The smallest object ever imaged with a microscope is a single strand of DNA, captured using an electron microscope. The discussion highlights the limitations of traditional optical microscopes, which can only resolve objects down to approximately 1 micron, while electron microscopes can visualize structures at the atomic level. Participants debated the definition of "seeing," emphasizing that images produced by electron microscopy, although often digitally colored, are considered real representations of the observed objects. The conversation also touched on the challenges of visualizing subatomic particles, such as electrons, due to the disruptive nature of high-energy observation techniques.
PREREQUISITESResearchers in materials science, biologists utilizing electron microscopy, and physicists studying atomic and subatomic structures will benefit from this discussion.
In other words, I want to see a REAL image of whatever is the smallest crap any scientist has ever seen with their eyes.
Flatland said:Yes, electron microscope see in black and white. The color is digitally added. But that doesn't mean the image is fake. That picture above of the red blood cell is REAL in every sense of the word.
Loren Booda said:The "smallest" object observable (in terms of action h) is an individual quantum.
Flatland said:uhh where did I say images produced by electrons aren't real? In fact that's precisely what I mean.
...
What is the smallest image ever seen that still constitute in a classical sense of "seeing." Why is this question so hard to understand?
It is impossible to 'see' the 'physical features' of an atom because that requires very tiny particle with wavelengths smaller than those features. Neutrinos would be ideal if the interacted much more readily with matter. But then the physics of the universe would be very different.Flatland said:Really? So we've been able to see physical features of an atom? Like the electron cloud and stuff? What does it actually look like? Pictures is really what I want