Dear Sourav,

This is to clarify certain issues that have been raised on this thread.

Seeing the cloud chamber or Bubble chamber track is an indirect "seeing"of the particles.

We can never see the subatomic particles directly, but can only infer from observation of such indirect effects like tracks.

If there are many of them and they are emitting some radiation, and also if we shine some radiation on then and receive back the response this will also constitute a kind of seeing.

Finally, We of course see everything with the "mind's eye" , not the physical eye, whether direct or indirect !

The mountain that we see with our eyes is but an interpretation of the data that forms the neural correlate in the brain.

The cloud chamber tracks also similarly form a neural correlate in the brain from which we infer the passage of the particle through analysis.

Regards,

Rajat

thanks Joachim Pimiskern, I think it will be well enough for other doubt also.

I could see all these one by one, actually I need to understand this in simple form.

Thank you once again,

With regards

Joachim Pimiskern....sir, I had recently gone through the first two links and i did not find it interesting links but not in direct context with what i asked here: I had a simple question can we see with eyes or in image electron, or other sub atomic particles, irrespective of uncertainty principle.....not its movement or its fluorescence effect elsewhere

Saurav Kumar, I think another important question you should first think of is "What does it mean to see an object".

I.e. what do you see, or what does seeing mean, when you say "I can see that building of that ball" In that sense we are constantly seeing "electrons" since they are the ones doing the work sending out photons in the visible spectrum.

Protons and neutrons on the other hand are 'seen' by machines by how other particles scatter of them (maybe this could be compared to a blind or blind-folded person, building an image of an object by feeling it) Electrons on the other hand are point particles so they do not show any structure no matter how fine-grained you can feel them.

Now you may state that you see some real life object by the light they reflect, and as such you may imagine a this is also possible for sub-atomic particles, however, the resolution required is very high (

Wow, amazing question. Thumbs up. Please do share your findings once you are done.

As for the answer, I would like to add that I have come across only one such example where using ultra-short flashes of laser light, scientists from the Max Planck Institute of Quantum Optics in Germany saw and timed oscillations between valence electrons' quantum states.

Hope this helps.

From all circumstances I'm aware of, the one that comes closest to anwer your question in the positive is the continuously working version of the cloud chamber (Wilson chamber). What you actually see in this device are traces formed by tiny water droplets along the path of a particle (alpha particles and electrons) which typically originates from cosmic radiation. When I encountered such a device in the famous 'Deutsches Museum' in Munich for the first time this permanent dance of particles impressed me deeply.

Hi Kumar,

You can search for Lichtenberg effect as one of example for 'viewing' the electrons.

Saurav,

"... I had a simple question can we see with eyes or in image electron, or other sub atomic particles, irrespective of uncertainty principle.....not its movement or its fluorescence effect elsewhere"

I suggest you clarify your question to include these specifications.

I must say that our eyes detect only photons, whose momentum they absorb. I think that any imaging of quantum particles requires some particle interaction - thereby localizing the particles. In this sense I don;t think that any imaging of a particle-wave's disperse location within quantum spacetime, for example, can be realized...

Thank you for so much informative discussion, actually I was reading and I came across such feeling why we can not view electron or other sub atomic particles. Since I am not much involved in this area so I do not know limitations or problem associated with it. But with basic knowledge in this regards I know this s quite difficult, but in this discussion I came across some new information and it is really very helpful: I thanks Mr. James Dwyer, Ms Henna Saeed, Ulrich Mutze and Mr Danny Vanpoucke for so nice discussion.

With regards

I also propose to consider building a cloud chamber. I did so and it was amazing. It's the most "direct" view of subatomic particles that I can think of.

Enjoy,

Diego Casadei

Just let me add one thing. On youtube you'll find instructions on how to build a cloud chamber (great video) to display tracks originating from a tiny piece of radioactive material. You don't need that material, provided that you build a larger cloud chamber and are patient enough to wait for cosmic ray tracks. I watched to the latter, although I must admit that the radioactive source is more spectacular :-)

Dear Sourav,

This is to clarify certain issues that have been raised on this thread.

