Thread: Another Aether Theory Disproven

while googling electron microscope images of atoms the images didn't show the electron orbits. the only thing that they showed was some wizard's hat shape. on that wizard cone thing which side am i supposed to be looking for the electrons on?

If these pictures are real pictures of atoms, then electrons spins and orbitals and the shape of the atom is wrong. That can't be, so the pictures and new information data they present are wrong. Does this bring up the possibility of an aether theory again.

Ah yes, that word Aether again.

Originally Posted by Hill Billy Holmes

while googling electron microscope images of atoms the images didn't show the electron orbits. the only thing that they showed was some wizard's hat shape. on that wizard cone thing which side am i supposed to be looking for the electrons on?

You need to provide a specific example before anyone can answer that.

There are some images of electron orbitals here: Pentacene imaged with STM and NC-AFM. : Recent advances in submolecular resolution with scanning probe microscopy : Nature Chemistry : Nature Publishing Group

This, of course, has absolutely nothing to do with "aether" (because nothing does, because it doesn't exist).

Originally Posted by Hill Billy Holmes

Ah yes, that word Aether again.

That is all it is: a word. Used to describe a short period of scientific history. Like phlogiston.

I found way better and clearer images by googling "electron microscope images of an atom" in "google images". It has a clear shape of a cone not a sphere like in most books. The biggie is that there isn't any spinning anything on or around it.

Are you talking about something like this:


That is just an artefact of the way the atoms are measured, using an early version of the atomic force microscope: a thin probe on the end of a spring:
Atomic force microscopy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Yes ,but larger. That is the general shape.

As I say, that is a very crude early image (but ground breaking in that they could not just image but manipulate single atoms). The link I provide above has more modern images which more closely resemble what we think of as orbitals.

And then there is this: The First Image Ever of a Hydrogen Atom's Orbital Structure

Ok Now I can see the orbitals, Another aether theory disproved. Good science.

"Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic."

Originally Posted by Strange

As I say, that is a very crude early image (but ground breaking in that they could not just image but manipulate single atoms). The link I provide above has more modern images which more closely resemble what we think of as orbitals.
And then there is this: The First Image Ever of a Hydrogen Atom's Orbital Structure

That is magic!!

It is magic, only now is orbital proof of particle. They are just rings. Are they rings of particles, or energy. Can they be made up of smaller things (as apposed to particles), like bozons or quarks or something. If it is energy, then aether still is a possability. Drat.

Originally Posted by Hill Billy Holmes

It is magic, only now is orbital proof of particle.

Nonsense. There has been strong evidence for subatomic particles for well over 100 years.

They are just rings. Are they rings of particles, or energy. Can they be made up of smaller things (as apposed to particles), like bozons or quarks or something. If it is energy, then aether still is a possability. Drat.

This appears to be a string of random words with no semantic content.

Edit: They are not rings. The lowest energy orbital is a sphere.

Semantic nonsense. You just don't believe in aether. A true non believer. Have you no sense of adventure?

Originally Posted by Hill Billy Holmes

Semantic nonsense. You just don't believe in aether. A true non believer. Have you no sense of adventure?

I still don't understand what connection you are trying to make between images of atoms and/or electron orbitals and an aether (for which there is no evidence).

He's a idiot troll. I reset my ignore list after the accidental ban but he can go right back on there.

I see bovine science has gone up a hair (rch) in that it is now able to organicly produce waste products. I'm not backing nessesarily aether as a theory, just posed viewing atoms directly has not produced particle images yet, and yes I am aware that microscopes have not been perfected for things that small, it leaves that if if images do show up and particles aren't present? Well ,you know.

Originally Posted by Hill Billy Holmes

Can they be made up of ... bozons

The funniest of all particles.

Originally Posted by Hill Billy Holmes

I'm not backing nessesarily aether as a theory, just posed viewing atoms directly has not produced particle images yet, and yes I am aware that microscopes have not been perfected for things that small, it leaves that if if images do show up and particles aren't present? Well ,you know.

As I say, we have had evidence of the particle nature of matter and energy for well over 10 years. If you have some doubts about that, feel free to ask.

And, for fairly obvious reasons, a microscope cannot image anything smaller than the wavelength of light used and so will never show an atom or an electron.

Originally Posted by Flick Montana

Originally Posted by Hill Billy Holmes

Can they be made up of ... bozons

The funniest of all particles.

Readily identified as the particles with a large red nose and oversized shoes.

Originally Posted by Hill Billy Holmes

Semantic nonsense. You just don't believe in aether. A true non believer. Have you no sense of adventure?

Aether theory has nothing whatever to do with atoms existing, nor with whether atoms have orbitals. I don't know where you got it into your head that one has any relationship with the other.

Originally Posted by Hill Billy Holmes

You just don't believe in aether.

I'm an aetheist; no belief without evidence.