14th April 2010, 5:40 PM
No sir, it's essentially all theory at this point, basically we dont have a concrete method to view them as of yet but I heard there's something either being experimented with now or new to the field that offers some pretty interesting things. The best method they have is a type of vacuum that forces electricity through materials to make "atoms visible" but even then, we have to have faith in what we're perceiving is an actual atom. They say this new method can even allow us to see subs.
http://www.lbl.gov/Science-Articles/Arch...strom.html
But i know very little on it. The problem with atoms being photographed or observed is that you dont know what you're looking at because atoms emit no light are too small for light to bounce off them. So you need to have the machines tell you, then it gets overly complicated because what you're seeing is a representation of a reconstruction's representation. If science wants round balls, by God they will tell us its round balls until they are blue in the face. Just like Mars is actually red and the world is flat, or that organic compounds create lattices of construction, etc. It's interference not reference, but that debate is as old as the late 70's.
Creating structures the size of a few angsrtom is almost routine yeah but then again - what's an angstrom but a made up term used to describe something that only exists on paper with only theories supporting it. We can see things at a very small scale until it has to be manipulated, but by then what we're looking at is anyone's guess. Atoms can be electrified (causing their familiar lattice form) and it is energy held together by energy, it's mass is only equal to its ability to generate transformation (again all theory)
Most of it i dont subscribe to mostly because they haven't attempted a new idea in the field since like 1981 so i'm bitter about it. But like I said, we can "see" them but we've no idea of what they actually are and what we're seeing is only skin deep.
http://www.lbl.gov/Science-Articles/Arch...strom.html
But i know very little on it. The problem with atoms being photographed or observed is that you dont know what you're looking at because atoms emit no light are too small for light to bounce off them. So you need to have the machines tell you, then it gets overly complicated because what you're seeing is a representation of a reconstruction's representation. If science wants round balls, by God they will tell us its round balls until they are blue in the face. Just like Mars is actually red and the world is flat, or that organic compounds create lattices of construction, etc. It's interference not reference, but that debate is as old as the late 70's.
Creating structures the size of a few angsrtom is almost routine yeah but then again - what's an angstrom but a made up term used to describe something that only exists on paper with only theories supporting it. We can see things at a very small scale until it has to be manipulated, but by then what we're looking at is anyone's guess. Atoms can be electrified (causing their familiar lattice form) and it is energy held together by energy, it's mass is only equal to its ability to generate transformation (again all theory)
Most of it i dont subscribe to mostly because they haven't attempted a new idea in the field since like 1981 so i'm bitter about it. But like I said, we can "see" them but we've no idea of what they actually are and what we're seeing is only skin deep.