3 ms·
I'm imaging that the process of "magnifying" objects through photography has to degrade the true representation of the object. Kind of like expanding 1 pixel to
by everdev 9y ago
I'm imaging that the process of "magnifying" objects through photography has to degrade the true representation of the object. Kind of like expanding 1 pixel to cover a 500x500px space. In that sense I wonder how clearly we can ever hope to see an atom.
Obviously the technology and intent is impressive, but will we ever be able to see an atom more clearly or is it simply too small to be seen without Photoshopping in the details?
- Tsarbomb 9y agoThe internal structure of an atom is vastly different from the impression that most science books give you with their illustrations to the point that the question of us being able to clearly seeing an atom is almost nonsensical/doesn't make sense. Atoms are much more nebulous than the concept of small indivisible balls of matter.
- cortesoft 9y agoI don't think that is completely true... if you are using lenses to magnify, you aren't doing the same thing as expanding 1 pixel to 500x500. The light 'resolution' is already present, you are just spreading it out so you can see each bit more clearly.
- nikdaheratik 9y agoMachines like the scanning electron microscope or an x-ray crystallography machine allows us to peer inside atomic structures to some extent. The problem is that of scale: visible light has a wavelength of 380-750 nm (10^-9 meters) while the atomic radius of even large atoms are still in the ~200 pm (10^-12m) which means that visible light still has a wavelength 1000 times that of an atomic radius. To peer more closely at an atom, you would need to be able to use something moving at a much smaller wavelength, like an x-ray or a focused beam of electrons.