Go Back   AnandTech Forums > Hardware and Technology > Highly Technical

Forums
· Hardware and Technology
· CPUs and Overclocking
· Motherboards
· Video Cards and Graphics
· Memory and Storage
· Power Supplies
· Cases & Cooling
· SFF, Notebooks, Pre-Built/Barebones PCs
· Networking
· Peripherals
· General Hardware
· Highly Technical
· Computer Help
· Home Theater PCs
· Consumer Electronics
· Digital and Video Cameras
· Mobile Devices & Gadgets
· Audio/Video & Home Theater
· Software
· Software for Windows
· All Things Apple
· *nix Software
· Operating Systems
· Programming
· PC Gaming
· Console Gaming
· Distributed Computing
· Security
· Social
· Off Topic
· Politics and News
· Discussion Club
· Love and Relationships
· The Garage
· Health and Fitness
· Merchandise and Shopping
· For Sale/Trade
· Hot Deals with Free Stuff/Contests
· Black Friday 2013
· Forum Issues
· Technical Forum Issues
· Personal Forum Issues
· Suggestion Box
· Moderator Resources
· Moderator Discussions
   

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 03-21-2010, 11:44 AM   #1
totalnoob
Golden Member
 
totalnoob's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 1,389
Default If we can control single atoms and electrons, why can't we take a picture of them?

Just wondering..Is there something in quantum mechanics that absolutely prevents a high resolution picture of a fundamental particle? I think it would be fascinating to see one of the "building blocks" of everything up close. The closest we seem to be able to get is a picture of a molecule (pentacene).

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencete...ured-time.html

That shows the beautiful symmetry of the chemical bonds BETWEEN the atoms, we really can't see what the atoms look like themselves..

Then there is this..supposedly a photo of an atom, but it looks more like a blob than anything else..
http://www.insidescience.org/researc...hotos_of_atoms

We are able to create precise transistors down to the nm scale, and we are able to control single electrons perfectly in the large hadron collider, so why can't we hold an electron or proton in place and snap a high res photo of it (or at least it's general vicinity..It is bound to pop into frame eventually.)
totalnoob is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-21-2010, 11:54 AM   #2
bobsmith1492
Diamond Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 3,859
Default

A typical picture involves measuring photons that reflected or were emitted from an object. However, photons move with a wavelength too large too use them to "see" atoms or even molecules.

So, we use scanning or tunneling electron microscopes: instead of "seeing" with photons they see with electrons instead.

Now, how can you use an electron to see an electron? You can't bounce an electron off another to see where it was...

Basically there aren't any particles small enough to look at electrons without completely disturbing their positioning.

Read here... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Observe...7;28physics%29
__________________
- bob
bobsmith1492 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-21-2010, 11:59 AM   #3
totalnoob
Golden Member
 
totalnoob's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 1,389
Default

Thanks for that. Obviously electrons are out of the question with our current method..but what about much larger particles like protons/neutrons? In the second picture I posted, if we could somehow "strip away" the electron cloud, we should get a good picture of the nucleus, no?
totalnoob is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-21-2010, 12:59 PM   #4
William Gaatjes
Diamond Member
 
William Gaatjes's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: s orbital
Posts: 8,107
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by totalnoob View Post
Thanks for that. Obviously electrons are out of the question with our current method..but what about much larger particles like protons/neutrons? In the second picture I posted, if we could somehow "strip away" the electron cloud, we should get a good picture of the nucleus, no?
Unfortunately it is not that easy.

atoms look big because of the electron cloud around the atom. If you take out the electrons, there really is not that much left.

Here is a nice link and text of a "photographed" electron.

http://discovermagazine.com/2009/jan/070

It is kind of controversial and under debate, but you might want to look up on spherical standing waves.
__________________
To expand ones knowledge is to expand ones life.
<< Armchair Solomon >>
(\__/)
(='.'=)
(")_(")

Last edited by William Gaatjes; 03-21-2010 at 01:03 PM.
William Gaatjes is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-21-2010, 01:00 PM   #5
bobdole369
Diamond Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 4,504
Default

Also I always wondered about the actual shape of protons and electrons. I know there is a theory that electrons are point sources, so I picture a little bit of lightning floating around orbiting the nucleus. When I started learning about valance shells and energy levels I thought about it as a nested concentric lightning.

Then I thought about things the same way for the nucleus, i.e.a blob of matter with "6 protons and 9 neutrons" worth of charge. It works until you split the nucleus, in which case they pretty much have to become point sources again. BUT if you treat it as a quantum superposition (i.e. we don't know what it is until observed) it works, and the instant a free neutron hits the nucleus it splits as expected and you get 3 spare neutrons.

Why do you always get that, why not 2 sometimes and 4 others, and why does the nucleus always split evenly? How come it never fractures into a billion hydrogens?

Well back to the point, I think maybe we can't see protons and neutrons because they really don't follow the traditional model.
__________________
Things that make you smile.

Administration of a drug to an addict will cause re-establishment of chemical dependence upon the addictive substance. Quit smoking and using nicotine in ***all*** its forms today.
bobdole369 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-31-2010, 02:56 PM   #6
beginner99
Platinum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 2,145
Default

Electrons (and even molecules) can also act like "waves" depending on the experment you preform. Same holds true for light waves (or any other magentic waves). Sometimes it's right to talk about photons sometimes about waves and wavelength depending on context.

