It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Quick Question, What is inbetween electrons and nuclei?

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 19 2006 @ 12:28 PM
link   
I was just wondering. We know that everything is made up of the elements (that we have discovered) and that those elements contain a nucleus, with electrons circling them. Tell me, what is in the "space" between the electrons and the nucleus?

[edit on 19/7/06 by Mouth]




posted on Jul, 19 2006 @ 12:56 PM
link   
Well conventional science says there absolutely nothing between the nucleus and the electron orbits. Since the size of the atomic nucleus is of the order 10^-15m and the size of an atom is of the order 10^-10m, this leads to the conclusion that 99.99...% of everything we know and love is made up of absolutely nothing! This is interesting to say the least!

I dont know too much about quantum but the conventional rules still apply on a large scale. There are also subatomic particles that arent really affected by most matter eg. neutrinos etc... that can take up some of the space as well.

But in conclusion though, most of what we know is actually made of nothing!



posted on Jul, 19 2006 @ 01:08 PM
link   
They don't really 'orbit' either, not in the sense that they all revolve around in a plane like a really bad sci-fi movie or 1920's chemistry book would show.

Instead they occupy "orbitals", which despite the name, look like spheres, flower petals, rings etc depending on which orbital you're talking about, and represent the areas where the electron has a possibility of being located.

Here is a site where you can download a neat viewer.
www.orbitals.com...



posted on Jul, 19 2006 @ 10:00 PM
link   
That is interesting. How could there be nothing ? I mean shouldnt there be a medium for the particles to communicate ? What about negative positive, if they are so small compared to one another and there is nothing in between them ?......I dont understand ?



posted on Jul, 20 2006 @ 11:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by imbalanced
That is interesting. How could there be nothing ? I mean shouldnt there be a medium for the particles to communicate ? What about negative positive, if they are so small compared to one another and there is nothing in between them ?......I dont understand ?


It is a strange idea to "come to terms with", but logically there is not reason for there not to be nothing. Also there is no need for a medium for the particles to communicate, planets still attract through the "vacuum" of space.



posted on Jul, 20 2006 @ 12:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by imbalanced
That is interesting. How could there be nothing ? I mean shouldnt there be a medium for the particles to communicate ? What about negative positive, if they are so small compared to one another and there is nothing in between them ?......I dont understand ?


Current theory is that all forces are carried by what are called gauge bosons or exchange particles.

For your example of two electrically charged particles, electrons and protons summon up a cloud of virtual photons from the vacuum. The interaction of these force carriers with the other particle produce the attraction or repulsion.

It's weirder than you think. Once you really start digging down into it, you find that an electron or proton carry an effectively infinite charge. The only reason that the universe doesn't explode or collapse from it is that they are all surrounded by a cloud of virtual charges that cancel out all but the bit you can observe.

To really understand this stuff at a gut level, you need drugs.



posted on Jul, 20 2006 @ 12:06 PM
link   
I agree with gfad, the concept is a hard one to grasp, but it is absolute;y true.
FIguring on what we do know and what we "Don't" know, the sky is the limit at this jecture of anologies.
Tom_Bedlam hit the perverbial nail on the head, they are "Orbita;s" and it is a very serious point of discussion and confussion, but there is a name for the "Space" in between the nueclie and it's counter parts..
For the respones from gfad and Tom_Bedlam, "Way to get the point out with knowledge."


Here's my contribution to the thread, evn though it has been explained exsquisitely,


General properties of the group > Atomic orbitals of the hydrogen atom
As noted earlier, the electrons associated with an atomic nucleus are localized, or concentrated, in various specific regions of space called atomic orbitals, each of which is characterized by a set of symbols (quantum numbers) that specify the volume, the shape, and orientation in space relative to other orbitals. An orbital may accommodate no more than two electrons. …

General properties of the group > Atomic orbitals of the hydrogen atom As noted earlier, the electrons associated with an atomic nucleus are localized, or concentrated, in various specific regions of space called atomic orbitals, each of which is characterized by a set of symbols (quantum numbers) that specify the volume, the shape, and orientation in space relative to other orbitals. An orbital may accommodate no more than two electrons. …" - did not match any documents.


Great questin by the way!!



posted on Jul, 20 2006 @ 12:15 PM
link   
imbalanced:


Originally posted by imbalanced
That is interesting. How could there be nothing ? I mean shouldnt there be a medium for the particles to communicate ? What about negative positive, if they are so small compared to one another and there is nothing in between them ?......I dont understand ?


From what I know, the orbits are based on magnetic field strengths - much like the planets spin around the Sun.

There's probably a vacuum inbetween each orbit shell, however who knows what's there.

In another 100 years, people may well be saying; "oh yeah, there's blinons inbetween spinning electrons".

Cheers

JS



posted on Jul, 20 2006 @ 12:29 PM
link   
Not magnetic field strengths but orbital forces.

Using Bohrs postulates you can calculate the exact distance from the centre of an atomic nucleus that an electron travels by its orbital momentum. I think this idea was superseded by the one which TomBedlam explained with specific orbital shapes.



posted on Jul, 20 2006 @ 10:42 PM
link   
I can understand the eqautions, thats the easy part. The hard part is thinking about it.

What I am having a had time understanding is the nameing of things. Sure there are observations and you can extrapolate equations to mimic the "actions" of electrons but - - What is actually going on ?
- Electrons remain in a cloud around the neutrons and protons but why ?
- What is making it stay there ? I mean what physical force is keeping it "attached" ?

