I cannot fathom a piece of equipment that literally zooms in so far that we can see a single atom. I’m assuming that the figures we have of atoms are just theoretical.
In: Chemistry
“looking like” is a property of our eyes and brains and how they absorb and respond to waves of light respectively. As the other guy pointed out, this is impossible with anything so small, because they’re smaller than the wavelength of visible light so we can’t see them any way we try.
However, there are methods of *detecting* atoms that we can then represent visually. An electron microscope for example uses electrons instead of light waves (which are much smaller) and can be used to detect where the “edges” of an atom are. So you can make “photos” like [this](https://a57.foxnews.com/static.foxnews.com/foxnews.com/content/uploads/2018/09/1200/675/image-of-hydrogen-atom-1.jpg?ve=1&tl=1) or [this](https://i.ytimg.com/vi/oSCX78-8-q0/hq720.jpg?sqp=-oaymwEhCK4FEIIDSFryq4qpAxMIARUAAAAAGAElAADIQj0AgKJD&rs=AOn4CLBn2mcy73gZpfGZjZic_Gbe8e8Uig), which aren’t pictures in the sense that they represent what atoms should look like to our eyes (because that’s a nonsensical proposition) but are “true to life” in the sense that they’re like a map or radar screen that uses data to show you where physical stuff is and isn’t.
Finally, I would say that models aren’t just theoretical in the sense that they’re total conjecture. They – or at least, the better ones – do represent visually some facts about atoms’ shapes that we have determined mathematically and observationally.
Latest Answers