Because the comment is factually wrong. Because it tries to argue something in bad faith.
> That's an honest fundamental question.
But it wasn't a question, it was a statement, and a faulty one at that.
Best case interpretation would require substituting 'current' for 'frequency' and even then it would be inaccurate because the current is a proxy for the Z-distance to the tip which is then used to convert to a 3D map, which in turn can be visualized.
It is fairly obvious that this is an indirect process so clear the word 'directly' wasn't about 'seeing atoms' but all about the fact that you can make the observations yourself.
Whether you are measuring a current or looking through an eyepiece both are observations. And looking at the resulting image is also an observation.
As opposed to reading about STMs and looking at pretty pictures online or in books.
It's a shallow comment masquerading as an insightful one, the worst way to derail any conversation.
The GP's "statement" contained three relevant sentences, two ending with question-marks. I learned from both your answer and its parent, furthering conversation, for me at least.
Read the rest of their comments and see if you still feel that way. As well as the novelty account made for the express purpose of further derailing the conversation.
So ... how about some self-reflection in your bubble of self-righteousness?
And actually answer to the answer of jacquesm?
"But it wasn't a question, it was a statement, and a faulty one at that
Best case interpretation would require substituting 'current' for 'frequency' and even then it would be inaccurate because the current is a proxy for the Z-distance to the tip which is then used to convert to a 3D map, which in turn can be visualized.
"
So it seems you were just wrong in your statement and therefore downvoted.
In general, I would agree that the downvoting habit here is sometimes over the line. Like I would not have downvoted your original question, even though it did contained a false statement. But how you react to an answer actually explaining the reasoning - does not speak for you in this case.
Because the comment is factually wrong. Because it tries to argue something in bad faith.
> That's an honest fundamental question.
But it wasn't a question, it was a statement, and a faulty one at that.
Best case interpretation would require substituting 'current' for 'frequency' and even then it would be inaccurate because the current is a proxy for the Z-distance to the tip which is then used to convert to a 3D map, which in turn can be visualized.
It is fairly obvious that this is an indirect process so clear the word 'directly' wasn't about 'seeing atoms' but all about the fact that you can make the observations yourself.
Whether you are measuring a current or looking through an eyepiece both are observations. And looking at the resulting image is also an observation.
As opposed to reading about STMs and looking at pretty pictures online or in books.
It's a shallow comment masquerading as an insightful one, the worst way to derail any conversation.