I just want to know what the bright field image looks like if there exist some distortions on atomic scale.
122587
yea there are simulators.
220449
see this link\nhttp://www.colorado.edu/physics/2000/quantumzone/index.html
487080
This is true in isolated atoms.\n\nIf we put them into the electric fields generated by nearby atoms, especially those of water of crystallisation, the energy levels can change and rearrange the electron orbitals.\n\nTo explain this to our satisfaction would mean solving the equations and getting the answers.  Unfortunately this is known as a many bodied problem and only the simplest of them can be solved.\n\nTake heart in the fact that the energy levels are so close together that we can glibly announce the fact and move on quickly to the next topic!
364979
I have a pair of those interesting deep-dish-shaped double-domed parabolic mirrors from Edmund Scientific, the top one sits upside-down on the bottom one, and the top one has a hole in it.  So when you put something inside it, and move away at an angle, an image of the object appears to be sitting above the top dish.  I ask people, "Hand me that little pink pig sitting on that dish".  They see it, reach for it, pick up nothing, reach for it again, and see their fingers apparently pass right through a solid object.\n\nWhat is the reality there?  My eyes tell me there's a little pink plastic pig sitting on the top of that dish.  Yet when I try to pick it up, my fingers pass right through it.  But then I distort the mirrors a little, and the pig blurs in an odd way that lets me see that he's actually a reflected image from inside the unit.  And if I understand optics sufficiently, I understand that it is possible, with certain arrangments of parabolic mirrors, to erect "real" images (versus the more common "virtual" images that we see in most mirrors and lens) of objects, and even design and build versions of my own, with the effects and capabilities fully determinable in advance.  That's reality.\n\nReality does exist.  Granted, we have a limited and distorted view of it due to the limitations of our senses, but it does exist.  For example, this desk in front of me seems like a solid object.  But in truth, my view of it is limited by the fact that my eyes are not able to resolve the electrons orbiting the nuclei that make up the desk, and that the vast majority of this desk is vacuum, therefore the fact that, when I touch this supposedly-solid desk, what's actually happening is that the electrostatic field generated by the electrons of the desk are exerting a force against the electrostatic field of the electrons orbiting the nuclei of the atoms making up my fingers.  There are no "solids" touching anything, just fields pushing against each other the way 2 magnets can push against each other.\n\nTo me it looks like reality begins immediately outside your eyes.  All is reality.  The only place it ends is inside your head, when you misinterpret what your limited senses tell you.
434034
It could be Orbital - Halcyon.
338762
Here is a link that should help\n\nhttp://images.google.com/images?svnum=10&hl=en&lr=&q=Iron+Orbital&btnG=Search
34215
The splitting and shift of a spectral line into several components in the presence of an electric field.
494262
Doesn't matter- in a molecular model, you will see that the arrangement of atoms is the same around an sp3 carbon, so if you rotate it, you could picture them in either of those arrangements.
225745
See it through a magifying glass. it will look 'BIGGER'
518993
A lot.  Only 1% or less of the light actually makes the image.  This is why digital photography is so much better when it comes to astronomy.
312817
No. Light shining through air is invisible. It has a brightness of 0 candlepower. If you double that you still have a brightness of 0 candlepower.\n\nA beam of light only has a brightness if it strikes the eye directly, or reflects off something into the eye. Since light cannot reflect off air it can't be seen and has zero brightness.\n\nIf there is smoke, dust or some other particulate matter suspended in the air that will reflect light then you can see the general path of the light beam. Whether the intersection of such paths will be brighter or not depend on what the particles are and where the observer is located.
522198
I'm not quite sure what you mean by this question.  Did you want the model for what the Iron atom looks like, or did you want the diagram thing with all the arrows and with the electronic congif.?\n\nHere's a website that i found that seems like it would be helpful for you...\nhttp://www.orbitals.com/orb/index.html\nand this is a long one, but it could be helpful too\nhttp://caltechbook.library.caltech.edu/122/07/BPOCchapter6.pdf\n\nsorry that i couldnt be more specific with helping you!  i hope you find what you're looking for...
205232
I think the other answerers have a few misconceptions.\n\nThe problem with your question is the use of the word "seen."\nSo I will answer your question in two parts.\n\n1) The best visible wavelength (optical) microscopes cannot see atoms. The best they can probably do, is see some of the fine detail of biological cells, nothing more.\n\n2) Using the term loosely, electron microscopes or atomic force microscopes can "see" atoms, and even electron clouds, but one should not take the word "see" too literally.\n\nAn atomic force microscope works by moving a very fine tip  over a sample. Without going into the specifics of it, a computer can build up a model of the shape and dimensions of atoms in the sample by measuring the forces that the atoms exert on the tip.\n\nSo I will state the answer to your question as this:\n\nWe CAN OBSERVE computer images of atoms; by this i mean that we can view computer images of atoms - but these are more like graphs of interatomic forces than actually viewing atoms.\nThe highest precision that can currently be achieved is viewing the electron clouds of various atoms. We cannot directly observe anything smaller than this.\n\nSo, you might ask, how do we know about the existence of particles like electrons, protons, neutrons, or even quarks?\nWell, that's because their existences can be inferred from various experiments.\n\nE.G. Rutherford's Alpha Scattering experiment showed that atoms consist of mostly empty space (in support of our massive nucleus and electron clouds model)\n\nAnd particle physicists can use devices a bit like cloud chambers to "observe" fundamental particles like quarks by accelerating e.g. protons high speeds and then making them crash into each other. This liberates particles smaller than protons, giving evidence for the existence of quarks.\n\nHowever, these particles are "observed" by the effect that they have on the surrounding medium, not by direct observation.\n\n\nSo to sum up, the atomic force microscope is the best microscope for "viewing" atoms, but don't take this literally. It's resolution allows us to examine the electron clouds of individual atoms.\n\n\nAlso note that "Electron clouds" is also not to be taken too literally, as anyone who knows anything about quantum mechanics will tell you.
667790
You can ask atomic research agency. they are using this type of software.
13854
The picture is photo-shopped, and the technology is no where near a cloak like that depicted being patented.  The research decribed is talking about individual nano-particles (meaning less than a millionth of a meter).  Maybe one day, but I seriously doubt it will be any time in the next 200 years (and probably not even then).  The technology is amazingly complex.
261030
The scientist in charge of this project were taking extra care with picture preparation. Go to the site and you will see that around May 17th I think we can start looking for the particles from space.\nSee link below for Stardust at Home
655302
If the deflection surface has any diffraction or diffusion to it, the light may just be redirected imperfectly. 12kV? Jumpin Gigawatts!