 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Invisible wrote:
> Mike Raiford wrote:
>
>> All coated in a thin layer of gold...
>
> ...like this:
>
> http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/ca/Golden_insect_01_Pengo.jpg
>
Just like that :)
>
> Actually, apparently you can design a SEM that works without the gold
> coating, but the resolution is lower. (And you still can't do it with
> "wet" samples; they must be dried somehow first.)
What was fun was the SEM that they had on exhibit at the Science museum.
I saw the exhibit after reading the Wikipedia page. Because of that, I
actually knew where the sample would go... :)
--
~Mike
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Tim Cook escreveu:
> "Invisible" <voi### [at] dev null> wrote:
>> But hey, you aren't the first person to point out that the solar
>> system looks conspicuously like the internal structure of an atom. ;-)
>
> No it doesn't. Planets aren't waveforms that appear to occupy the
> entire volume of space in a certain pattern around the central element
> and turn into particle-like entities under certain conditions
Define particle. A proton was a particle (an atom in the original sense
of the word) but now is made of bosons, or fermions or quarks or
whatever is newer...
The solar system is made of clearly distinguished particles that don't
*appear* waveform. But that is just because we seeing the universe from
our very slowed spacetime capsule. If you were a humongous giant larger
than any galaxy clusters and looked at it from your spacetime
point-of-view, things would be going pretty fast and millions or
billions of galaxian years would get past in a split second. Would you
see planets moving in regular orbits or just blurs around a rapidly
fading core?
It's all a matter of perspective I guess. Though I first thought as
galaxies as subparticle matter in a larger universe...
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Mike Hough wrote:
> SEM can even be used to take pictures of your closest friends
>
> http://www.worsleyschool.net/science/files/eyelash/creatures.html
Closest? Sure.
Friends...?
(OTOH, I saw an estimate somewhere that over 50% of the cells inside the
human body aren't actually human...)
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> You cannot "see" an individual atom because the wavelength of visible
> light is too large.
No. But you could, in principle, construct some kind of meaninful visual
representation of them.
> It's also a misconception (cleared about 100 years
> ago) that subatomic particles are spherical (or have any definite shape
> for that matter).
As far as I understand it, phycasists still don't really understand
exactly what these particles "are" yet. But they know many of their
properties and how they interact, which is probably the most useful
thing to know if you're trying to design coherant theories about them...
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp escreveu:
> nemesis <nam### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
>> The microscopic world is about as fascinating as the biggest universe
>> structures and I wonder if in fact they are not the same. As in, once
>> we devise a sufficiently accurate device for seeing further we realize
>> our universe is just a grain of dust and inside a grain of dust lies a
>> whole universe...
>
> Idyllic, but not very scientifical.
>
> You cannot "see" an individual atom because the wavelength of visible
> light is too large. It's also a misconception (cleared about 100 years
> ago) that subatomic particles are spherical (or have any definite shape
> for that matter).
Well, I see atoms today despite any light wavelength. IBM even wrote
their initials by manipulating single atoms. Yes, they look solid, but
that's just an artifact of statistical imaging.
If a larger and much slower being was to look into our universe, perhaps
he too wouldn't be able to distinguish stars and planets from their high
frequency (to him) waveform orbits. He'd have to resort to statistcs
too to measure positionings in space. See above my answer to Tim Cook.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Invisible escreveu:
> nemesis wrote:
>
>> The microscopic world is about as fascinating as the biggest universe
>> structures and I wonder if in fact they are not the same. As in, once
>> we devise a sufficiently accurate device for seeing further we realize
>> our universe is just a grain of dust and inside a grain of dust lies a
>> whole universe...
>
> Man, that is so deep... o_O
Ever seen "Men in Black 1" ;)
But truth be told, it's not an original idea and I *think* I had such
view from even before that movie and was delighted by the ending...
> But hey, you aren't the first person to point out that the solar system
> looks conspicuously like the internal structure of an atom. ;-)
The Bohr model gave way to more accurate quantum models. But still, we
see the solar system and its individual planets this way only because
they look incredibly slow to us. If time was going incredibly fast, we
would see nothing but a blur and we'd resort to statistical means of
measuring energy to give us a picture of what is going on.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Orchid XP v8 escreveu:
> (OTOH, I saw an estimate somewhere that over 50% of the cells inside the
> human body aren't actually human...)
I feel a mojo coming up...
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
nemesis wrote:
> Orchid XP v8 escreveu:
>> (OTOH, I saw an estimate somewhere that over 50% of the cells inside
>> the human body aren't actually human...)
>
> I feel a mojo coming up...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gut_flora
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
nemesis wrote:
> Define particle. A proton was a particle (an atom in the original sense
> of the word) but now is made of bosons, or fermions or quarks or
> whatever is newer...
Quarks. But it's even funkier, because even tho a proton is made of parts,
you can't break it into parts. The very act of pulling a proton into two
independent pieces provides enough energy to create two entire protons. You
can't see quarks by themselves.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
"Ouch ouch ouch!"
"What's wrong? Noodles too hot?"
"No, I have Chopstick Tunnel Syndrome."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Orchid XP v8 wrote:
> Warp wrote:
>
>> You cannot "see" an individual atom because the wavelength of visible
>> light is too large.
>
> No. But you could, in principle, construct some kind of meaninful visual
> representation of them.
No, actually, you can't. That's the whole point of "quantum uncertainty." It
really is impossible to look close enough.
> As far as I understand it, phycasists still don't really understand
> exactly what these particles "are" yet. But they know many of their
> properties and how they interact, which is probably the most useful
> thing to know if you're trying to design coherant theories about them...
It depends on the definition of "is", as our president once said. If you can
predict the behavior of something in all ways that matter to 15 decimal
places, can you really say you don't know what it is?
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
"Ouch ouch ouch!"
"What's wrong? Noodles too hot?"
"No, I have Chopstick Tunnel Syndrome."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
