Steve Clark wrote:
>>What sort of "picture" of the atoms in marcasite do you refer to Glenn--are
they direct images or some indirect visualization such as an Xray
diffraction? I didn't think that the resolution of electron microscopes was
sufficient (especially in 1967) to directly visualize atoms. If atoms can
be directly visualized, it may still not satisfy Comte if he were alive
today, because he may not accept the existence of electrons and subatomic
particles unless they too could be seen. <<
The caption says "This remarkable photography was taken with a two-wavelength
microscope."
I am not an expert in this area but I this has got to be some type of x-ray
diffraction summed over two wave-lengths. (I just read Stan's comment on the
photo. He must have a newer version than me cause mine doesn't say anything
about visible wave-lengths.) The photo clearly shows large black fuzzy
"shadows" for the iron and two smaller black even fuzzier "shadows for the
sulfur.
I thought Comte might be some modern fellow. I have read a few of Auguste
Comte's works but was unaware that he did not believe in the atomic theory.
What I read was while I was engaged in an aborted philosophical education.
Steve wrote:
>>By the way, if the photo you refer to was in color, what color would atoms
be?<<
I was somewhat joking with the color remark. Color refers to the sensation
we get with particular wavelengths of light which are far too big to focus on
an object the size of an atom. That is why x-rays are used. Color is
meaningless, I mean it, meaningless at this size.
glenn