Better than electron microscopy?

[Ferdinand]

I came across your site while looking for information on how to advance our ability to view beyond the capabilities of current electron microscopy technology. I do not know where to start asking but I hoped you could point me in the right direction. I’m about to enroll in university classes and I wanted to know what would be the right path to choose if I wanted to become someone who discovers new tehnology that allows us to view deeper than what we are currently able to with electron microscopes, say to view into a quark, boson or leptons in the same way we are able to view a simple cell. Please let me know me as I am fully intent on making a breakthrough in our world as I truly feel this is completely necessary if we really want to advance to a new age in humanity.

 

[Borg]

Do you have any idea how an electron microscope works? You would need a source of illumination that's smaller than an electron.

From the wiki link:

An electron microscope is a microscope that uses a beam of accelerated electrons as a source of illumination. As the wavelength of an electron can be up to 100,000 times shorter than that of visible light photons, electron microscopes have a higher resolving power than light microscopes and can reveal the structure of smaller objects.

 

[Ferdinand]

Do you have any idea how an electron microscope works? You would need a source of illumination that's smaller than an electron.

From the wiki link:

That’s easy. A quark. Now how do we go about reducing lighting to fit through a quark sized hole?

 

[Borg]

I think that you should read the wiki article. An electron microscope doesn't reduce lighting as you're suggesting. It uses a beam of electrons which have a wavelength that is much shorter than visible light in order to achieve higher resolution. It's very difficult to even detect a quark so, getting beam of them together just isn't going to happen.

 

[Ferdinand]

Remember, in the world of science there are no “impossiblities”, just “undiscovered” imporbabilities. There must be a way. Thank you for the way you tried to help, but I think I’m better off paying a visit to Columbia’s Physics department, not someone who thinks in terms of “possible” and “impossible”.

 

[Ferdinand]

Remember, in the world of science there are no “impossiblities”, just “undiscovered” imporbabilities. There must be a way. Thank you for the way you tried to help, but I think I’m better off paying a visit to Columbia’s Physics department, not someone who thinks in terms of “possible” and “impossible”.

Pardon the grammar

 

[Marisa5]

Thank you for the way you tried to help, but I think I’m better off paying a visit to Columbia’s Physics department, not someone who thinks in terms of “possible” and “impossible”.

You're going to have a difficult time here if this is how you interact with people. Nature is built out of a rule set that physics seeks to understand, it's completely possible that your proposal of building a quark microscope is akin to moving a pawn like a queen in chess, it's not built into the set of rules. No amount of bravado or waving people away is going to change the way nature works in your favor. I think it is an interesting line of inquiry and certainly it is possible that some arrangement of subatomic particles and macroscopic objects could yield the results you think, but until you back up that inquiry with a deep knowledge of physics the rational thing to do in the meantime is not be so brash.

Btw, there are plenty of impossibilities in science. It's impossible for planets to spontaneously turn into black holes, it's impossible to build a snowman out of higgs bosons, it's impossible for the Earth to be a flat plane. Science helps define what is impossible every day by uncovering how the rules of nature work.

<3

 

[Ferdinand]

You're going to have a difficult time here if this is how you interact with people. Nature is built out of a rule set that physics seeks to understand, it's completely possible that your proposal of building a quark microscope is akin to moving a pawn like a queen in chess, it's not built into the set of rules. No amount of bravado or waving people away is going to change the way nature works in your favor. I think it is an interesting line of inquiry and certainly it is possible that some arrangement of subatomic particles and macroscopic objects could yield the results you think, but until you back up that inquiry with a deep knowledge of physics the rational thing to do in the meantime is not be so brash.

Btw, there are plenty of impossibilities in science. It's impossible for planets to spontaneously turn into black holes, it's impossible to build a snowman out of higgs bosons, it's impossible for the Earth to be a flat plane. Science helps define what is impossible every day by uncovering how the rules of nature work.

