aman Posted December 22, 2003 Share Posted December 22, 2003 I had another wild hair idea and started researching our best visual microscopes. The charge-coupled devices can see down to .2 micron resolution which means the sample has to be 20 microns for its shape to be discerned. It uses white light with a mid wavelength of 500 nm. Since atoms are around .1 nm dia. a one wave pulse of photons at it would have the atom moving all around between the first and last photons bouncing directly off it. With our computers getting faster all the time do you think we could actually receive the reflection and compensate for the waves length and get better resolution or even a few thousand clear pictures? Just aman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
booper54 Posted December 23, 2003 Share Posted December 23, 2003 I think it's possible. I read somewhere on a website that, assuming we keep accelerating our technology at the rate we are, there is supposed to be some sort of "singularity" around the year 2015 or something, meaning technology will be going to infinity. Kinda like an asymptote on a graph. Of course, that's just from statistics. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YT2095 Posted December 23, 2003 Share Posted December 23, 2003 I heard a similar theory, about how initialy it took say 1000 years to double our technology then maybe 500 years then 200 then 50 and so on, until now our tech doulbles in like 5 years or there abouts, it`s more of an exponential curve as opposed to linear. I`m sure at some time it will probably reach a zenith, perhaps the same as that "Singularity" booper spoke of? after which I can only imagine that we`ll get quite lost and somewhat stuck for choice and pathways to take that fully exploit each new development, there is alot to be said for having borders and bounderies against which we can push, it promotes man`s better side for overcoming "hurddles" but if there are none???? I hope I never see the day! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aman Posted December 23, 2003 Author Share Posted December 23, 2003 I did some more research and talked to a knowledgeable friend, D. Mayer, and he pointed out that the main problem is the signal-to-noise ratio. He said image deconvolution could, in principle, resolve very small images but only with an essentially noise-free signal. The noise in the signal precludes any practical resolution in this case He mentioned in NMR imaging, sub-wavelength resolution is done, but it is only because of the very high signal-to-noise ratio present in the device. Even then, it is not possible to resolve to 1/1000 of a wavelength. With his input and yours above it seems it may be possible someday but we need a lot better equipment. Maybe a single pulse laser at exactly 500nm. Still the shortest pulse I've been able to find sends out a stream of photons 7ft long from beginning to end. Just aman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
elfin vampire Posted January 1, 2004 Share Posted January 1, 2004 lol. Physical matter is the product of a mathematical value generated by an electrical charge. The existence of atoms is what we call a "conceptualisation." It is how we ourselves interact with physical reality, intellectually. It is highly likely that the only place an atom exists visually is within an artistic rendition. It defines a consequence of physical reality rather than any kind of object within it. It's value is in dealing with inferrance and working, observable mechanics. At the point where tiny little bubbles of microelectricity can be actually seen, comprising physical reality one would be within the realm of electricity and magnetism, to reference Einstein. Mass generated by dynamic. ie. your "stream of photons" under postulated, limitless magnification would simply become "a measurable force," no teensy little objects in between. And what frame of reference does one use to measure something which is comprised of a force and thus does, yet also does not exist? Quanta. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fafalone Posted January 2, 2004 Share Posted January 2, 2004 Um, last time I checked we can in fact see the larger atoms. Just about every chemistry book out there has the famous picture of the silicon atoms Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
elfin vampire Posted January 2, 2004 Share Posted January 2, 2004 Yes, I've read the article. http://www.cerncourier.com/main/article/ 40/9/9/1/cernphysw2_11-00 My statement however still stands. Perhaps, it is true that I should cantilever my position for the appreciation of inspiring cinematography. It is certainly exciting however conciseness is also a responsibility of scientists I feel, to maintain an accurate environment for innovative theorists to evolve. Why not have 17 year old prodigies rather than treating them all like intellectual children? The older people would still maintain their position, except those whom have no foundation upon others in theirs. The idea of visually witnessing atoms via magnification, whilst exciting cannot be achieved because it is to witness something which does not exist. This is a fundamental. We study and may view the effects of atomic and subatomic forces. This may seem to be picking marrow from me however becomes very relevent when thinking in terms of pioneering astrophysics: to one's self. Certainly, referencing scientific research, science-journalists should continue to attempt to corroberate a physical nature to atoms for their audience. Certainly scientists should continue to corroberate the foundations of physics theorum through observation in nature, including those gained by irefutable inferrance. Nevertheless, at this time atoms are not in any way, shape or form physical objects: "just really, really small." They are a mechanic, invented by humans but yes it describes something very, very real. You just might need a cybernetic, video-card implant to see it even if it was ten feet on a side, that's all. Are subatomic particles teensy, little bits of matter? No. They derive mass wholly through the presence of an electrical charge. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
