chandragupta Posted October 30, 2012 Share Posted October 30, 2012 Matter is made of atoms. Atom is made of a nucleus & electrons. If size of the nucleus is imagined to be that of a brick (for ease of picturization) then electron would be about a mile away from the nucleus & then there will be this intervening empty space time in between the nucleus & electron. My question is: Is the solidness or solidity of matter is an illusion of the observer? Your thoughts? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CaptainPanic Posted October 30, 2012 Share Posted October 30, 2012 Solidness is something that is much related to the scale you look at. At the atomic scale, the atom is mostly empty. At a little larger scale, it might be empty, but it is still very (very!!) difficult to push a second atom really close to the first atom. So, even though it is empty, the space is "claimed" already by that atom. The empty space around the nucleus really belongs to the atom which occupies it. But the easiest way to answer your question is to bang your head against a brick wall. You will soon find out that this is in no way an illusion. It is very real, and very solid. Remember that the definition does not say anything about whether it is empty or not: sol·id/ˈsälid/ Adjective: Firm and stable in shape; not liquid or fluid: "frozen solid". Noun: A substance or object that is solid rather than liquid or fluid. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Enthalpy Posted October 30, 2012 Share Posted October 30, 2012 The atom is full. Its electrons fill it completely. The "empty atom" results from misconceptions. Electrons are as much point-like as you try to measure them. But in an atom, electrons have the size of the atom. Orbitals are not circles around the nucleus. They are solid and extend over much volume. By the way, the S orbitals have the maximum probability density right at the nucleus, so these electrons are not "away". 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chandragupta Posted October 30, 2012 Author Share Posted October 30, 2012 1351592276[/url]' post='711010']Solidness is something that is much related to the scale you look at. At the atomic scale, the atom is mostly empty. At a little larger scale, it might be empty, but it is still very (very!!) difficult to push a second atom really close to the first atom. So, even though it is empty, the space is "claimed" already by that atom. The empty space around the nucleus really belongs to the atom which occupies it. But the easiest way to answer your question is to bang your head against a brick wall. You will soon find out that this is in no way an illusion. It is very real, and very solid. Remember that the definition does not say anything about whether it is empty or not: sol·id/ˈsälid/ Adjective: Firm and stable in shape; not liquid or fluid: "frozen solid". Noun: A substance or object that is solid rather than liquid or fluid. 'Illusion' pertains to observer & not to matter.Wall is matter & so is the head without the observer inside it . Thus a head without the observer inside it can be banged against the wall without generating any inference regarding the the aforesaid Illusion.your thoughts? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chandragupta Posted November 2, 2012 Author Share Posted November 2, 2012 1351603531[/url]' post='711031']'Illusion' pertains to observer & not to matter.Wall is matter & so is the head without the observer inside it . Thus a head without the observer inside it can be banged against the wall without generating any inference regarding the the aforesaid Illusion.your thoughts? Even though the space time between the nucleus & its electrons appears to be empty or unoccupied but in truth this is not so as evidenced by the observation that a second atom can't be pushed next to the first atom. This emplies that there is something in between the nucleus & its electrons. My question is: What is this 'something'? Could it be electro-magnatic force? Your thoughts? 1351593373[/url]' post='711014']The atom is full. Its electrons fill it completely. The "empty atom" results from misconceptions. Electrons are as much point-like as you try to measure them. But in an atom, electrons have the size of the atom. Orbitals are not circles around the nucleus. They are solid and extend over much volume. By the way, the S orbitals have the maximum probability density right at the nucleus, so these electrons are not "away". When you state: ' electrons fill the atom completely(despite being 'point-like'), does it mean, these electrons fill the atom completely with their electromagnetic force ? Your thought? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swansont Posted November 2, 2012 Share Posted November 2, 2012 Even though the space time between the nucleus & its electrons appears to be empty or unoccupied but in truth this is not so as evidenced by the observation that a second atom can't be pushed next to the first atom. This emplies that there is something in between the nucleus & its electrons. My question is: What is this 'something'? Could it be electro-magnatic force? Your thoughts? There's an electromagnetic force (and, at some level, degeneracy pressure) that keeps the atoms from co-locating. The existence of that force obviates the need for the hypothesis of "something" in that space. