5 ms·

> But its not showing things directly, is it? I don't understand the downvotes. That's an honest fundamental question. It's not "showing things directly" beca

> But its not showing things directly, is it? I don't understand the downvotes. That's an honest fundamental question. It's not "showing things directly" because it can't. The limit of what you can see with light is proportional to the wavelength of the light (this is called the diffraction limit). For visible light and lens-based optics that's around 1/2 micron. The distance between the atoms in that graphite is ~3 angstroms, that about 2000 times smaller than the diffraction limit for visible light. You CAN get atomic resolution with a transmission electron microscope. Instead of light it uses electrons and has a far finer diffraction limit that visible light. Instead of lenses it uses electrostatic deflection.

jacquesm 6y ago
> I don't understand the downvotes. Because the comment is factually wrong. Because it tries to argue something in bad faith. > That's an honest fundamental question. But it wasn't a question, it was a statement, and a faulty one at that. Best case interpretation would require substituting 'current' for 'frequency' and even then it would be inaccurate because the current is a proxy for the Z-distance to the tip which is then used to convert to a 3D map, which in turn can be visualized. It is fairly obvious that this is an indirect process so clear the word 'directly' wasn't about 'seeing atoms' but all about the fact that you can make the observations yourself. Whether you are measuring a current or looking through an eyepiece both are observations. And looking at the resulting image is also an observation. As opposed to reading about STMs and looking at pretty pictures online or in books. It's a shallow comment masquerading as an insightful one, the worst way to derail any conversation.
- feralimal2 6y ago
  The reason for the downvotes.... won't be popular to hear, but here it is. This forum apparently values the scientific outlook, which is purported to be a skeptical one. Do not commit to accepting whatever-it-is without evidence, right? But that unpopular, question opinions are so downvoted (which has the effect that replies cannot be posted until the next day when no one is watching) speaks volumes about how skeptical people really are. How much application of the scientific method do people actually use in their lives? What we really have in science, and society in general, is an echo chamber where lots of lip service is given to the scientific method but no one actually implements it personally. Then when someone like me comes along and critically reviews the presentation, it leaves people feeling uncomfortable as they realise just how much they have taken on trust. So, the answer is to downvote. Its not pretty but everyone can get back into the comfortable echo chamber. And in preventing unpopular skeptical opinions (ie maintaining the echo chamber) is what HN is here to facilitate.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
  - hutzlibu 6y ago
    So ... how about some self-reflection in your bubble of self-righteousness? And actually answer to the answer of jacquesm? "But it wasn't a question, it was a statement, and a faulty one at that Best case interpretation would require substituting 'current' for 'frequency' and even then it would be inaccurate because the current is a proxy for the Z-distance to the tip which is then used to convert to a 3D map, which in turn can be visualized. " So it seems you were just wrong in your statement and therefore downvoted. In general, I would agree that the downvoting habit here is sometimes over the line. Like I would not have downvoted your original question, even though it did contained a false statement. But how you react to an answer actually explaining the reasoning - does not speak for you in this case.
- argvargc 6y ago
  The GP's "statement" contained three relevant sentences, two ending with question-marks. I learned from both your answer and its parent, furthering conversation, for me at least.
  - jacquesm 6y ago
    Read the rest of their comments and see if you still feel that way. As well as the novelty account made for the express purpose of further derailing the conversation.
    - argvargc 6y ago
      Yes, agreed. Though I stand by my account of the original comment. (And as such, based on that they may need to go back to troll-school.)
- crispyambulance 6y ago
  My intent was just to help clear the misconception. Sometimes people say things that sound flippant when they lack an understanding.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]

jacquesm 6y ago

> I don't understand the downvotes. Because the comment is factually wrong. Because it tries to argue something in bad faith. > That's an honest fundamental question. But it wasn't a question, it was a statement, and a faulty one at that. Best case interpretation would require substituting 'current' for 'frequency' and even then it would be inaccurate because the current is a proxy for the Z-distance to the tip which is then used to convert to a 3D map, which in turn can be visualized. It is fairly obvious that this is an indirect process so clear the word 'directly' wasn't about 'seeing atoms' but all about the fact that you can make the observations yourself. Whether you are measuring a current or looking through an eyepiece both are observations. And looking at the resulting image is also an observation. As opposed to reading about STMs and looking at pretty pictures online or in books. It's a shallow comment masquerading as an insightful one, the worst way to derail any conversation.

feralimal2 6y ago
The reason for the downvotes.... won't be popular to hear, but here it is. This forum apparently values the scientific outlook, which is purported to be a skeptical one. Do not commit to accepting whatever-it-is without evidence, right? But that unpopular, question opinions are so downvoted (which has the effect that replies cannot be posted until the next day when no one is watching) speaks volumes about how skeptical people really are. How much application of the scientific method do people actually use in their lives? What we really have in science, and society in general, is an echo chamber where lots of lip service is given to the scientific method but no one actually implements it personally. Then when someone like me comes along and critically reviews the presentation, it leaves people feeling uncomfortable as they realise just how much they have taken on trust. So, the answer is to downvote. Its not pretty but everyone can get back into the comfortable echo chamber. And in preventing unpopular skeptical opinions (ie maintaining the echo chamber) is what HN is here to facilitate.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- hutzlibu 6y ago
  So ... how about some self-reflection in your bubble of self-righteousness? And actually answer to the answer of jacquesm? "But it wasn't a question, it was a statement, and a faulty one at that Best case interpretation would require substituting 'current' for 'frequency' and even then it would be inaccurate because the current is a proxy for the Z-distance to the tip which is then used to convert to a 3D map, which in turn can be visualized. " So it seems you were just wrong in your statement and therefore downvoted. In general, I would agree that the downvoting habit here is sometimes over the line. Like I would not have downvoted your original question, even though it did contained a false statement. But how you react to an answer actually explaining the reasoning - does not speak for you in this case.
argvargc 6y ago
The GP's "statement" contained three relevant sentences, two ending with question-marks. I learned from both your answer and its parent, furthering conversation, for me at least.
- jacquesm 6y ago
  Read the rest of their comments and see if you still feel that way. As well as the novelty account made for the express purpose of further derailing the conversation.
  - argvargc 6y ago
    Yes, agreed. Though I stand by my account of the original comment. (And as such, based on that they may need to go back to troll-school.)
crispyambulance 6y ago
My intent was just to help clear the misconception. Sometimes people say things that sound flippant when they lack an understanding.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]