GoombaLuke11 Posted January 3 Share Posted January 3 When I was in science, my teacher was talking about the periodic table and atoms me and a fellow student wondered, what IS the empty space inside an atom (between the nucleus and the electrons)? Is it possible that there is nothing in that space, or could this question lead to particles smaller than quarks? Maybe it's dark matter. I'm not sure. Does anyone have theories or possible add-ons for this question? It's weird that there could be smaller particles than quarks, or that it is possible for some things to be made of nothing, maybe this could prove dark matter's existence! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
exchemist Posted January 3 Share Posted January 3 8 minutes ago, GoombaLuke11 said: When I was in science, my teacher was talking about the periodic table and atoms me and a fellow student wondered, what IS the empty space inside an atom (between the nucleus and the electrons)? Is it possible that there is nothing in that space, or could this question lead to particles smaller than quarks? Maybe it's dark matter. I'm not sure. Does anyone have theories or possible add-ons for this question? It's weird that there could be smaller particles than quarks, or that it is possible for some things to be made of nothing, maybe this could prove dark matter's existence! That view is a bit of a simplification. Because electrons are wave/particle quantum entities, although they are detected only as "whole" particles, they also behave as if they are "smeared out" throughout the volume of the atom around the nucleus. One speaks of "clouds" of "electron density". This cloud is pretty diffuse in terms of mass density, because electrons are light particles compared to the nucleus, but it is not really true to say there is a lot of "empty" space in the atom. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheVat Posted January 3 Share Posted January 3 The old image of the atom as particles in an orbit around the nucleus is now seen as rather Bohr-ing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
exchemist Posted January 3 Share Posted January 3 5 minutes ago, TheVat said: The old image of the atom as particles in an orbit around the nucleus is now seen as rather Bohr-ing. Arf arf. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GoombaLuke11 Posted January 4 Author Share Posted January 4 (edited) @exchemistI agree about not having "a lot of space", that was an image I found online about hydrogen atoms sorry if that was not clear before 😕 @TheVatSrry about the image, again, it was just something I found on the web 4 a simple visual aid. Does anyone else have anything to add or other theories? Edited January 4 by GoombaLuke11 Other Response Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheVat Posted January 4 Share Posted January 4 33 minutes ago, GoombaLuke11 said: @exchemistI agree about not having "a lot of space", that was an image I found online about hydrogen atoms sorry if that was not clear before 😕 @TheVatSrry about the image, again, it was just something I found on the web 4 a simple visual aid. Does anyone else have anything to add or other theories? I was just making a dreadful pun, on Niels Bohr, who developed that early rendition of the atom. No need to apologize. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MigL Posted January 4 Share Posted January 4 The distinction between 'empty space' and what we call elementary particles is not very clear, and depends entirely on your definition of empty space. Particles seem not to have any size, so by one definition, the atom is 100% empty space. By another definition, until we detect them, all particles are probability densities distributed throughout the atom, which then has no empty space. Ask a 'better' question. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swansont Posted January 4 Share Posted January 4 As TheVat was hinting, the notion is derived from the Bohr atom picture of a small nucleus with some electrons in planetary orbits. Much like our solar system, if you only counted the sun and planets, most of the volume of a sphere defined by the outermost orbit is mostly empty. Virtually all of the mass and occupied volume is at the center. 27 minutes ago, MigL said: Particles seem not to have any size, so by one definition, the atom is 100% empty space. Fundamental particles, though, not composites. Neutrons and protons do have a size. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MigL Posted January 4 Share Posted January 4 1 hour ago, swansont said: Neutrons and protons do have a size And are combinations of 3 up/down quarks, in a 'cloud' of virtual gluons. All of which are fundamental and may have no size. So what composes the rest of the proton/neutron ? By that same definition, they would be empty also. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swansont Posted January 4 Share Posted January 4 7 hours ago, MigL said: And are combinations of 3 up/down quarks, in a 'cloud' of virtual gluons. All of which are fundamental and may have no size. So what composes the rest of the proton/neutron ? By that same definition, they would be empty also. Right, but there is no semi-classical Bohr-like model to lean on here. By the time we knew that neutrons and protons were composite particles we knew about wave-like nature of the constituents, which means they take up space. At the time of the Bohr model they were considered hard spheres. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now