can we see an electron ?

Answer 1

the simple answer is no, you can't see an individual electron. electron microscopes DON'T see electrons -- they use electrons. electrons are very, very almost unimageinably small (their size is inconsequential even compared to a single atom).

In a way, when you see a spark or lightning you are seeing bulk electrons. It is sometimes said that when sodium metal is dissolved in ammonia during a type of reaction called a dissolving metal reduction, the metallic blue color that results is the color of dissolved electrons.

Answer 2

Who invented Nuclear Physics?

Buddhist teacher Pakudha Katyayana taught atomic
theory. Maharshi Kanaada of 3rd century, B.C. wrote
atomic theory in Vaiseshika Sutras. Agni Purana gives
smaller magnitudes. The smallest of them is called
Paramaanu which nearly equals one billionth part of a
meter. This value tallies with the size of an organic
molecule calculated by the western scientists.
According to the Upanishads, the five elements of the
nature are Earth, Water, Air, Fire and Akasa. (The
ancient Greek or Roman philosophers did not know
Akasa). One can easily guess that the Earth represents
the solid state, the Water the liquid state and the Air
the gaseous state. The Fire is the plasma, the fourth
state of matter. Western science has not recognized
nuclear state as a state of matter, even though some
nuclear particles are stable; Akasa means nuclear
state. In the ancient Sanskrit text named Anu
Sidhdhantam, Maharshi Goutama described three models of
micro-scopes through which atoms and electrons can be
seen.

Answer 3

No.
e·lec·tron (ĭ-lĕk'trŏn')
n. (Abbr. e)
A stable subatomic particle in the lepton family having a rest mass of 9.1066 × 10-28 grams and a unit negative electric charge of approximately 1.602 × 10-19 coulombs.
How do you see the world that is too small to see? When we ‘see’ we use our eyes and see because the light reflects off of the thing that we are seeing. Turn out the lights and we have a hard time seeing. To see things too small for us to see with just our eyes we use a microscope. The light from the thing that we want to see is magnified with lenses in a microscope and we see a virtual image of that tiny thing.

The smallest thing that we can see with a ‘light’ microscope is about 500 nanometers. A nanometer is one-billionth (that’s 1,000,000,000th) of a meter. So the smallest thing that you can see with a light microscope is about 200 times smaller than the width of a hair. Bacteria are about 1000 nanometers in size. The reason we can’t see anything smaller is because these microscopes use light. We don’t think about light as having a size, but visible light is about 500-800 nanometers. To see anything smaller we need a more powerful microscope.

Electron microscopes ‘see’ things using electrons instead of light. Electrons are much smaller than the wavelength of visible light and so much smaller things can be seen with these electron microscopes. The pictures that you get from an electron microscope are black and white because we need visible light to have colors. Sometimes we see electron microscope pictures that have colors. Those colors are added by scientists, like Dennis Kunkel to help point out important things or sometimes because they just look cool.

The world’s most powerful microscopes don’t see things with light or even electrons. They see things by feeling, feeling with a very sharp tip on the end of something that looks like a needle. Sometimes scientists put carbon nanotubes on the end to make them even sharper. A tip so sharp it is only a few atoms wide. A tip so sharp that as it is moved across something it feels its shape. The very powerful microscopes are called atomic force microscopes, because they can see things by the forces between atoms. So with an atomic force microscope you can see things as small as a strand of DNA or even individual atoms. These microscopes use computers to help convert the information from tapping on the sample to make a three-dimensional view of the object. So with the world’s most powerful microscope, scientists have been able to ‘see’ DNA and report that it is a double helix just like Watson and Crick showed over 50 years ago!.

Electrons - A lightweight particle, carrying a negative electric charge and found in all atoms. Electrons can be energized or even torn from atoms by light and by collisions, and they are responsible for many electric phenomena in solid matter and in plasmas

Answer 4

Yes we can electrons are all around us the tip of your finger is the outer most electron configuration, all around us is electrons that's the reason why when we fall we get hurt because it is the repulsion of electrons

Answer 5

Elections are too small , the only they can be seen is with a specific instrument dubbed: 'electron microscope'.

Answer 6

yes only with an electron microscope

Answer 7

For those of you who insist on no as an answer, take a trip to the Fermi Lab in Batavia Illinois! They have been watching them for years!

Answer 8

yes.
through an electron microscope.

Answer 9

The Particle - The wrong turn that led physics to a dead end
© Engineer Xavier Borg - Blaze Labs



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The big flaws of the currently accepted atom model
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Unknown to many of us, it is a fact that Einstein rejected the discrete point particle and stated that matter must be spherical entities extended in space. He writes "Physical objects are not in space, but these objects are spatially extended. In this way the concept "empty space" loses its meaning. Since the theory of general relativity implies the representation of physical reality by a continuous field, the concept of particles or material points cannot play a fundamental part, nor can the concept of motion. The particle can only appear as a limited region in space in which the field strength or the energy density are particularly high." Erwin Schroedinger understood the requirements of particle structure when he wrote in 1937: "What we observe as material bodies and forces are nothing but shapes and variations in the structure of space. Particles are just schaumkommen. (appearances)". He believed that quantum waves were real, not probability distributions with a hidden particle wondering inside. He saw that abolishing the discrete point particle would remove the paradoxes of 'wave-particle duality' and the 'collapse of the wave function'.