Seeing the cloud chamber or Bubble chamber track is an indirect "seeing"of the particles.

We can never see the subatomic particles directly, but can only infer from observation of such indirect effects like tracks.

If there are many of them and they are emitting some radiation, and also if we shine some radiation on then and receive back the response this will also constitute a kind of seeing.

Finally, We of course see everything with the "mind's eye" , not the physical eye, whether direct or indirect !

The mountain that we see with our eyes is but an interpretation of the data that forms the neural correlate in the brain.

The cloud chamber tracks also similarly form a neural correlate in the brain from which we infer the passage of the particle through analysis.

Regards,

Rajat

Thus, we only study perceived 'reflectance' patterns of matter, not matter per se

@Rajat: I totally agree with your description.

@Marcel Lambrechts: in a sense that is what all experiments/measurements do: look at a particle by looking at how it interacts with something else that is thrown at is.

Yes Rajat Pradhan I know this fact about Cloud chamber but since someone is sharing a good information in this regard I did not wrote anything about this. And whatever things comes from the present discussion is that "we could not observe the sub-atomic particles as object we can perceive only the exchange energy from it" is it Rajat

Hello Danny,

all empirical research studies reflectance patterns of matter, not matter per se

"scintography" is possible and this all we knows Mr. Imtiyaz Rather , we are concentrating can we visualize sub-atomic particles as they as I mean as physical entity.

I found these statements on BBC World news (environment/science) about new expensive experiments with neutrinos. If specialists claim it will REVOLUTIONISE our understanding of Physics, what does this mean for the research in Quantum Physics conducted before?

UK backs huge US neutrino plan

- "It is the next big thing in particle physics," said Prof Stefan Soldner-Rembold of the University of Manchester, who is working at Fermilab.

- "It is as big as the search for the Higgs and will revolutionise our understanding of physics."

Dear Saurav, till today it´s impossible to directly "see" subatomar particles. As the colleques already mentioned you can see the results of interactions and cause some behaviour of these bombarded materials. These results are called ionization, scintillation, luminescenz, chemical reactions....That´s knowlegde from textbooks.

So I want to ask you, please tell me whats the aim and impact of your question.

Marcel,

The story is at http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-26017957.

Its about long distance neutrino beam detection. It mostly describes funding efforts (thus the hyperbole) for the planned Long Baseline Neutrino Experiment (LBNE) facility - a 1,300 km underground neutrino beam would be emitted at Fermilab and detected at the Sanford Underground Research Facility (SURF) in Lead, South Dakota.

See http://lbne.fnal.gov/ and especially http://arxiv.org/abs/1307.7335, whose abstract states:

"... Chief among the discovery opportunities are observation of CP symmetry violation in neutrino mixing, resolution of the neutrino mass hierarchy, determination of maximal or near-maximal mixing in neutrinos, searches for nucleon decay signatures, and detailed studies of neutrino bursts from galactic supernovae..."

It is trivial that we cannot see sub-atomic particles directly. Do we see bacteria? Not really, since we need a microscope. In world of today it is a natural idea to extend the concept of seeing directly to the concept of visualization by means of image generating devices of arbitrary complexity. In the latter sense there are many modalities to see sub-atomic particles. Of course one may argue from a language philosophic point of view that one should not distort the meaning of the verb 'to see' so strongly. I don't think that this would be a distortion but would really be at the center of what 'seeing' means. I remember many occasions when in purely computer generated data a particular way of data-processing made patterns visible that were hidden in the raw data. The emotional reaction then is a strong feeling that one now 'sees' what was going on with the data.

Ulrich great thought. We can't see bacteria, we can't see virus, similarly we can't see electrons, etc.

No, the arguement is wrong. That´s a matter of wavelength and dimensions of the particle we want to see. Try to understand quantum mechanics please!

