>>Actually, even if we accept that the images presented in the Wehr-Richards
text (which I have not seen) actually do REPRESENT "atoms" in some way
analogous to the way we accept that photos of our kids represent the kids
more or less recognizably (and this may be more controversial than I care
to go into here), this is not the same as "Seeing" an atom. How does one
"see" something whose diameter is smaller than the wavelength of visible
light?<<
I agree that seeing an atom with this microscope is not the same as "seeing"
your dog chase a cat. But it is identical with seeing the picture of your
children. Both processes use photographic emulsions, focusing systems and
developing chemicals to produce an image on a flat piece of paper. You can't
believe in the efficacy of one without the other.
As to seeing something whose diameter is smaller than the visible light, you
image the atom largely with the x-rays whose wavelengths are quite small.
But if you want to "see" the picture, I am sure that some type of suitable
system could be arranged. You could use flourescence and a photomultiplyer
to actually see the image on a screen. Whatever philosophical objection you
might have to the image having been carried by several wavelengths of
electromagnetic radiation, can be equally applied to the electromagnetic
radiation that brings the image of your children, their picture and their dog
to your eyes.
Chip wrote:
>> So "Comte" is a big name, and evidently one you might want to
become more familiar with. .<<
You are obviously correct. There is a hole in my education.
glenn