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mississippichem Posted November 2, 2012 Share Posted November 2, 2012 When you state: ' electrons fill the atom completely(despite being 'point-like'), does it mean, these electrons fill the atom completely with their electromagnetic force ? Your thought? I think that Enthalpy is pointing out that the wave function describing the electron (remember this is just a sort of probability distribution) spans all of the space between the nucleus and the rest of the universe. Given, the probability of finding an s electron (one with no angular momentum) some far distance away from the nucleus is pretty small but still non-zero. However the probability of finding an electron very near the nucleus is actually very high. You can't really think of a atom properly as a "solar system like" model. Subatomic particles and even whole atoms themselves don't behave like tiny classical specks or balls. There is no sound analogy in my opinion. The only way to truly describe an electron in an atom is to do the math. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chandragupta Posted November 2, 2012 Author Share Posted November 2, 2012 1351866467[/url]' post='711358']There's an electromagnetic force (and, at some level, degeneracy pressure) that keeps the atoms from co-locating. The existence of that force obviates the need for the hypothesis of "something" in that space. Thanks for confirming that there is an electromagnetic force that keeps the atoms from co-locating. Could I ask you as to who is the source of this electromagnetic force I.e. are they the electrons of the atom in question or the protons( or both )of the same? 1351867359[/url]' post='711361']I think that Enthalpy is pointing out that the wave function describing the electron (remember this is just a sort of probability distribution) spans all of the space between the nucleus and the rest of the universe. Given, the probability of finding an s electron (one with no angular momentum) some far distance away from the nucleus is pretty small but still non-zero. However the probability of finding an electron very near the nucleus is actually very high. You can't really think of a atom properly as a "solar system like" model. Subatomic particles and even whole atoms themselves don't behave like tiny classical specks or balls. There is no sound analogy in my opinion. The only way to truly describe an electron in an atom is to do the math. Is there any way to picturize an electron. Let me explain. Richard Feynman's 'Feynman's diagrams' are very helpful in picturizing his concepts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mississippichem Posted November 2, 2012 Share Posted November 2, 2012 Is there any way to picturize an electron. Let me explain. Richard Feynman's 'Feynman's diagrams' are very helpful in picturizing his concepts. Well, you can't really draw one in the same sense that you can draw a tree or a house. You can plot the plot the position wavefunction of an electron though just like you can plot any other mathematical function. Just remember though that the wavefunction is technically an outdated concept still useful in certain applications. Quantum field theory does away with the wavefunction and replaces it with other more "advanced" mathematical objects. Wavefunctions still serve as useful tools though, especially when considering the bound states of electrons in atoms. Google atomic orbitals and I'm sure you'll be able to find some nice plots of the wavefunctions for electrons in a hydrogen atom. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swansont Posted November 2, 2012 Share Posted November 2, 2012 Thanks for confirming that there is an electromagnetic force that keeps the atoms from co-locating. Could I ask you as to who is the source of this electromagnetic force I.e. are they the electrons of the atom in question or the protons( or both )of the same? If the atoms are separated, it will be primarily the electron repelling. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chandragupta Posted November 2, 2012 Author Share Posted November 2, 2012 Thank you for your reply that Electrons are the primary repelling force if atoms are separated.In this context I.e. in the context of the structure of atom , is the positive charge of protons is the main force to keep the electrons in their orbitals & if the latter is true then + charge of protons must be equal in magnitude or strength to that of electron's negative charge? