Re: are atoms conceptual placeholders or perceived entities?
- From: "PD" <TheDraperFamily@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: 12 Feb 2007 08:30:32 -0800
On Feb 9, 10:18 am, "malibu" <vega...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Feb 9, 10:14 am, Uncle Al <Uncle...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
metaperl wrote:
Hi, I think the title says it all. I'm wondering if atoms and their
grade-school component parts, the proton, neutron, and electron have
all been seen or if they are simply conceptually necessary to explain
other more macroscopic phenomena.
Any references supporting replies is appreciated.
"atomic force microscope" 937,000 hits
"field emission microscope" 24,300 hits
"neutron diffraction" 1,050,000 hits
"electron diffraction" 1,100,000 hits
SLAC accelerator 775,000 hits
Colella-Overhauser-Werner and Bonse-Wroblewski neutron
interferometers.
Kasevich-Chu atom interferometers.
--
Uncle Alhttp://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/lajos.htm#a2
shadows on the cave wall, Al
So is your image of an apple, John. It's just the cave wall you're
used to, that's all.
PD
.
- References:
- are atoms conceptual placeholders or perceived entities?
- From: metaperl
- Re: are atoms conceptual placeholders or perceived entities?
- From: Uncle Al
- Re: are atoms conceptual placeholders or perceived entities?
- From: malibu
- are atoms conceptual placeholders or perceived entities?
- Prev by Date: Re: are atoms conceptual placeholders or perceived entities?
- Next by Date: Re: Ben Newsam Electrolies the water
- Previous by thread: Re: are atoms conceptual placeholders or perceived entities?
- Next by thread: Re: are atoms conceptual placeholders or perceived entities?
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
Loading