Then it depends what you mean by picture.
beginner99 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-31-2010, 06:31 PM   #7
bullbert
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 718
Default

They don't like paparazzi.
bullbert is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-31-2010, 06:43 PM   #8
DrPizza
Administrator
Elite Member
Goat Whisperer
 
DrPizza's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Western NY
Posts: 44,161
Default

Think about what forms an image - for visible light, it's photons of light that are bounced off the object that you want an image of.

Imagine you want to take a picture of a horse by bouncing something off the horse - doesn't have to be photons. Pretend we can't see the horse at all with our eyes. We could bounce a lot of basketballs off the horse to get an idea of what is where & the relative shape of the horse. Better: bounce tennis balls off the horse - that would allow us to get some more detail. Better yet: bounce ping pong balls off the horse to get a clearer picture of what is in front of us. Now, if you're looking at a large object, such as a building, you can get a pretty good idea of what its shape by bouncing ping pong balls off it. But, if you want to get an idea of the relative shape of an insect, the ping pong balls aren't going to work. Such is the problem using visible light to see objects. You can only get so small before the light is useless (relates to the wavelength.) So, electron microscopes use something smaller. But, even that has limitations.
__________________
Fainting Goats
DrPizza is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-31-2010, 08:53 PM   #9
Red Squirrel
Lifer
 
Red Squirrel's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Canada
Posts: 26,959
Default

I've always wondered this too, but the problem is, even if you could make a lens that was powerful enough to zoom in that deep, you would probably start seeing molecules of the lens itself. In fact once you get to the atomic level, the properties that make a lens work are probably shot out the window.
__________________
~Red Squirrel~
486dx2 @66Mhz turbo, 8MB ram, 512MB HDD, sound blaster 16 + 2x cdrom, Trident 1MB video card @ 640*480, 56k high speed modem.
Red Squirrel is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-02-2010, 09:13 AM   #10
DrPizza
Administrator
Elite Member
Goat Whisperer
 
DrPizza's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Western NY
Posts: 44,161
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by RedSquirrel View Post
I've always wondered this too, but the problem is, even if you could make a lens that was powerful enough to zoom in that deep, you would probably start seeing molecules of the lens itself. In fact once you get to the atomic level, the properties that make a lens work are probably shot out the window.
I think you're missing the point - there is a lower limit to the size that can be viewed by visible light. THAT'S why they make electron microscopes. Those too have a lower limit, again dictated by the laws of physics.
__________________
Fainting Goats
DrPizza is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-02-2010, 11:58 AM   #11
silverpig
Lifer
 
silverpig's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: London, UK
Posts: 27,704
Default

We can see atoms. You can do it via STM and TEM with AFM getting close. here's an image of a carbon film with a hole in it I took with a TEM. You can see the little dots. Those are individual atoms.

silverpig is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-02-2010, 12:39 PM   #12
KIAman
Diamond Member
 
KIAman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Sacramento, CA
Posts: 3,092
Default

If you really want to get complicated, trying to take a picture of the smallest particles will result in the Observer effect. Basically, even if we were able to figure out how to use something smaller than an electron to map out something smaller, you can't trust the image.

One has to also keep in mind that "visual" is a man made concept. Some things in nature have no "visual" property at all. But because we need a reference for conceptualization, we assume a visual aka artist rendition.
__________________
Heatware
Paypal Verified
KIAman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-02-2010, 01:49 PM   #13
Rubycon
Madame President
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 16,838
Default

That first pic the blue images look like a 473nm laser with a mode hopping problem! Left is TEMoo (good) and right is TEM01 (not good).

Silverpig's pic is really from a car with a bad paint job. (orange peel)



Sorry, could not resist!

That said atomic force microscopy is fascinating.
Rubycon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-02-2010, 09:56 PM   #14
Hacp
Lifer
 
Hacp's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 13,719
Default

To take a picture of an atom, you need something an order of magnitude smaller than the atom.
__________________

Hacp is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 04-03-2010, 04:44 AM   #15
William Gaatjes
Diamond Member
 
William Gaatjes's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: s orbital
Posts: 8,107
Default

I wonder if there is a way by using multiple wavelengths. The interaction and refraction would tell something. Today lasers seem to exist that can shoot single photons or use extremely short wavelength. Shoot a bunch of them of different wavelenghts and at different times(phase) and some information should be found about the build up. Use some magnetic control as well. But a series of test experiments must be done first. Because you have to contain the atom. Because you contain it, you already are changing the information you would receive when shooting it with photons. Everything you do to manipulate the atom must be taken into account as well. Then you can backtrack and elimate all influences on the atom and some useful information should arise.
Never had a truly "No that is not going to work" about that idea...

I mean you know you are going to influence that atom in any way you look at it. Now if you do a series of influences like above, you expect a series of results. When those results differ, those results tell you something about the atom itself. Especially if the proper wavelengths and timings are used.
I mean, i still keep finding it interesting that the electron orbitals of an atom look so much like the radiation patterns of antenna's...

Or am i forgetting something ?
__________________
To expand ones knowledge is to expand ones life.
<< Armchair Solomon >>
(\__/)
(='.'=)
(")_(")

Last edited by William Gaatjes; 04-03-2010 at 04:47 AM.
William Gaatjes is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 05:09 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.