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swansont Posted November 2, 2012 Share Posted November 2, 2012 Thank you for your reply that Electrons are the primary repelling force if atoms are separated.In this context I.e. in the context of the structure of atom , is the positive charge of protons is the main force to keep the electrons in their orbitals & if the latter is true then + charge of protons must be equal in magnitude or strength to that of electron's negative charge? Yes, the protons attract the electrons, but electrons are found pretty far from the nucleus, on this scale. In general the electrons in adjacent atoms will be much closer to their counterparts than will be the case for the protons Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chandragupta Posted November 2, 2012 Author Share Posted November 2, 2012 Thanks. You have been very helpful. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Enthalpy Posted November 3, 2012 Share Posted November 3, 2012 When you state: ' electrons fill the atom completely (despite being 'point-like'), does it mean, these electrons fill the atom completely with their electromagnetic force ? Electrons are waves. In an atom, they are the orbitals (at least, pairs of electrons are). 'Point-like" only means that if one uses a very localized particle to sense an electron, he doesn't find a sub-structure to the electron. According to the probability density, sensing for the electron in a smaller volume results in a smaller probability of the electron to interact with the sensing particle (...if no other factor influenced their probability!) but the whole electron interacts then. "Point-like" does not mean that the electron is a point located somewhere randomly in the orbital. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
juanrga Posted November 3, 2012 Share Posted November 3, 2012 (edited) Electrons are waves. No they aren't, electrons are particles. In an atom, they are the orbitals (at least, pairs of electrons are). No. Orbitals are only hydrogen-like wavefunctions [*]. Those orbitals only partially represent the state of an electron in an atom. They lack spin, electron-electron correlation and more quantum stuff... [*] Some authors use a different definition of orbital as the region of volume that contains a certain amount of probability e.g. 90% of finding the electron. Edited November 3, 2012 by juanrga 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
O'Nero Samuel Posted November 4, 2012 Share Posted November 4, 2012 The atom is full. Its electrons fill it completely. The "empty atom" results from misconceptions. Electrons are as much point-like as you try to measure them. But in an atom, electrons have the size of the atom. Orbitals are not circles around the nucleus. They are solid and extend over much volume. By the way, the S orbitals have the maximum probability density right at the nucleus, so these electrons are not "away". The atom is full? Is this in anyway undermining quantum energy level, or its just my misinterpretation of your words? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chandragupta Posted November 4, 2012 Author Share Posted November 4, 2012 1351992259[/url]' post='711522']The atom is full? Is this in anyway undermining quantum energy level, or its just my misinterpretation of your words? Enthalpy(30/10/12) When you state that 'orbitals' of the electrons are solid & extend over much of the so called 'empty' space of an atom, please explain what is the nature of these orbitals? My idea of these is that they are fields of electromagnetic force belonging to electrons.Your thoughts? 1351592276[/url]' post='711010']Solidness is something that is much related to the scale you look at. At the atomic scale, the atom is mostly empty. At a little larger scale, it might be empty, but it is still very (very!!) difficult to push a second atom really close to the first atom. So, even though it is empty, the space is "claimed" already by that atom. The empty space around the nucleus really belongs to the atom which occupies it. But the easiest way to answer your question is to bang your head against a brick wall. You will soon find out that this is in no way an illusion. It is very real, and very solid. Remember that the definition does not say anything about whether it is empty or not: sol·id/ˈsälid/ Adjective: Firm and stable in shape; not liquid or fluid: "frozen solid". Noun: A substance or object that is solid rather than liquid or fluid. You stated that it is very very difficult to push a second atom really close to the first atom (even though the space between an atom's nucleus & its electrons superficially appears to be empty). So my question is:- What force prevents (or repels) the second atom from comming close to the first atom? Is this force be the electromagnetic force of the electrons in the light of the fact that electrons are much closure to their counterparts in the second atom than to their own nucleus (keeping in mind that electrons are negatively charged & thus electrons in first atom repel the electrons in the second).Your thoughts? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