elfin vampire Posted January 2, 2004 Share Posted January 2, 2004 BTW that really is an exciting picture (of the silicon atom). Wow, we had it right. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
multi Posted January 2, 2004 Share Posted January 2, 2004 I am missing something here. If sub atomic particles "derive mass wholly through the presence of an electrical charge" it still stands to reason that they do have mass no matter how it is derived. As such why would one not be able to view them? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sayonara Posted January 2, 2004 Share Posted January 2, 2004 fafalone said in post #6 :Um, last time I checked we can in fact see the larger atoms. Just about every chemistry book out there has the famous picture of the silicon atoms Indeed so, in fact in "physics breaking news" terms the STM technique is fairly old hat. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JaKiri Posted January 2, 2004 Share Posted January 2, 2004 elfin vampire said in post #7 :No. They derive mass wholly through the presence of an electrical charge. How can chargeless particles have mass then? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aman Posted January 2, 2004 Author Share Posted January 2, 2004 I'll agree that all of existance is observation of effects, but the tangible limit of effects so far goes down to the atomic structure. I wasn't talking about bouncing photons off of quarks at our quantum limits. Photons can be deflected by electrons in their path or protons or neutrons. That should show us structure. Just aman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JaKiri Posted January 2, 2004 Share Posted January 2, 2004 p = hf/c Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
elfin vampire Posted January 3, 2004 Share Posted January 3, 2004 How can chargeless particles have mass then? What makes you think any subatomic particles are chargeless. GR extripolates that matter is derived from electricity and gravitation provided by a dynamic of space-time. ..it still stands to reason that they do have mass no matter how it is derived. As such why would one not be able to view them? Because they are not however, physical matter itself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aman Posted January 3, 2004 Author Share Posted January 3, 2004 elfin vampire said in post, What makes you think any subatomic particles are chargeless. GR extripolates that matter is derived from electricity and gravitation provided by a dynamic of space-time. If you combine matter and anti-matter you get energy which should have no charge. Chargeless energy should still be able to make chargeless matter. Because they are not however, physical matter itself. [/b] What is your definition of physical matter? Electrons bounce off atoms and give us pictures. Photons bounce off matter on our scale and give us an immpression of reality. Why can't photons bounce off atoms and show us a fuzzy immpression of what's there but clearer than an electron picture? Just aman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest mope Posted January 4, 2004 Share Posted January 4, 2004 All you would get would be a photon at the frequency that the atom you used happened to re-emit light at. I don't imagine anyone would be able to make much of a picture out of that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
elfin vampire Posted January 4, 2004 Share Posted January 4, 2004 If you combine matter and anti-matter you get energy which should have no charge. Chargeless energy should still be able to make chargeless matter. We cannot correlate findings unless we work within established physics, whether or not it is incomplete or inaccurate (ref: Special Relativity explained through geometry). I am however most interested in your proposal. Do have anything of substance with which to present such a contention? Could you clarify "chargeless matter" (ie. electrically inert, etc.)? Can you present any findings which challenge that physical matter is most literally defined as 'electrodynamic bodies,' is there some kind of other physical matter which is somehow different to 'electromagnetic bodies' (ie. composed wholly of gravitation)? If not of 'electrodynamics' what then composes this matter of which you speak? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YT2095 Posted January 4, 2004 Share Posted January 4, 2004 I`m fairly sure the neutron has no charge Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
elfin vampire Posted January 4, 2004 Share Posted January 4, 2004 Oh you mean a neutral charge? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YT2095 Posted January 4, 2004 Share Posted January 4, 2004 only in the sense that a stationary car has Zero velocity, as a neutron has Zero charge Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now