It’s probably because there is the tiniest hint of doubt in your mind; for, after all, no one has ever seen an electron! And no one ever will mwaha! Which the chemistry teacher stresses every lesson now. That’s the uniquity of chemistry, other studies have actually been conspected.
Meh! We like seeing things because it’s our strongest sense. We therefore think we understand something only if we’ve seen it. But I ask you; do we understand a car best by looking at it, or by having someone explain to us what it does?
If we were dogs, we would want to smell everything. If we hadn’t smelt something, we didn’t understand it; but if we had smelt it, we understood it perfectly. Just like the electron, then, we could never understand a block of steel.
Actually, neither. I understand a car best by driving it. And by having to go repair various pieces every 2 weeks. 
I dissent. Haven’t people already “seen” electrons through their fancy-schmancy magnifying equipment? Or so they say…
It’s a lie! Believe none of it.
No one has ever seen an electron. People have just about seen the atom but not electron. They have a negligible mass in comparison to 1 of a proton or neutron and there are 6.02x10^23 atoms in 3g of Lithium for example. That’s a load of atoms. God knows how they saw a bloody atom. I want to see one.
How do you define “seeing”?
If you define “seeing” as being able to view the position of something, without necessarily being able to view its details, then we have seen individual atoms with an electron microscope (i.e. by firing electrons at it and measuring how they rebound).
What’s so exciting about seeing the results of that? (All you see is the shape of the surface of the material.)
(BTW, does this make me God?)
Here’s a quote from my biology textbook about electron microscopy:
The SEM [scanning electron microscope] is especially useful for detailed study of the surface of the specimen. The electron beam scans the surface of the sample, which is usually coated with a thin film of gold. The beam excites electrons on the sample’s surface, and these secondary electrons are collected and focused onto a screen. The result is an image of the topography of the specimen. The SEM has great depth of field, which results in an image that appears three-dimensional.
Like Eureka said, they just see the surface shape of the material. If the material consists of one layer of atoms, however, they can basically “see” an atom.
There’s also a technique for seeing the inside of a specimen using a transmission electron microscope. My biology textbook talks about the technique in conjunction with the study of cells, however, so I don’t know if it can be used to view atoms.
(BTW, does this make me > God> ?)
No
I donno, the bishop was pretty clear on the matter:
I’m pretty sure you know that what he wrote is a common expression used to indicate personal lack of knowledge about the topic to which it refers. I think the personal ignorance is the important point of that expression. It does not imply that only God knows, although He certainly understands the topic much better than we do.
Ask him about the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle. I mean, how can you know the proton/electrons are there, when the measurment of such disturbs their path thru space?
P.S. I like naps when I can get them. A brother-in-law takes one during lunch - just pulls off the road and snoozes for 20 minutes or so.
Timothy, what is gingilismus?
“gingilismus medicamentum bellissimum est”
~embellished latin translation of “laughter is the best medicine”
It can’t be that much of a famous saying - Google lists only three references to it. And two of those refer to Tim here.
I have been wondering the same thing…
pealing laughter.
I like humor. I love to laugh. It makes me feel good. What goes around, comes around. So I’m trying to send some along. 
Now that’s funny. 
Ask him about the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle. I mean, how can you know the proton/electrons are there, when the measurment of such disturbs their path thru space?
Experiments have been done that support their existence. For example, look up J. J. Thomson and Ernest Rutherford. Furthermore, the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle refers to measuring observable properties of particles, not their very existence. You have to assume that the particles exist and that they exhibit certain measurable properties before you can go about measuring those properties.
Well, at any rate you’re walking a fine line when you say that chem. is the only science that hasn’t been quote conspected. You can’t exactly see gravity or sound waves and the like, or any of the things in the realm of physics, for that matter. You just have to take them for granted. And electrons very nearly fall in there, since they’re so small they exhibit very strong wave properties, which puts them more near the energy end of the spectrum than matter.
I must have missed where gingilismus came in.
Oh my I learned the mass of electron today and electron gun saw. But it was bloody 5kW! 9.109 x 10^-31 ! Ouch. 1/1840 proton. Then a nut threw a chemistry book out of the window. Then I found a lunchbox on the table and threw it out of the window.