elas Posted November 4, 2012 Share Posted November 4, 2012 There's an electromagnetic force (and, at some level, degeneracy pressure) that keeps the atoms from co-locating. The existence of that force obviates the need for the hypothesis of "something" in that space. By implication you are saying that electromagnetic force can exist without a force carrying particle but, experiments measure only one electromagnetic wavelength for each electron; when a group of electrons are measured by Composite Electron experiments each electron has its own wave fraction, there is no record of any electromagnetic wave being recorded between the electron waves of the group being measured. Where is the experimental evidence for waves between particle waves or for magnetic force not carried by waves. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chandragupta Posted November 4, 2012 Author Share Posted November 4, 2012 1351967247[/url]' post='711486']No they aren't, electrons are particles. No. Orbitals are only hydrogen-like wavefunctions [*]. Those orbitals only partially represent the state of an electron in an atom. They lack spin, electron-electron correlation and more quantum stuff... [*] Some authors use a different definition of orbital as the region of volume that contains a certain amount of probability e.g. 90% of finding the electron. You stated 'electrons inside the atom are not waves but particles only'. Does that mean that electrons behave as waves only when they are outside the confines of the atom I.e. floating as 'free agents' beyond the reach of ''attracting- force' of positively charged protons (as actually happens inside the 'plasma' of a FUSION REACTER or inside the 'plasma' of FUSION REACTION taking place in the core of the SUN?)Your thoughts? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MigL Posted November 4, 2012 Share Posted November 4, 2012 I think Juanrga means electrons are particles according to the QFT definition of a particle, ie an excitation or 'knot' if you will, in the fermionic quantum field. Electrons can behave as classical particles or waves depending on the method of observation, but are by no means classical particles or waves. Quantum field theory sees all spaces occupied by fermionic and bosonic quantum fields, including all space 'inside' an atom. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chandragupta Posted November 5, 2012 Author Share Posted November 5, 2012 1352060017[/url]' post='711606']I think Juanrga means electrons are particles according to the QFT definition of a particle, ie an excitation or 'knot' if you will, in the fermionic quantum field. Electrons can behave as classical particles or waves depending on the method of observation, but are by no means classical particles or waves. Quantum field theory sees all spaces occupied by fermionic and bosonic quantum fields, including all space 'inside' an atom. You stated that electrons can behave as classical particles or as classical waves depending upon the method of observation(i.e. depending upon the observer:- this last bit in bracket is mine add-on & not your's, just to make myself understand) but their inherent nature (my world & not your's :- just to make myself understand this difficult subject) is not that of either classical waves or that of classical particles. Would you be kind enough to elaborate on this (apparent ?) contradiction ? Thanks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dekan Posted November 5, 2012 Share Posted November 5, 2012 Isn't matter supposed to be made of "quarks". How many quarks are there in an electron? This is worse than epicycles! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ydoaPs Posted November 5, 2012 Share Posted November 5, 2012 (edited) How many quarks are there in an electron? None. Electrons are leptons. Quarks are the constituents of hadrons. Edited November 5, 2012 by ydoaPs Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dekan Posted November 5, 2012 Share Posted November 5, 2012 Thanks y, I looked the two links you kindly provided. Frankly, I'd dismiss the whole subject as complete gibberish - except that nuclear bombs exist, and have been detonated, so there must be something in it! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chandragupta Posted November 5, 2012 Author Share Posted November 5, 2012 1352130135[/url]' post='711701']Thanks y, I looked the two links you kindly provided. Frankly, I'd dismiss the whole subject as complete gibberish - except that nuclear bombs exist, and have been detonated, so there must be something in it! Universe is an amazing construct of nature or whosoever. On the basis of present performance science has been the most successful enterprise of humanity to explain to humanity 'who, why & how' of this universe as compared to all the other enterprises of humanity to do the same.So we should not be dismissive & wait till some other future enterprise of humanity comes forward to give 'ABSOLUTE ANSWER. 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