Aye, thats diamond. the brouhaha over it being sited at RAL is a good example of politics and stupidity winning out over anything else. Rumour a few yers ago had it that the Wellcome trust wanted it sited down south, in an area already overcrowded and expensive to live in, but the sensible considerations that Daresbury would have been better, were ignored. Strictly speaking, its not a microscope, its an x-ray machine.
Righto… I posted this cause I was reading the paper a few months back that said that Britain was going to build a microscope that would be able to see ‘atoms’. And I thought, “Wow, atoms. Brilliant”. So I decided to looked for a link on it, and I think this is it.
That research lab looks really interesting! Well said I like pencils! Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Well, we've been able to "see" atoms for ages, using transmission electron microscopes, where you can make out the atomic packing. http://www.uq.edu.au/nanoworld/tem_gen.html http://www.unl.edu/CMRAcfem/temoptic.htm a couple of random google results.
It has already been done. The Scanning Tunneling Microscope was built many years ago. This isn't an advancement at all, sorry to say, but a waste of money. They can buy Scanning Tunneling Microscopes for under 3 million dollars so why invest this much for something that already has been done???? http://www.iap.tuwien.ac.at/www/surface/STM_Gallery/stm_schematic.html http://www.almaden.ibm.com/vis/stm/stm.html
Well, the point about Diamond is that its tremendously powerful. And its not an STM. Its more like an X-ray machine, or perhaps an XRD. If i remember correctly, its a synchrotron, which means that it is very powerful, focusable, can see deeper into things than other methods, and is very worthwhile. STM's are too small, and only see the surface. Ah ha, a link: http://www.diamond.ac.uk/Activity/Synchrotron
So, basicaly they are just using a different lightwave frequency to "see" the atoms. The STM "sees" the atoms already only under a different wavelength. It would seem to me that if you can already see atoms, what difference would it be to study them under different wavelengths? Most atoms are always under one wavelength for the sun puts off it's wavelength that everything is seen from.
I havnt used an STM myself, but basically it sees atoms on the surface, over a small area. Or in other words its very limited in information gathering abilities. On the other hand, a synchrotron gives you the relative positions of entire structures, so its like you looking at the outside of your car engine, but the synchrotron shows you the arrangement of pistons and valves etc inside it. You have to have such a powerful source of energy in order to see through the layers of atoms. In Transmission Electron Microscopy (TEM), you have to prepare the sample and grind it down thin so the radiation passes through, but with Diamond, you dont, hence its usefulnesss for proteins etc. "Most atoms are always under one wavelength for the sun puts off it's wavelength that everything is seen from." Thats an oversimplification. But consider it analogous to the use of IR for night vision, and X-rays for medical uses, the different wavelengths have different penetrations in different medium and therefore show different information.
But, forgive my ignorance, atoms are just that, unlike bones and tissue which need to be seen in layers to get through to the inner core of yourself. Atoms are just that and nothing more so how does the different wavelengths actually help in "seeing'" them any better than the STM can already? I can sort of understand what you mean but could you make it a little clearer.
But its the arrangments of atoms that matters. STM just gets you one layer, the 2D outside of the object, but Diamond enables you to probe the inner arrangement, so you can work out what the crystal structure is and suchlike. Different wavelenghts of energy pass through different materials better, ie infra red passes through dust clouds that block visible wavelenghts of light, or x-rays pass through flesh but visible light doesnt, because they all interact with the atoms and arrangements of atoms present in different manners. x-rays are affected by atomic density, IR and visible light by the atomic bonds. Umm, its so long that ive known this i'm not sure I'm making any sense. So if you imagine with x-rays you get a dark pathc where more are stopped, and light patches on the film where fewer are stopped. How much do you know of the electromagnetic spectrum? And im afraid my training is in chemistry rather than physics, so if you want really deep explanations i'm no good. At the moment I cant quite work out what is puzzling you.
Using an X-Ray source you can use a technique called X-Ray Crystallography and work out the spacial arrangements of atoms in a crystal, protein, or whatever, and get a 3D map. STMs just trawl over the surface of a material, and while they can reveal the external spacings of atoms, it's just in 2D. And, you do so much more with synchotrons that just crystallography, like generate X-Rays to test lensing arrangements and CCDs for X-Ray Satellites which look at energetic cosmic events, for instance. And yes, Daresbury would have been a better location.
I know! Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Maybe this new machine will give us more insights however. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