No atoms had even remotely been seen visually until 1985, when IBM Research Almaden Labs was the first to use an electron tunneling microscope to actually photograph the organization of molecules of germanium in an ink-blot. Here what we see from this experiment are indistinct, fuzzy spherical objects that appear to have some non-spherical geometric qualities to their shape and are in an extremely geometric pattern of organization, which was definitely a surprise for conventional science. How could the random nature of atoms described by the Heisenberg principle, ever result in such an ordered pattern? Perhaps the probability distributions are not 'distributions' at all. The image shown below was artificially colored orange and green to allow the eye to discriminate between the two types of atom that were seen:


Actual photograph of atoms of germanium in an ink-blot.
Furthermore, when quantum physicists have studied the electrons of the atom, they have observed that they are not actually points at all, not particulate in nature, but rather form smooth, teardrop-shaped clouds where the narrowest ends of the drops converge upon a very tiny point in the center.

There are no Electron Orbits! Bohr's model, which started the notion of electrons traveling around the nucleus like planets has misled a lot of people and scientists. If you have learned such an idea, forget about it immediately. Instead, all calculations and all experiments show that no satellite-like orbital motion exists in the normal atom. Instead, there are standing wave patterns, very similar indeed to the polar plots of antenna radiation patterns. For example, see the case M=0 and L=0, where the standing wave pattern is entirely spherical, this being equivalent to a pure isotropic antenna radiation plot. Similarly for M=1, L=1, the pattern is exactly the same as that of a half wave dipole, and so on. No one ever asks or requires for an antenna's radiation pattern to be formed of orbiting electrons, and yet we know that the standing wave generated from a typical radio antenna, posseses inertia, and can act upon external matter by means of radiation pressure. The electron path is NOT around and far off the nucleus, nor is the atom made up of 99.999% empty space!. Instead, the center of the electron pattern is also the center of the proton pattern. This is the normal situation of the H atoms in the universe; they have spherical symmetry, not orbits. You see, particulate matter is not requirement to generate the effects known to define matter.

To complicate things further, we have got the particle-wave dual nature enigma. The classical double slit diffraction experiment using a beam of electrons instead of light, shows us that we still get a diffraction pattern. The interpretation of this is that matter travels as a wave. Further more if we arrange a setup for light to enter the slits one photon at a time, or even one electron at a time, in both cases, we still get a build up a diffraction pattern over time. One interpretation of this result is that a single photon or electron goes through both slits and interferes with itself. Thus the common statement accepted by todays textbooks is that "matter acts as both a particle and as a wave." This statement obviously leaves a lot of holes in physics, since no mechanism is defined for how the transformation from one entity to the other is actually done. So, is matter a particle or a wave in nature?. Actually none of them, both the wave and particle models are flawed and/or incomplete models for subatomic particles as will be shown in this research section.


Electron clouds from top-down view (L) and from side view (R). [Courtesy Wolff, 1990]


Some of the many possible spherical harmonics showing
the probability density of an electron in a hydrogen atom.

|2,0,0> |2,1,0> |2,1,1>

|3,0,0> |3,1,0> |3,1,1>

|3,2,0> |3,2,1> |3,2,2>

As you can immediately recognise from the above electron distribution probability, electron shells commonly used in chemistry, together with Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle are impossible attempts to describe the above three dimensional atomic standing waves in terms of particles in motion. Now, do you find it surprising that one cannot know both position and momentum of an electron?

Exploring the Physics of the Unknown Universe - Milo Wolff
Most of the currently accepted particles have been found by the use of a common basic tool - the particle accelerator. This is a gigantic instrument that detects the effects and products of collisions between very fast moving particles. High speed is necessary so that it is energetic enough to 'crack open' the particles in order to reveal the inner structures that make up the colliding particles. Some of these sub-particles may only exist briefly before they dissapear or change to other form of particles.




The realities of mainstream science
When two particles collide, or even combine, their total mass is not conserved, and this effect is known as the mass defect. Surely enough, modern science accounts for this fact, applying the well known Einstein's equation E=mc2, and states that the mass lost or gained is balanced by the change in bonding energy within the formed structure. All particle accelerator experiment results are currently being wrongly interpreted, because the particles appearing after impact are NOT the inner structures of the particles before impact. As we will see, in this theory, a particle is a structure, made up of an elementary unit, and not of an infinite number of a mix of smaller particles. Breaking up a structure of matter, will result in other structures which may not have existed as separate structural entities within the original particle, and the fact that most particles resulting after an impact in a particle accelerator have a very short life strengthens this idea, since how could ever a bigger structure have been formed if the chances of existance of its components are so small or nearly impossible?

Answer 10

no.only with a electron microscope