If the atom exists

  • Thread starter Thread starter Jim_Baur
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Jim_Baur said:
Have any one of us consciously touched, tasted, saw, heard, smelled an atom?
Click to expand...
One-atom detection using resonance ionization spectroscopy

“A new measuring technique which can detect a single atom of a given kind, even in the presence of 1019 or more atoms of another kind, with good space and time resolution, was utilized to study the density fluctuation of less than 100 cesium atoms in a small volume of space filled with inert gases.”

pra.aps.org/abstract/PRA/v15/i6/p2283_1
 
Perhaps this is a better phrase question: What is the dividing point for those things that can be directly observed from those things which are indirectly detected?

Thanks!
 
Jim_Baur said:
Perhaps this is a better phrase question: What is the dividing point for those things that can be directly observed from those things which are indirectly detected?

Thanks!
Click to expand...
The point at which they cease to trigger our human senses. While each human body’s sense acuity varies, at a rough limit this would be the wavelength of visible light (and a threshold level of photons), 0dB of sound, weight or pressure too light to register on our skin, or molecules too simple or nonvolatile to activate the receptors in our noses.

Beyond those limits, equipment is needed for observation.

ICXC NIKA
 
Jim_Baur said:
Perhaps this is a better phrase question: What is the dividing point for those things that can be directly observed from those things which are indirectly detected?

Thanks!
Click to expand...
I think you first need to define exactly what you mean by “directly observed”. Light reflects off a tree and some of it enters your eyes where the individual photons strike your retina which causes a chemical reaction which in turn generates a bit of electricity which travels to your brain which then interprets the signal as looking like a tree. Is that direct observation?

What if the light first passes through a pair of eye glasses? Still direct? What if the tree is far away and you use a telescope? Still direct? What if it is dark out and you can’t see the tree at all until you use light amplification goggles? Still direct? What if a mongoose is hiding in the tree and can only be seen using infrared? Still direct?

Define your terms and then maybe some questions can be answered.
 
My present understanding is this: we cannot observe the electrons of an atom even with the most powerful instruments to date. We infer that they are there. I do not doubt that there existence. Nor do I doubt what the scientific communities teach.

We, as far as I know, cannot observe neutrinos, quarks and the like with the most powerful instruments. We infer that they are there.

I have never seen an atom through any kind of instruments know to humans.

We, as far as I know, infer these beings.

Fundamental particles are known through inference, are these statements correct?

Let me try again, one atom is too small to see even for the most powerful instruments to date–is that correct?

Thank you for your kindness, patience, energy and help.
 
Jim_Baur said:
My present understanding is this: we cannot observe the electrons of an atom even with the most powerful instruments to date. We infer that they are there. I do not doubt that there existence. Nor do I doubt what the scientific communities teach.

We, as far as I know, cannot observe neutrinos, quarks and the like with the most powerful instruments. We infer that they are there.

I have never seen an atom through any kind of instruments know to humans.

We, as far as I know, infer these beings.

Fundamental particles are known through inference, are these statements correct?

Let me try again, one atom is too small to see even for the most powerful instruments to date–is that correct?

Thank you for your kindness, patience, energy and help.
Click to expand...
I think you are right. After all an atom is mostly empty space so even if you could magnify it there would be nothing to see in the way of a surface. But by ‘bouncing’ smaller particles off an atom you could ‘map’ the general shape or sphere of influence of an atom, I suppose.
I’m not an expert, obviously.
 
Jim_Baur said:
My present understanding is this: we cannot observe the electrons of an atom even with the most powerful instruments to date. We infer that they are there. I do not doubt that there existence. Nor do I doubt what the scientific communities teach.

We, as far as I know, cannot observe neutrinos, quarks and the like with the most powerful instruments. We infer that they are there.

I have never seen an atom through any kind of instruments know to humans.

We, as far as I know, infer these beings.

Fundamental particles are known through inference, are these statements correct?

Let me try again, one atom is too small to see even for the most powerful instruments to date–is that correct?

Thank you for your kindness, patience, energy and help.
Click to expand...
The scanning tunneling microscope (STM) is an instrument which enables **individual atoms **within materials to be imaged and manipulated!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top