 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
(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 escreveu:
> (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?
yes.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a4/Misc_pollen.jpg
With all those spikes it's no surprise most people sneeze... :P
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...
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Mike Hough wrote:
> 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.
And then you get these fancy expensive yogurts that contain "bifidus
digestivum" or "L. casi immunitas" which is "clinically proven" to
"improve digestion" or "promote a healthy immune system".
Frankly, I'm surprised these claims are legal. I thought there was a law
against making unsubstantiated "health claims"...
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
nemesis wrote:
> 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.
Thats because light wasn't used to image that, I think they used a
scanning tunneling microscope.
> 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.
But our solar system is disc shaped.
--
~Mike
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Mike Raiford wrote:
>
> But our solar system is disc shaped.
>
To elaborate:
Electrons have a spherical or lobed cloud of proability depending on
their valence energy.
--
~Mike
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Mike Raiford escreveu:
> nemesis wrote:
>
>> 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.
>
> Thats because light wasn't used to image that, I think they used a
> scanning tunneling microscope.
I know. That's why I said statistical imaging.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Mike Raiford escreveu:
> Mike Raiford wrote:
>> But our solar system is disc shaped.
>
> To elaborate:
>
> Electrons have a spherical or lobed cloud of proability depending on
> their valence energy.
Wouldn't planets around stars and galaxies themselves have a spherical
or lobed cloud of probability too if we were to "see" them in high speed
frequencies? I'm talking here: if there was a being the size of
billions of billions of galaxies and looked into a subparticle
microscope to visualize "atoms", wouldn't our galaxies be spinning to
fast too that they would be nothing but a blur to the ultra big and slow
guy? And no, I'm not suggesting that guy is God anymore than I would
suggest a bacteria is God to the particles in its body.
Do galaxies spins always around the same plane of reference or it tilts
as we go? If it tilts, there is your cloud of probability in the long
run...
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Invisible wrote:
>>> 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".
That would be the "meaningful" word up in that sentence, there.
You can construct a visual representation. It won't be very meaningful.
>> 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.
You're behind on your science about 40 years or so.
> And both sets of theories seem to be
> completely correct. AFAIK, nobody has figured out how that can be.
You're mistaken.
Complex probabilities have much of the same math as waves.
--
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 wrote:
> Frankly, I'm surprised these claims are legal. I thought there was a law
> against making unsubstantiated "health claims"...
What makes you think it's unsubstantiated?
--
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> Frankly, I'm surprised these claims are legal. I thought there was a
>> law against making unsubstantiated "health claims"...
>
> What makes you think it's unsubstantiated?
The absence of anything to indicate that it *is* substantiated?
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Orchid XP v8 wrote:
> The absence of anything to indicate that it *is* substantiated?
People generally don't print references to their research results on the
bottle. The substantiation could very well be somewhere else. I don't print
on the bottle all the research I did to figure out how many calories are in
that package of food either.
--
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
There is a good amount of scientific literature supported the benefits of
"probiotics". What has been debated is the delivery method. They generally
do not fare well in the stomach, and it has been suggested that ingestion is
not an effective way to restore microflora. In other words, most people may
not be using the utilizing the optimal orifice. A woman can't use yogurt to
treat a yeast infection by eating the yogurt because one thing is not
connected to the other in any way.
"Orchid XP v8" <voi### [at] devnull> wrote in message
news:49821185$1@news.povray.org...
>>> Frankly, I'm surprised these claims are legal. I thought there was a law
>>> against making unsubstantiated "health claims"...
>>
>> What makes you think it's unsubstantiated?
>
> The absence of anything to indicate that it *is* substantiated?
>
> --
> http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
> http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