The same thing happens in magnetics, nobody REALLY knows how it works, but they have thier theories and equations to apply it to something tangible. Maybe I should just accept the fact that there are no absolutes, and think that science is nothing more then observing and making an equation to mimic your observed "thing".

I guess I am born and observe a newtonian world, so its hard to understand how thing act the way they do when thinking in the quantum.



posted on Jul, 21 2006 @ 01:11 AM
link   
y'see, this is the kind of stuff that made me try to kill myself at 13, start drinking at 16, decide to start studying physics at 20, and now just makes me angry.

when you get down far enough, every question you ask becomes undefinable. the universe, i'm convinced, is divided by zero, and we simply don't have the ability to comprehend it's true nature because we're a small, small part of it. the oil on the gears does not understand the clock, so to speak.



posted on Jul, 21 2006 @ 02:49 AM
link   
gfad:


Originally posted by gfad
Not magnetic field strengths but orbital forces.

Using Bohrs postulates you can calculate the exact distance from the centre of an atomic nucleus that an electron travels by its orbital momentum. I think this idea was superseded by the one which TomBedlam explained with specific orbital shapes.


Same same really.

If there was no magnetic attachment (magnetic fields/opposite charges) between the electrons and the nucleas then the electrons wouldn't be rotating around the nucleas - they'd spin off. The initial momentum of the electrons would definitely come into play when determining the distance the electron would orbit the nucleas.

Electrons have a -ve charge, protons have a +ve charge and neutrons don't have any charge.

If you threw something at the Sun at the right angle with the right momentum, it would be the same as an electron spinning around a nucleas. If you threw it too hard, it would spin out of orbit as the momentum would be too great, however it you threw it "just right" then, just as it was to leave the Sun's magnetic attraction, that same attraction would overcome the momentum and the object would be pulled into the Suns (nucleas's) magnetic field.

The balancing act for this to be accomplished would be extreme to say the least.

Same thing with the centre of our galaxy and our solar systems star, our solar system and our star, our sun and our planet, our planet and the moon and atom's nucleas and it's electrons


No doubt one day we'll find out that there are probably things that rotate around electrons as well...and things that rotate around those things etc etc


Cheers

JS



posted on Jul, 21 2006 @ 11:11 AM
link   
Magnetic fields attracting is a different thing to opposite charges attracting.



posted on Jul, 21 2006 @ 12:23 PM
link   
Are you old enough, Mr GFAD, to know: Q. what the E-T-H-E-R was? A. It was the “medium” through which radio waves traveled. Until Niels Bohr invented quantum mechanics. He received the 1922 Nobel Prize in physics.



posted on Jul, 21 2006 @ 12:33 PM
link   
gfad:


Originally posted by gfad
Magnetic fields attracting is a different thing to opposite charges attracting.


Hmmm...

Are you saying that a charge hasn't got a magnetic field?

Cheers

JS



posted on Jul, 21 2006 @ 11:40 PM
link   


when you get down far enough, every question you ask becomes undefinable


At least someone understands.



posted on Jul, 22 2006 @ 03:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by imbalanced



when you get down far enough, every question you ask becomes undefinable


At least someone understands.


Agreed.

Applies in the other direction too


Cheers

JS



posted on Jul, 22 2006 @ 02:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by donwhite
Are you old enough, Mr GFAD, to know: Q. what the E-T-H-E-R was? A. It was the “medium” through which radio waves traveled. Until Niels Bohr invented quantum mechanics. He received the 1922 Nobel Prize in physics.


No Im not that old! I think what you are referring to is Luminiferous Aether ... as I remember it this was discredited by the Michelson-Morley experiment (well known by scientists as the most famous and influential failed experiment of all time!) not by Quantum Theory. Even though quantum theory still holds today the duality of light is still one of the most imposing questions in physics.

I dont really understand why you have brought it up! The only link I can see is that I brought up Bohrs Postulates which was a list of four contraints on the movements on electrons allowing their orbits to be calculated.



posted on Jul, 22 2006 @ 03:36 PM
link   
That Mouth should be wondering what occupied the inside of an atom reminded me of the early days of radio when people assumed there was some otherwise invisible medium through which the radio wave traveled. In the first decades of the 20th century this unknown was called “ether.” I was not living then either, but it was part of electronics lore in the 1950s. Perhaps because “ether” disappeared in the same time frame as Bohr, I thought the one was due to the other.

I appreciate your better explanation. I was not familiar with the proper explanation you furnished. “Gfad: I think what you are referring to is Luminiferous Aether . . as I remember it this was discredited by the Michelson-Morley experiment (well known by scientists as the most famous and influential failed experiment of all time!) not by Quantum Theory.” Thank you for the update.



posted on Jul, 23 2006 @ 10:42 AM
link   
gfad:


I think what you are referring to is Luminiferous Aether ... as I remember it this was discredited by the Michelson-Morley experiment (well known by scientists as the most famous and influential failed experiment of all time!) not by Quantum Theory. Even though quantum theory still holds today the duality of light is still one of the most imposing questions in physics.


Bugger!

I've had a good look on Google but I can't find it


...anyhow, I read an article in scientific american or wherever that said an experiement confirmed that "a gas is a solid" or "a gas is a liquid" or whatever it said and it referred to the Michelson-Morley experiment and that, based on this new evidence, that their Michelson-Morley experiment was actually valid.

Like I said, I can't prove this as I cannot find the article.

Will still keep looking though.

Cheers

JS




top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join