<3

You mean NOW they are presently impossible. Meaning we don’t know if that can change it the future with another way of doing things. It’s sad that it’s 2018 and people are still doing in the scientific world what they always did to those with views that did not follow the way of thinking of that time. Perhaps in 10 or 20 years when I am more seasoned into my research and theories I can propose something more worthy of your time, but in the meanwhile, does it hurt you that much to try and conceive a way where there doesn’t seem to be one? Smh

You are all very knowledgeable, and smart, and I applaud you for that, but there’s a difference in a mentality that keeps a closed door and another that keeps it open. You perhaps know a better way than me, a mere high schooler, and again, I applaud you for it, but I am pretty sure when I am were you are academically, I will approach things with a bit less... let’s just say you want to see things one way when I want to see different ones, not a snowman built of bosons. Which is completely possible I’m sure where the technology is available. The again I think someone like you would say “it’s not a chess game so it can’t move like a chess piece”. Which is nothing but a very imaginative analogy to support your way of thinking. The question was simple, and I am being bombarded with all these “be like this, think like that”. I thought this was a scientific forum, not military academy.

 

[Ferdinand]

The real question here is, why are your feelings so at stake here? I was merely proposing that maybe there is a way for better magnification and I see that we are going off base here with your feelings and need to set boundaries. All because I proposed something out of my limited knowledge. Lol.

 

[DennisN]

Hi Ferdinand,

That’s easy. A quark. Now how do we go about reducing lighting to fit through a quark sized hole?

A quark? Easy? No, that's not easy at all!
Quarks are extremely confined inside a particle, see quark confinement.

 

[Klystron]

My cousin Roger helps design, build, maintain and operate electron microscopes in labs around "silicon valley"; i.e., Santa Clara Valley in Northern California. A savvy technologist can find useful employment in a number of related fields where they would garner insights into the requirements of material scientists and other frequent users of our current electron microscopes in order to drive technology toward new solutions.

Electronics and electron microscopes remain cutting-edge technology with many possible avenues of improvement. Consider the influence of "tunneling" in current electron microscope designs. I suggest a technologist bent on improving electron microscope resolutions volunteer or apprentice at an appropriate lab to gain experience and discuss limitations of current tech with users of same.

The standard model is not the same as the periodic table. When electronic welding was being developed, designers could look at noble gases on the periodic table and select, say, neon and then an argon gas environment (or a neon-argon mix!) to reduce arcing and solve other problems. It seems intuitive to use the standard model in a similar fashion but the analogy with the periodic table quickly deteriorates.

--Norm

 

[russ_watters]

Remember, in the world of science there are no “impossiblities”, just “undiscovered” imporbabilities. There must be a way. Thank you for the way you tried to help, but I think I’m better off paying a visit to Columbia’s Physics department, not someone who thinks in terms of “possible” and “impossible”.

Sorry, but that isn't the way science works. It does indeed tell us what is possible and what is impossible.

And again, you clearly didn't understand the description of how an electron microscope works. So your idea of what is "possible" is mostly just gibberish anyway. But instead of going back and trying to learn about how the electron microscope works, you are trying to skip ahead by declaring "anything is possible" (so I don't have to learn existing science). SMH.

Anyway; rebooting your approach and going back to try to understand Post #2 is the only acceptable path forward for this thread.

Much to learn, young padawan!

 

[DennisN]

Remember, in the world of science there are no “impossiblities”, just “undiscovered” imporbabilities.

I'd say that's a philosophical opinion. And an opinion I don't agree with.

 

[Ferdinand]

Hi Ferdinand,

A quark? Easy? No, that's not easy at all!
Quarks are extremely confined inside a particle, see quark confinement.

Thanks for the pointer! I will definitely study into that. I’m pretty serious about wanting a higher magnification than the one available to humanity currently.

 

[DennisN]

There are also other technologies, like scanning tunnelling microscopes and photoionization microscopy.
See quantum microscopy and this article: Viewpoint: A New Look at the Hydrogen Wave Function (Physics APS).

 

[Marisa5]

You mean NOW they are presently impossible. Meaning we don’t know if that can change it the future with another way of doing things. It’s sad that it’s 2018 and people are still doing in the scientific world what they always did to those with views that did not follow the way of thinking of that time. Perhaps in 10 or 20 years when I am more seasoned into my research and theories I can propose something more worthy of your time, but in the meanwhile, does it hurt you that much to try and conceive a way where there doesn’t seem to be one? Smh

You are all very knowledgeable, and smart, and I applaud you for that, but there’s a difference in a mentality that keeps a closed door and another that keeps it open. You perhaps know a better way than me, a mere high schooler, and again, I applaud you for it, but I am pretty sure when I am were you are academically, I will approach things with a bit less... let’s just say you want to see things one way when I want to see different ones, not a snowman built of bosons. Which is completely possible I’m sure where the technology is available. The again I think someone like you would say “it’s not a chess game so it can’t move like a chess piece”. Which is nothing but a very imaginative analogy to support your way of thinking. The question was simple, and I am being bombarded with all these “be like this, think like that”. I thought this was a scientific forum, not military academy.

