What's our best resolving microscope?

[Chaos' lil bro Order]

What is our best microscope for resolving and magnifying objects (best combined)?

eg.s

PET
SEM
AFM
etc.

Here is an image I posted of a tiny nano object, I forget what was used to create it, but its impressively small. The image can almost see a single atom I think, since atomic nuclei are on the order of 0.1nm. I'm guessing each pixel in the picture would be about 10 atoms wide. What do you think?

I CHALLENGE YOU ALL to post some other tiny pictures that you may have, PLEASE DO!

 

[Claude Bile]

I remember a STM experiment I did in a third year physics lab as an undergrad where we were able to resolve the atomic structure of Graphite.

If each pixel is 10 atoms wide, you obviously can't resolve them. In any case, the metal coating on the object would prevent you from 'seeing' atoms, all you would 'see' is the conductive surface of the object.

Claude.

 

[Chaos' lil bro Order]

I remember a STM experiment I did in a third year physics lab as an undergrad where we were able to resolve the atomic structure of Graphite.

If each pixel is 10 atoms wide, you obviously can't resolve them. In any case, the metal coating on the object would prevent you from 'seeing' atoms, all you would 'see' is the conductive surface of the object.

Claude.

Umm, thanks for nothing Claude.

Maybe you should reread my post where I said you can 'almost' see a single atom, 'obviously' you misread it. Do you deny that each pixel is about 10 atoms wide? Seems like simple math to me, maybe its tricky for you, I don't know.
Great picture you posted too, Claude.

 

[Claude Bile]

What's with all the aggression? All I was doing is contributing to the thread.

STM images are readily available on the web, most of which far exceed resolutions given in your image. Despite the fact I didn't post a picture, others who read the thread may find that of interest.

Obviously you totally missed my second point. Each pixel may be 10 atoms wide, BUT the surface of the object is CONDUCTIVE meaning you will never be able to image single atoms, no matter how good your resolution is.

I challenge YOUR point -

The image can almost see a single atom I think, since atomic nuclei are on the order of 0.1nm

How can you 'almost' see an atom, then go and claim that each PIXEL is 10 atoms wide? If each pixel is 10 atoms wide, then the best you could resolve is a group of perhaps 20 or 30 atoms. The graininess in the image is due to noise, not the atomic structure of the object.

Point being, you cannot 'almost' see a single atom, no matter how many quotation marks you use.

If you want to argue against my points with points of your own, go ahead, however keep in mind these forums are for serious discussion, not childish sarcastic remarks.

Claude.

 

[Chaos' lil bro Order]

I guess one order of magnitude doesn't qualify as 'almost' to you.

Wasn't trying to be aggressive, but you really didn't add any information to the post.

Like a lot of posters on PF, when you have nothing to contribute to a post, you start with some ego-padded statement like, 'I remember in 3rd years physics when we use STM microscopes to resolve graphite'. Then you either nitpick at the question and offer no answers or insights, or you restate the question and pretend like that is an answer.

Telling me that there are many good pictures that are finer in detail then the one posted is like telling me to search google. Wow such added value to the thread, thanks for the brilliant insights.


Please don't respond to my questions if this is your attitude, I'm looking for answers, not ego.

ty

 

[Claude Bile]

I guess one order of magnitude doesn't qualify as 'almost' to you.

No, it doesn't. One order of magnitude in resolution is massive.

Wasn't trying to be aggressive, but you really didn't add any information to the post.

I added information others may find interesting.

Like a lot of posters on PF, when you have nothing to contribute to a post, you start with some ego-padded statement like, 'I remember in 3rd years physics when we use STM microscopes to resolve graphite'. Then you either nitpick at the question and offer no answers or insights, or you restate the question and pretend like that is an answer.

People may find the fact that you can resolve the atomic structure of graphite interesting and think 'Hey, I may google that'. I fail utterly to see how this is ego-padded (An internet forum under anonymity is hardly a place where I would choose to flaunt my ego). In contrary to your statement, I think many of the posters on PF are vastly knowledgeable, the vast majority are courteous in their reponses, which frankly is more than can be said about yourself.

Telling me that there are many good pictures that are finer in detail then the one posted is like telling me to search google. Wow such added value to the thread, thanks for the brilliant insights.

Do not pollute your responses with sarcastic comments. The entire intention of saying that is so people who read this thread WOULD look up google if they were interested.

Please don't respond to my questions if this is your attitude, I'm looking for answers, not ego.

Don't worry though, I'll be focusing the few minutes I get to spend on PF at work answering questions from more appreciative posters.

Claude.

 

[Chaos' lil bro Order]

You are pretty good at turning the situation around, you should be a lawyer. Google it. Please don't respond to my posts, they aren't for you anymore, have a nice day.