|
|
|
|
|
|
by crispyambulance
1895 days ago
|
|
|
> 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. |
|
|
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.