I don't want you to be rigid in your thinking, I want you to recognize that physical laws put constraints on how reality operates. Calved glacial chunks never arise out of the water and attach themselves back to the ice face. While you might want to argue from your position that I'm just being unimaginative about what's possible, I'm telling you to imagine your reality as a world where rules govern what is possible. Your best bet is to determine that our understanding of some specific rule is incomplete or incorrect, but you don't earn the right to claim it until you can demonstrate it.

You're also in the wrong line of work if you think as a scientist you shouldn't be creative and should just stick to what the mainstream thinks about everything. Nobody gets famous in science for confirming observations that have been made thousands of times. You get famous for discovering new things and for challenging existing paradigms with strong evidence. Keep being creative, keep coming up with new ideas, but don't get distressed when you're told by professional scientists that your ideas aren't realistic or applicable. In all likelihood, as I've found to be the case in my life, as I grow and learn, I revisit old ideas and find them to be ridiculous. That experience is important. Maybe you'll find something better than the electron microscope in the future and that's great. Be aware that people will take it upon themselves to challenge your ideas to see if they hold up. That's an important process as well and you're getting too defensive about it. Let's go back to talking about physics now. Please.

 

[Ferdinand]

There are also other technologies, like scanning tunnelling microscopes and photoionization microscopy.
See quantum microscopy and this article: Viewpoint: A New Look at the Hydrogen Wave Function (Physics APS).

Omg this is gold to me. I’m so wiki’ng all this. Thanks dude!

 

[Dadface]

This may be relevant. Also, try searching "near field scanning optical microscopy".

 

[Borek]

Just note: these things are developed by people perfectly aware of what is impossible, what they do is a clever use of what is possible.

 

[Ferdinand]

Just note: these things are developed by people perfectly aware of what is impossible, what they do is a clever use of what is possible.

Which is what I’m aimimg for once I become properly educated at Columbia. So far their physics department have told me I may be on to something here and that I should seriously consider a career in physics, a Masters in a field that gears towards researching new equipment and finally various Apprenticeships with different leading microscopy developers.

That’s why I’m here. I’m so super serious about learning what is plausible in our times with technology currently available and what can be discovered from that point.

Thanks for the video man, I’ve definitely learned so much this summer after graduating high school. I just hope to keep finding open minded, and well, from what I’ve seen is also almost necessary, grounded people in what is currently possible or not.

My aim is not to have magical super powers and presto, but I also don’t appreciate people with kryptonite just for the sake of blowing me off, when in actuality my knowing of current limitations will just in fact help me even more to know a better path.

Thank you!

 

[Mark44]

The real question here is, why are your feelings so at stake here? I was merely proposing that maybe there is a way for better magnification and I see that we are going off base here with your feelings and need to set boundaries.

Presumably your reply was to @Marisa5's comment in post #7. If I can speak for her, her feelings were not at stake, so there was no need for the "psychobabble" about setting boundaries. Her reaction and some of the others in this thread were a result of your assertions, including this one:

Remember, in the world of science there are no “impossiblities”, just “undiscovered” imporbabilities.

You are a brand-new member of a community with a great amount of expertise in many scientific arenas. As a very recent high-school graduate, your comment above shows a lot of chutzpah to be lecturing experts in physics about what is or isn't impossible. I might add that "imporbabilites" is not a word.

My aim is not to have magical super powers and presto, but I also don’t appreciate people with kryptonite just for the sake of blowing me off, when in actuality my knowing of current limitations will just in fact help me even more to know a better path.

The negative criticism you see in this thread was not "just for the sake of blowing you off," but was aimed at educating you about how physics works, and in particular, how electron microscopes work, about which you didn't seem to have a clue.

Smh

For the fogies here, this is "textspeak" for "shaking my head." This condescension won't win you many friends here. BTW, "textspeak" or SMS messaging shorthand is not permitted.

 

[Mark44]

The OP has been banned, so I'm closing this thread.