Photos of Matter Particles - Get Links Here

[David Burke]

Hey, just a quick one. Anyone know of some good links to actual photo etc of matter particles?

Thanx.

 

[Gokul43201]

What are "matter particles"?

 

[quasar987]

There are some photos of matter under a microscope in one of the Feynman lecture of volume 2.

 

[DaveC426913]

Google: atoms

www.foresight.org/UTF/Unbound_LBW/chapt_4.html (halfway down)
www.manep.ch/en/technological-challenges/spm.html[/URL]
[PLAIN]http://www.wellesley.edu/Chemistry/Chem110e/Atoms/atoms.gif
http://www2.arnes.si/~surzjagl/sola/zgradba-snovi/afm-gold-atoms.jpg

 

[Gokul43201]

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.

 

[David Burke]

Sorry to have abused my privlages in the forum, won't happen again.

Thanx for the links.

 

[Chronos]

I have a collection of matter porn, but the pictures are pretty fuzzy.

 

[DaveC426913]

If Dave's links are the kind you want (and I'd be quite surprised if they are)

Really? Is there some ambiguity in his request that has escaped me?

 

[DaveC426913]

Sorry to have abused my privlages in the forum, won't happen again.

What privileges did you abuse?

 

[Gokul43201]

Really? Is there some ambiguity in his request that has escaped me?

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".

 

[David Burke]

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.

 

[Gokul43201]

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.

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.

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.

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

 

[DaveC426913]

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".

I see. Yes, I was carfeul to reject the oen that were clearly computer simulations and refer to ones that were (ostensibly) real photos.

 

[harleyborgais]

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%20of%20Relativity.html
http://www.freeornottobe.org/freeornottobe/Nemescope-%201st%20Photo%20of%20Atoms(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?).

 

[K^2]

Yeah. That's a bunch of baloney.

 

[harleyborgais]

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!

 

[vandegg]

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.

 

[DaveC426913]

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.

How would that lend credibility?

 

[vandegg]

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]

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!"

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]

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?"

Are you saying it's a non sequitur? lol.

 

[DaveC426913]

Are you saying it's a non sequitur? lol.

Yes.

 

[harleyborgais]

[PLAIN]http://www.freeornottobe.org/freeornottobe/Nemescope- 1st Photo of Atoms(smaller).jpg[/PLAIN]

 

[DaveC426913]

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

Hahaha. Yes. These are pretty much considered a hoax.

 

[nismaratwork]

Hahaha. Yes. These are pretty much considered a hoax.

Well, if he means that the picture of the book is a picture of matter, then he's right. If he means the picture in the book is, then yeah, that's a load of crap.

 

[harleyborgais]

I have studied (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

 

[nismaratwork]

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

Get help.