But Dear Hanno,

Ulrich is right as far as "seeing" is concerned. The argument is right. We do not and cannot see anything that falls below the limits of wavelengths and intensities for direct visibility.

Their invisibility does not in any way lessen their existence. Let's call this dimensional invisibility the "invisibility of the first kind".

However, we may now move on to invisibilities of second and third kinds and so on !For example ordinary "gravitational field"or "curvature of space" in General Relativity is invisible. The electric field is also invisible. All fields and forces, energies and momenta etc. which are properties of objects used in Physics may be bracketed in the category of "invisibles of the second kind".

Similarly "Invisibles of the third kind" may include those which have purely conceptual existence e.g. meanings of words, daemons/fairies in stories etc.

"Invisibles of a fourth kind" may be those that are real subjective experiences like pain and thirst etc.

Invisibles of the fifth kind will be our own "minds", without which nothing would be possible on RG or elsewhere!

Invisibles of a still higher kind may be ghosts/dis-embodied spirits etc.which are proposed to exist but vehemently denied existence by mainstream science, since mainstream scientists cannot explain phenomena relating to them. They are bracketed in paranormal category !

Still higher in the hierarchy of invisibles would be "angels/gods" etc postulated to exist in mythologies all of them having to perform their respective invisible tasks.

TIME is one of the greatest invisibles !

And finally, The SUPREME INVISIBLE is GOD Himself, which surpasses all our empirico-rational attempts at conceptualization and /or logical appreciation etc !

Such is the hierarchy of invisibles lying ahead of mainstream science to be tackled sooner or later !

Unfortunately science today is tottering at the very lowest rungs in the hierarchy of invisibles.

We must all strive hard to crack this knotty problem of understanding this hierarchy of invisibles till we reach the highest point.

Are we prepared ?

Thank you all on this thread.

Regards,

Rajat

Hanno,

to whom you direct your demand of trying to understand quantum mechanics? And which argument is wrong?

Even the God particle has been found without visualizing the subatomic particles so seeing the subatomic particle physically has no meaning or it’s not that much important as long as we can observe them scientifically. If you don’t trust the experimental evidence of their existence until unless you see them then you can go/ask for their visualization otherwise it has negligible scientific importance.

@Ulrich: Was talking to Henna, she cant see bacteria, thats the reason she cant see electrons (mathematical points = QM knowledge). Sorry for my strong answer, its normally not my turn.

First, there is really indeed a big difference between seeing a sub-atomic particle and seeing a stone cruising onto our head, thrown by a careless kid in the park.

Sub-atomic particles each individually do not go about without bringing each individually all the baggage, that they carry with them each individually all the time and everywhere they be in space.

What we see with our detection equipment are the effects of the presence of sub-atomic particles, when we subject them to the environment we devise and put them into.

So, we see their effect and we infer to their presence, but as I said, they come each individually with all their baggage all the time and everywhere.

Now, in regard to the seeing of a stone cruising onto our head, that is not seeing the effect of the stone in any environment we devise to detect its presence, and we can say we are seeing it directly with our eyes, and not by means of our detection equipment.

And if we don't duck, the stone is going to certainly hurt us in our head so badly, that we have to check into the emergency ward of the nearest hospital, for the surgeon there to stitch our open wound to stop the bleeding.

So? So sub-atomic particles are mental constructs obtained by physicists with thinking on the observations of their presence with all their baggage, through detection equipment and a lot of 'scientific' mathematics.

The distinction is between our macro world and the micro micro micro world of sub-atomic particles.

Direct seeing is when we are as per default status in our macro world.

With everything in the micro micro micro world of sub-atomic particles, it is seeing through their effect in the environment, we devise to in a way place the sub-atomic particles into, and we observe then their result i.e. effect supposedly caused by their presence in the environment.

Sub-atomic particles are mental constructs, but the stone cruising onto our head, it is not a mental construct.