Labs !

 

Ok, they were taken by a type of microscope. I meant that the images were obtained using another type of technology. The actual image was made by a computer using the data from the equipment. The image is not actual light reflecting off the atoms.

 

Sorry YT2095, next time I post in this thread, I'm really going to try to talk about your questions.

[ydoaPs]

Ok, they were taken by a type of microscope. I meant that the images were obtained using another type of technology. The actual image was made by a computer using the data from the equipment. The image is not actual light reflecting off the atoms.

so it was electrons bouncing off the atoms instead of photons. does that make it less valid?

[herme3]

so it was electrons bouncing off the atoms instead of photons. does that make it less valid?

 

It just looks like a computer generated image. The coloring is most likely incorrect, and it may not be as detailed as a real image. It is still an amazing scientific discovery. The scientists did something important, I won't doubt that. However, it isn't the same as a photo.

[insane_alien]

thats cos technically particles can't have a colour. Ate least in our spectrum anyway. A light particle (photon) of visible light will completely miss an atom. it would be like trying to detect a grain of sand with radar that has a resolution of 1m. individual atoms simply cannot be detected by visible light. unless you count getting a reflection from the electron orbitals.

 

How is bombarding a sample with electrons and using a detector and then using a computer to process the image. isn't this how we see images with our own eyes. photons bombard what we are looking at photons reflect into our eyes(detectors) and the information is then processed by our brains(computer) to form an image. It is false colour the images but that is the best you will get.

[LCD]

It just looks like a computer generated image. The coloring is most likely incorrect, and it may not be as detailed as a real image. It is still an amazing scientific discovery. The scientists did something important, I won't doubt that. However, it isn't the same as a photo.

 

the coloring is "off" there is a part on the websight where they discuss how they color it, the coloring is based on some property, like curvature or height. the original images where greyscale.

[losfomot]

oops.

[Daecon]

I think greyscale looks better anyway. Understated, yet elegant.