Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Actual pics of matter

  1. Sep 10, 2006 #1
    Hey, just a quick one. Anyone know of some good links to actual photo etc of matter particals?

    Thanx.
     
  2. jcsd
  3. Sep 10, 2006 #2

    Gokul43201

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    What are "matter particles"?
     
  4. Sep 10, 2006 #3

    quasar987

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper
    Gold Member

    There are some photos of matter under a microscope in one of the Feynman lecture of volume 2.
     
  5. Sep 10, 2006 #4

    DaveC426913

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

  6. Sep 10, 2006 #5

    Gokul43201

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    If Dave's links are the kind you want (and I'd be quite surprised if they are), visit the STM Gallery of the IBM-Almaden Labs.
     
  7. Sep 10, 2006 #6
    Sorry to have abused my privlages in the forum, won't happen again.

    Thanx for the links.
     
  8. Sep 11, 2006 #7

    Chronos

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member
    2015 Award

    I have a collection of matter porn, but the pictures are pretty fuzzy.
     
  9. Sep 11, 2006 #8

    DaveC426913

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    Really? Is there some ambiguity in his request that has escaped me?:blushing:
     
  10. Sep 11, 2006 #9

    DaveC426913

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    What privileges did you abuse?
     
  11. Sep 11, 2006 #10

    Gokul43201

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    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".
     
  12. Sep 12, 2006 #11
    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.

    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.
     
  13. Sep 12, 2006 #12

    Gokul43201

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    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.

    There's also the laser imaging of molecular orbitals that have been published more recently.

    http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v432/n7019/full/432809a.html

    http://pubs.acs.org/cen/news/8251/8251notw1.html
     
  14. Sep 12, 2006 #13

    DaveC426913

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    I see. Yes, I was carfeul to reject the oen that were clearly computer simulations and refer to ones that were (ostensibly) real photos.
     
  15. Jun 20, 2010 #14
    Hello every one,

    In 1964, Jan. in a magazine called "Science and Mechanics", there is a photo of iron atoms, taken by the Nemescope, Pat.#'s: 3,129,353; 2,850,661, (and about 18 more).

    Two places to see it are:
    http://www.rexresearch.com/nemes/1nemes.htm#scimech
    http://www.rexresearch.com/nemes/nemesatom.jpg

    or

    http://freeornottobe.org/freeornottobe/Genesis of Relativity.html
    http://www.freeornottobe.org/freeornottobe/Nemescope- 1st Photo of Atoms(smaller).jpg


    THESE ARE REAL PHOTOS OF REAL ATOMS, FROM A REAL PATENTED (AND LOST) TECHNOLOGY. --NOTICE HOW THEY MATCH ""THE FLOWER OF LIFE" PATTERN?-(also see the seed, egg, fruit, and tree of life, and metatrons cube to see the Geometry of how interlinked spherical fields of energy form into all that we see).

    Maybe someone will build another one, since the inventor died soon after the original was stolen (how suspicious is that?).
     
  16. Jun 20, 2010 #15

    K^2

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    Yeah. That's a bunch of baloney.
     
  17. Jun 20, 2010 #16
    How can you say that is a bunch of baloney?
    How do you know?
    What are your qualifications to discredit a patented technology?
    What do you think of the photo specifically?
    And about the schematics in the patent?

    Considering the amount of time it has been up, I am quite sure you have discredited this 'offhand' because it seems too good to be true.

    It is not so hard to understand how one person can invent something great, lose it, die soon after, and no one ever rebuilds it, and it gets lost. These patents are researched only to see if they conflict with new patents. If nothing similar has come since (and none have -obviously what is in use works differently), then no-one would have had reason to research this.

    Those who do know about it are either open minded, non-scholarly, and usually not wealthy, or they are close-minded by their educations and not open to exploring something so different from what they currently are invested in. It is a common and well know problem with the current scientific community.

    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!
     
  18. Jun 20, 2010 #17
    The reason to research something like this is that it supposedly gave a ridiculously high resolution, even by today's standards. I cannot see how people interested would not have researched such a claim. Upon researching it myself i found several different conflicting stories about this device, its inventor and its eventual fate, each having something to do with conspiracy theories or mysticism.

    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.
     
  19. Jun 20, 2010 #18

    DaveC426913

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    How would that lend credibility?
     
  20. Jun 20, 2010 #19
    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!"
     
  21. Jun 20, 2010 #20

    DaveC426913

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    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?"
     
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook

Have something to add?