- #1
David Mayes
- 16
- 0
Can scientists see either atoms or molecules?
If not, what is the smallest object/entity we can see?
If not, what is the smallest object/entity we can see?
Originally posted by mathman
[
In general, if you mean "seeing" as by visible light, then there is a limit - things smaller than a wavelength can't be "seen". However by using X-rays or electron beams, scientists can create images of things that are much smaller. [/]
Originally posted by nocturn
Excuse me to expand this topic.
Seeing in some degree defines the area of science in my eye.Things which can be detected, measured by the physical device are significative.
Originally posted by mathman
In general, if you mean "seeing" as by visible light, then there is a limit - things smaller than a wavelength can't be "seen".
Originally posted by Chemicalsuperfreak
Yes, scientists can image actual atoms and molecules, such as DNA. It is not just a model. It is, however, a graphical representation. A microsope images the subject and displays what it "sees" on a screen. It's every bit as real as the electron micrographs you see of the close up shots of ants or pollen.
Originally posted by David Mayes
I was under the impression that we can't see atoms, that we could only create models that best reflect the effects of atoms.
Originally posted by Chemicalsuperfreak
No, you can image the actual atom. It's not just a model. Look up scanning tunneling microscope. It's not quite the same as "seeing" with your eyes, hopefully you already understand that, but it's still imaging the actual atoms.
Originally posted by Ambitwistor
What an STM is actually imaging is the electronic charge distribution of the atoms...
Originally posted by David Mayes
And this means that the graphical reprenstations of atoms@molecules are based on the effects of atoms, IOW, no-one can take either an actual photograph or can look into a microscope and immediately see either an atom or molecule...is this correct..?
Originally posted by Ambitwistor
Well, STM's are microscopes, and they can certainly produce images of atoms (which you could turn into photographs, if you wanted). But they don't work the way an ordinary optical microscope does, which scatters light directly off of atoms into your eyes. STMs are more indirect.
Originally posted by David Mayes
Ok thanks for your help Ambitwistor.
As near as I can figure out, your idea is that because we can't see and feel electrons. etc. with our own eyes and fingers, therefore all our constructions are suspect. There "might be" some other theory to account for things falling than Newton's* (or Einstein's).
Yes, scientists have developed advanced techniques such as scanning tunneling microscopy and atomic force microscopy that allow them to directly visualize individual atoms and molecules.
Scientists use powerful microscopes that use beams of electrons or light to scan and magnify samples containing atoms and molecules. These techniques allow for the visualization of atomic and molecular structures.
No, atoms and molecules are too small to be seen with the naked eye. They are typically thousands of times smaller than the width of a human hair.
Yes, there are limitations to these techniques. For example, atoms and molecules can only be seen in a vacuum or in special environments, and the images produced may not be completely accurate due to the limitations of the equipment.
Being able to see and understand the structures of atoms and molecules is crucial for many fields of science, including chemistry, physics, and biology. It allows scientists to better understand the properties and behavior of matter on a microscopic level.