Understanding atoms.

[LukeMC]

Medicine always seemed too competetive for me to stand a chance in- and expensive. But I do hope to be a scientist of some sort. All 4 of my subjects fascinate me, so I could go a number of ways from here. Physics is my favourite of the subjects, but without mathematics no higher course would accept me. Boo
I might end up in some sort of biopsychology or biochemistry. I could research abiogenesis

[Purple Rabbit]

As for the proton looking like a planet- I doubt it. The atom used to be represented as a ball, but now we know it is mostly empty space. I do believe that the proton is very much the same. It is comprised of 3 smaller parts, so definately won't resemble a sphere.

Before string theory elementary particles like the electron, the gluon and the quark where considered to be point particles, i.e. particles with no spatial extension. String theory proposes stringlike inner structure for elementary particles. But don't think of strings as really elastic bands. It's just a model people need to visualize, that more or less fits the mathematical model of these stringlike things.

[CoxRox]

I'm well and truly bamboozled.

[Edwardo Piet]

So it wouldn't be an atom any more?

I heard the original definition of an atom back in ancient Greece by Democritus just meant the smallest possible thing. He called them atoms because the word atom is called that because it comes from the Greek word atomos which is Greek for indivisible So if strings exist in string theory would that mean they are by the original definition atoms, if they are the smallest possible thing?
Weren't the newer definition of atoms called atoms because it was thought that science would probably never find anything smaller or something? So atoms are atoms but the smallest things of all (smaller than atoms) are also atoms by the original definition?
I have been wondering what anyone here's opinion is on the clash between the original Greek definition of the 'atom' and how its defined today?

[Darwinian]

CoxRox: You should change your Religious Views entry to 'The answer lies in physics', because I think this is the way you are going

As far as the solar system view of the atom is concerned, this is just a simply way to understand it from our point of view.

In reality, the atom doesn't actually 'look' like anything. The trouble arises when you try to look at an atom. In order to see it you have to shine light at it. The wavelength of light is much larger than an atom and so the waves simply go around the atom.

When you try to reduce the wavelength so that the photons will actually bounce off the atom you get into the problem of actually moving the electrons around with your beam of light (or photons), hence the famous Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle.

[Tiberius]

So it wouldn't be an atom any more?

I heard the original definition of an atom back in ancient Greece by Democritus just meant the smallest possible thing. He called them atoms because the word atom is called that because it comes from the Greek word atomos which is Greek for indivisible So if strings exist in string theory would that mean they are by the original definition atoms, if they are the smallest possible thing?
Weren't the newer definition of atoms called atoms because it was thought that science would probably never find anything smaller or something? So atoms are atoms but the smallest things of all (smaller than atoms) are also atoms by the original definition?
I have been wondering what anyone here's opinion is on the clash between the original Greek definition of the 'atom' and how its defined today?

Atoms were first thought to be the smallest possible thing, so they were named after the appropriate greek word. However when scientists split the atom (and also found eletrons, etc) they realised they were wrong. There was no sense changing the word though...it had kinda stuck

[CoxRox]

So we don't really know what an atom with it's particles looks like? That would be a shame! I want to see them....

[Edwardo Piet]

I'm glad you're not one of those believers who just is happy to "live in mystery" CR. Who is happy is ignorance. I'm glad you like to understand and know things - you're not happy with some things to simply "live in mystery" it seems.
I'm like that, I love the awe of mystery, but I want to understand the mystery. And half of that awe is the desire to understand the mystery. Not to "live in it".
Evf

[CoxRox]

I've been thinking about atoms and sub atomic particles again, and how they 'evolved'. How did these particles come together and get 'locked' by the various forces etc and then make atoms? Wouldn't it be a lot of coincidences, occurring over and over, for particles to come together, in just the right order etc, to create atoms?

[Darwinian]

I suggest that it was pure chance, or luck, depending upon your point of view.

Imagine if they hadn't come together in quite the way that they did. Then the universe would be unstable and incapable of supporting life and you wouldn't be here to ask the question.

Or, you would be asking the same question of a slightly different universe. I can imagine that there are an infinite number of universes out there in hyperspace and only by chance do some of them create stable enough environments for life to evolve and ask these questions.