 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
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
But hey, you aren't the first person to point out that the solar system
looks conspicuously like the internal structure of an atom. ;-)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Invisible wrote:
> (Scanning Electron Micrographs. As in, pictures taken with a Scanning
> Electron Microscope.)
>
> http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a4/Misc_pollen.jpg
>
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a8/LT-SEM_snow_crystal_magnification_series-3.jpg
>
> http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/4/48/Mchaster_hair_tatoo.JPG
> http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/50/Fib_tem_sample.jpg
> http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/0/00/SEM_SE_vs_BE_Zr_Al.png
>
> Pretty neat, eh?
All coated in a thin layer of gold...
--
~Mike
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
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
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.)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
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. ;-)
Maybe with the misconcepted view of the structure of an atom 100 years ago.
An atom is *not* a bunch of spheres forming a core with a bunch of smaller
spheres orbiting around.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
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).
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
SEM can even be used to take pictures of your closest friends
http://www.worsleyschool.net/science/files/eyelash/creatures.html
"Invisible" <voi### [at] devnull> wrote in message
news:49805cb1$1@news.povray.org...
> (Scanning Electron Micrographs. As in, pictures taken with a Scanning
> Electron Microscope.)
>
> http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a4/Misc_pollen.jpg
>
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a8/LT-SEM_snow_crystal_magnification_series-3.jpg
> http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/4/48/Mchaster_hair_tatoo.JPG
> http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/50/Fib_tem_sample.jpg
> http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/0/00/SEM_SE_vs_BE_Zr_Al.png
>
> Pretty neat, eh?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Invisible 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. ;-)
Kind of the other way around, actually.
The first models of atoms were big blobs of pudding with raisins in it.
--
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Invisible" <voi### [at] devnull> 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; they're *always*
particle-like entities, with well-defined position and velocity that can
both be measured. (Mind, it helps that what we're measuring them with is
unable to affect either attribute on the levels we use.)
--
Tim Cook
http://empyrean.freesitespace.net
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
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] devnull> 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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
