10 Scientific Objects Never Seen

Discussion in 'General Science & Technology' started by Orleander, Nov 9, 2009.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Orleander

    Orleander OH JOY!!!! Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    25,817
    I have a book from 1983 that has this list of things never seen. Since its now 2009, have they all finally been seen?

    1. Antimatter
    2. Barnard's Star B
    3. Black Hole
    4. Brown Dwarf Star
    5. Cosmic Rays
    6. Earth's Core
    7. The Complete Electromagnetic Spectrum
    8. Francium
    9. Gravitons
    10. Quarks
     
    Orleander, Nov 9, 2009
    #1

  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. iceaura

    iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    30,994
    Antimatter was routinely being created in labs in 1983.

    What did they mean by "seen"?
     
    iceaura, Nov 9, 2009
    #2

  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Orleander

    Orleander OH JOY!!!! Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    25,817
    Exactly! I had to guess that's its never been photographed. You know its there, you can see its effects, but you can see the thing itself. Can you photograph antimatter?
     
    Orleander, Nov 9, 2009
    #3

  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. deicider

    deicider got omnicidead Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    443
    Scientific?Well,everything can be scientific ,depends how do u approach it.
    There are far more than 10 "objects" that people havn't seen.
    Its subjective ,as everything.
    So is the definition of a "picture".

    The only thing the eyes of a human see is light and anything that light is reflected from.
    Anything can be visualized by one way or another.
    We just bring the "invisible" object to our level of visualization and we have many ways for that.
     
    deicider, Nov 9, 2009
    #4
  8. Doreen

    Doreen Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,101
    That is the question. 10 points. Do trails on photographic plates count as subatomic particles being seen? If we can visually note a machine registering something is that seeing it? Is magnification OK? Translating images from certain waves to visual ones? Etc.
     
    Doreen, Nov 9, 2009
    #5
  9. Doreen

    Doreen Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,101
    Seem like there could me more common 'things' on this list like various gases, say O2 (when in gaseous form).
     
    Doreen, Nov 9, 2009
    #6
  10. Orleander

    Orleander OH JOY!!!! Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    25,817
    ok, but of this list, has everything on it been photographed?
     
    Orleander, Nov 9, 2009
    #7
  11. Gustav

    Gustav Banned Banned

    Messages:
    12,575
    and what of the disembodied entities that frequent sci?
    are we assured of an actual physical representation of these...these...creatures?
     
    Gustav, Nov 9, 2009
    #8
  12. DRZion

    DRZion Theoretical Experimentalist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,046
    Hmm. I suppose there is no upper limit for photon strength (or is there once you approach the planck limit?) ... so I suppose there is no lower limit for photon strength. Observing either very low or very high frequencies is difficult and often impossible with a single measuring device.
     
    DRZion, Nov 9, 2009
    #9
  13. Bishadi

    Bishadi Banned Banned

    Messages:
    2,745
    you forgot....

    aether

    dark matter/energy

    and that anti matter is easy............ spin a particle until you see it (matters) then stop it (don't matter)

    same particle but without the added mass

    or the other is, an electron.............. when the potential is used, it don't matter........
     
    Bishadi, Nov 9, 2009
    #10
  14. Doreen

    Doreen Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,101
    Oh, how perceptive. I am an alien who hacked into earth's internet. I am in fact nearly six feet tall but unfortunately not visible to the naked (human) eye since I am a colony of mircoorganisms rather than an individual - though sometimes we (I) do get consensus.
     
    Doreen, Nov 9, 2009
    #11
  15. Orleander

    Orleander OH JOY!!!! Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    25,817
    so does this mean none of them have been seen yet?
     
    Orleander, Nov 10, 2009
    #12
  16. James R

    James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    39,426
    Hmmm...

    1. Antimatter - this is observed all the time in various types of radioactive decay. (It depends what you mean by "seen", though - nobody can directly "see" subatomic particles, but we know they're there.)

    2. Barnard's Star B - Don't know.

    3. Black Hole - Can't be "seen" directly, since light can't escape. However, plenty of emissions from black hole accretion discs are seen routinely.

    4. Brown Dwarf Star - Again, can't be directly seen, but we can infer their existence in some cases.

    5. Cosmic Rays - there are quite likely a few of those passing through your body right now as you sit there reading this. They are not too hard to detect, but we can argue about being "seen" again if you like.

    6. Earth's Core - Never "seen", for obvious reasons, but we know there is one there and we can find out a few things about it.

    7. The Complete Electromagnetic Spectrum - Depends what is meant by "complete". We've observed radio waves, microwaves, infrared light, visible light, UV light, x-rays, and gamma rays. We have experience of many of these every day of our lives, even in our homes.

    8. Francium - don't know for sure, but fairly sure this has been observed.

    9. Gravitons - No. Not yet detected.

    10. Quarks - impossible to "see" directly, just like other subatomic particles. But there's good evidence for their existence nonetheless.
     
    James R, Nov 10, 2009
    #13
  17. Orleander

    Orleander OH JOY!!!! Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    25,817
    thank you James!!!
     
    Orleander, Nov 10, 2009
    #14
  18. parmalee

    parmalee peripatetic artisan Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,270
    but aren't they supposed to be "scientific" objects?
     
    parmalee, Nov 10, 2009
    #15
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page