Our server costs ~$56 per month to run. Please consider donating or becoming a Patron to help keep the site running. Help us gain new members by following us on Twitter and liking our page on Facebook!
Current time: March 29, 2024, 2:38 am

Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Understanding atoms.
#21
RE: Understanding atoms.
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 Tongue
I might end up in some sort of biopsychology or biochemistry. I could research abiogenesis Tongue
Reply
#22
RE: Understanding atoms.
(December 17, 2008 at 4:06 pm)LukeMC Wrote: 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.
"I'm like a rabbit suddenly trapped, in the blinding headlights of vacuous crap" - Tim Minchin in "Storm"
Christianity is perfect bullshit, christians are not - Purple Rabbit, honouring CS Lewis
Faith is illogical - fr0d0
Reply
#23
RE: Understanding atoms.
I'm well and truly bamboozled. Tongue
"The eternal mystery of the world is its comprehensibility"

Albert Einstein
Reply
#24
RE: Understanding atoms.
(December 17, 2008 at 3:13 pm)CoxRox Wrote: 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?
Reply
#25
RE: Understanding atoms.
CoxRox: You should change your Religious Views entry to 'The answer lies in physics', because I think this is the way you are going Smile

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.
[Image: cinjin_banner_border.jpg]
Reply
#26
RE: Understanding atoms.
(December 17, 2008 at 9:28 pm)EvidenceVsFaith Wrote:
(December 17, 2008 at 3:13 pm)CoxRox Wrote: 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 Tongue
Reply
#27
RE: Understanding atoms.
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....Big Grin
"The eternal mystery of the world is its comprehensibility"

Albert Einstein
Reply
#28
RE: Understanding atoms.
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". Smile
Evf
Reply
#29
RE: Understanding atoms.
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?
"The eternal mystery of the world is its comprehensibility"

Albert Einstein
Reply
#30
RE: Understanding atoms.
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.
[Image: cinjin_banner_border.jpg]
Reply



Possibly Related Threads...
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  How are Atoms Differentiated When Quanta are Not? Rhondazvous 5 1078 June 1, 2016 at 1:02 pm
Last Post: brewer
Bug Problems understanding naturalistically the beginning of the universe Wryetui 112 13532 May 17, 2016 at 11:55 am
Last Post: veoli
  Evidence of cosmic inflation expands understanding of universe’s origins tor 3 1467 March 22, 2014 at 9:07 pm
Last Post: Zen Badger
  Atoms energy expansion Marsellus Wallace 6 1421 March 10, 2014 at 5:19 am
Last Post: Alex K
  Atoms up close Euler 8 2455 February 14, 2013 at 10:41 am
Last Post: ManMachine
  understanding time jackman 20 10533 July 22, 2012 at 11:02 am
Last Post: C.W. Sims
  Single atoms isolated! theVOID 7 3469 September 28, 2010 at 10:39 pm
Last Post: theVOID



Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)