 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
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] gmail com> 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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Many people upon learning about our symbiotic partners go to great lengths
to get rid of them, which sometimes does more harm then good. It has been
proposed that the function of the appendix is/was to serve as a backup
supply of gut flora when illness flushes them from the rest of the
intestines.
"Orchid XP v8" <voi### [at] devnull> wrote in message
news:4980af6f$1@news.povray.org...
> 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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> 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.
I don't see how "you can't measure where this really is" implies "you
can't draw a picture where you pretend it's at position X".
>> 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?
One set of theories say that an electron is a wave. Another set of
theories say that it's a particle. And both sets of theories seem to be
completely correct. AFAIK, nobody has figured out how that can be.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
