[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/sci/ - Science & Math

View post   
File: 15 KB, 180x203, planteryatommodel.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3220149 No.3220149 [Reply] [Original]

Are we ever going to know the true structure of the atom?

Hardmode: Will we ever 'see' the true structure?

>> No.3220151
File: 1.23 MB, 243x150, nope.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3220151

>> No.3220156

Not until the engineers get their shit together and develop a gamma ray microscope.

>> No.3220159

>>3220151
Why not?

>> No.3220158
File: 149 KB, 655x517, atoms.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3220158

We have already seen the true structure

>> No.3220161

>>3220158
lolwut

>> No.3220163

>>3220149
We know the true structure of the atom now.
It's an equation you can't really draw a picture of.
Every illustration is just an oversimplification to help a bald monkey evolved to throw rocks at tigers understand it better.

>> No.3220165

>>3220156
>implying enginiggers will ever invent something like that before actual physicists

>> No.3220167

>>3220161
The true structure of the atom is very fuzzy; that's as good of a picture as you're going to get

>> No.3220169

>>3220159
The atom is not "physical", in the sense that it reacts to light with colors, and has a definite shape.

>>3220158
Each one of those spots is an atom. However, that entire spot is as close as we're getting, as the atom only reflects or emits light as an entire system.

>> No.3220176

>>3220163
But that's my question, is a set of probability functions the best we can manage or is it possible for us to get closer than that?

>> No.3220179

>>3220176
There nothing closer to get, thats what it is.

>> No.3220182

>>3220169
So if it's not physical, is it just a force?
Does that mean that there's not such thing as 'matter' and everything we see is just the manifestation of these forces interacting?

>> No.3220185
File: 4 KB, 126x121, 1286220339289.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3220185

>>3220156
shouldn't use light to view an atom
It's like flying a 747 into a skyscraper to view it's structure,

>> No.3220191

>>3220179
Can we say this with absolute certainty?
I realize this is getting a bit abstract but the question itself is pretty abstract by nature.

>> No.3220192

>>3220182
Well, if you want to look at it from the string theory point of view;

All basic particles (read: quarks, neutrinos, etc.) are an expression of a wave (string) of energy; the frequency of which determines what particle it is. Clump these together and you get atoms.

So yeah, pretty much.

>> No.3220193

>>3220176
We can get better equations, but the equations are not probability functions. They're the way it actually is. I'm not sure how closer than the actual mathematical description of the thing you're wanting to get. A picture you can see with your eyes would be a step backwards in accuracy.
I guess the answer to your question is that that's as close as YOU can get?

>> No.3220195

>>3220156
or an x-ray microscope

>> No.3220202

>>3220193
But if you can't determine the position and momentum of an electron, how can you have definite equations to map the image of an atom?
Yeah, I guess I'm asking to hat extent humans can see an atom

>> No.3220207

>>3220202
>implying position and momentum has anything to do with seeing an atom

>> No.3220213
File: 246 KB, 480x480, 1307388441427.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3220213

>>3220192
so...nothing around me is actually, physically 'there'?
SHIT, SON!
suddenly the idea that our universe is a hologram in a 2D matrix seems plausible enough

>> No.3220215

>>3220202
>implying the classic image of an atom isn't fucking retarded and doesn't need to die

An atom is not like a planet. An atom is like a fuzzy cloud of energy surrounding a tiny blob of energy in the center.

>> No.3220220

>>3220207
If electrons belong to an atom, why wouldn't they?

>> No.3220223

>>3220215
What are you talking about, atoms clearly look like plum pudding.

>> No.3220225

>>3220215
so since atoms are just energy, everything we know and feel and see is energy?

get the fuck out of here. my body is not ready

>> No.3220233

>>3220220
just because you can't define an electrons position and momentum doesn't mean you can derive definite equations to map the image of an atom.

the variables needed are entirely different

go back to engineering school

>> No.3220239

>>3220225
>implying 'feeling' is anything other than electrical impulses being processed by the brain

>> No.3220234

>>3220225
>>3220213
Energy itself may be an expression of some more powerful or dominating phenomena or force that exists outside of the visible universe. Energy itself may not be 'real' in our visible space-time, but could be expressed as something similar to matter in higher states of existence.

So my answer is I have no fucking idea.

>>3220223
Well yes, of course.

>> No.3220247

>>3220233
Alright, so you can create an image of an atom, given the necessary variables are taken into account but can you ever know the structure of a single atom at any given point in time?

>> No.3220253

>>3220239
>implying everything in life is anything other than electrical impulses being processed by the brain

>> No.3220262

>>3220247
you can create a hypothetical image of an atom, but as our technology stands now we cant know the structure of a single atom

>> No.3220283

>>3220202
> if you can't determine the position and momentum of an electron, how can you have definite equations to map the image of an atom?
But that's what part of what the equation does. Quantum mechanics isn't a probability. The universe doesn't decide to do different things on occasion just for kicks. When you flip a quantum coin, it lands both heads and tails. When you look at it, you see it as heads and as tails. But you are macroscopic, and so the quantum state that corresponds to the you who saw heads overlaps very little with the you who saw tails, and they don't interact. So you only find yourself looking at the one or the other.

>> No.3220453

>>3220262

If I was told correctly, atoms have recently been visualised at Antwerp university. However the nucleus is still out of reach

>> No.3220479

>>3220453

and here's the proof: http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v470/n7334/full/nature09741.html

they used a state of the art electron microscope

>> No.3220517

>>3220479
>implying Three-dimensional atomic imaging is the structure of an atom

>> No.3220537

>>3220479
oh wow.

>>3220517
just read this.