- #1
David Burke
- 54
- 0
Hey, just a quick one. Anyone know of some good links to actual photo etc of matter particles?
Thanx.
Thanx.
Really? Is there some ambiguity in his request that has escaped me?Gokul43201 said:If Dave's links are the kind you want (and I'd be quite surprised if they are)
What privileges did you abuse?David Burke said:Sorry to have abused my privlages in the forum, won't happen again.
None at all. Have just come across way too many requests of "actual photos" of atoms before, only to find that nothing I link to counts as an "actual photo".DaveC426913 said:Really? Is there some ambiguity in his request that has escaped me?
That line is part of my signature, and appears on all my posts. I see no reason for you to apologize - you've committed no transgression I'm aware of.David Burke said:I’ve been part of this forum for only a few weeks and have noticed ‘Forum guide lines are found here’ gets displayed when ever something stupid/ignorant/inappropriate is said. Considering I managed to get two of the above mentioned messages from Gokul who is a senior member I thought it would be good etiquette to apologies (especially since I enjoy this forum so much). I should also apologise for my spelling but I have never trusted humanities subjects (anything where a persons subjective opinion can determine your marks) so as a result my command of English is dismal.
There's also the laser imaging of molecular orbitals that have been published more recently.Anyway, thankyou for the help and if anyone is interested to know, my friend (an electronics buff) was arguing against QT (on a very basic level) because the objects are not visible, so how can we put faith in our results. I thought a proper explanation should include the fact smaller particles can be seen in pictures of atoms but not as individual objects, so we detect (as opposed to see) most particles we deal with in QT by smashing the particles in colliders like the RHIC (showing him the RHIC site was the easy bit). so I was eager to find some evidence to show him that molecules/atoms etc are made up of constituent particles even though we don’t have the capability to separate them and ‘see’ each individual boson particle (mostly due to the strong nuclear force). The S.T.E.M pics were great as I was able show him that atoms are clearly NOT point particles and have a complex surface clearly composed of boson particles adhering to the Pauli repulsion principles and QCD that create the fundamentals of the standard model. I think he’s still a bit confused though.
I see. Yes, I was carfeul to reject the oen that were clearly computer simulations and refer to ones that were (ostensibly) real photos.Gokul43201 said:None at all. Have just come across way too many requests of "actual photos" of atoms before, only to find that nothing I link to counts as an "actual photo".
How would that lend credibility?vandegg said:It is true though that people have still not figured out Tesla's ion powered flying machine or his death ray, so that might somehow lend some credibility to the device in question.
vandegg said:I dunno. He used it in his post to back up what he was saying and i was just pointing out that it was true:
"Besides that, it is a matter of who has heard about it, anyone able and willing to build one and tell the public about it, apparently not yet! It has only been about 46 years, people are still trying to understand technologies Nikola Tesla invented 100 years ago!"
DaveC426913 said:That's what I was thinking, yes.
It's kind of like saying "Well, scientists still don't know what UFOs or ghosts are, so who are they to say my idea is bunk?"
Shackleford said:Are you saying it's a non sequitur? lol.
harleyborgais said:http://www.freeornottobe.org/freeornottobe/Nemescope- 1st Photo of Atoms(smaller).jpg
DaveC426913 said:Hahaha. Yes. These are pretty much considered a hoax.
harleyborgais said:I have studies (almost every day since 1999) technologies like these and Nikola Tesla and I believe that I finally understand them.
I believe these are real because I know what it takes to get such a patent. For a utility patent you have to state claims and prove they are true (at least according to accepted knowledge, not always physically proven).
On the topic of Tesla Tech., I SWEAR TO GOD, I UNDERSTAND THEM, and hope to soon perform experiments to prove that.
Any one with any good references regarding the truth or falsehood of these Nemescope photos, please let me know:
harleyborgais@gmail.com
Matter particles are the smallest units of matter that make up everything in the universe. They are the building blocks of atoms, which in turn make up all the elements and substances around us.
Photos of matter particles are important because they allow scientists to study and understand the fundamental building blocks of our universe. These images provide valuable insights into the behavior and properties of matter particles, which can help us better understand the laws of physics and the origins of the universe.
Photos of matter particles are taken using advanced imaging techniques such as electron microscopy, X-ray crystallography, and particle accelerators. These methods allow scientists to capture images of matter particles at the atomic and subatomic level.
Photos of matter particles can provide information about the size, shape, and structure of these particles. They can also reveal how matter particles interact with each other and how they form larger structures such as atoms and molecules. This knowledge can help us understand the properties and behavior of different materials and substances.
Yes, there are different types of matter particles. The most well-known are quarks, leptons, and bosons, which are classified based on their properties and interactions. There are also hypothetical particles such as dark matter particles that have not yet been directly observed but are believed to exist based on their gravitational effects on visible matter.