From | Message | ||
---|---|---|---|
|
![]() www.foxnews.com |
||
|
![]() www.youtube.com |
||
|
![]() |
||
|
![]() The 'photo' itself isn't a photo, but a reconstruction from data gained by manipulating the electron, and doing this many times. It is a statistical artefact, not a 'photo' of one specific atom at one particular point in time. As such, it is what could have been gained purely by plotting the Schrödinger Equation; but in so far as it is consistent with the Equation, it constitutes experimental confirmation. At least, that is my understanding. Your comment, Shiva? |
||
|
![]() There were notably more technical papers about the subject available , but I was unable to up-load them into gameknot because of limitations of the gameknot system and also possible infringement rights. Here's one from New Scientist www.newscientist.com |