what is you're opinion about atoms? can a atom be cut forever in half?(math people) or that an atom can only cut to an atom because they are the smallest thing on earth?(science people)
an atom.
| pertra wrote: |
| what is you're opinion about atoms? can a atom be cut forever in half?(math people) or that an atom can only cut to an atom because they are the smallest thing on earth?(science people) |
OK Pertra, I'm giong to assume you have no real background in science, and that you are about 14 years old. If this is wrong then let me know (I need to know where to pitch this description to try and give you some information without scaring you witless with jargon and heavy duty physics).
Give me an hour or two to put some materials together and I'll post something then which should help
are you saying that i am dumb? also i am 15 and i was a question in school and i just wanted to see other peoples opinion buddy!
| pertra wrote: |
| are you saying that i am dumb? also i am 15 and i was a question in school and i just wanted to see other peoples opinion buddy! |
No I was not saying that....14 was not too bad a guess so don't be insulted - I didn't have much to go on.
The reason I wanted to know is that I am a middle-aged bloke - a teacher - and I didn't want to explain something at the wrong level. I could have thought you were a physics degree student, for example, and bamboozled you with stuff, or thought you were younger and patronised you with simple stuff. I was trying to avoid doing so. So don't have a cow man!!
If you just want a short answer :
an atom is the smallest unit of an element, where an element is a unique substance which is not a mixture of anything else. The elements are listed in the Periodic Table.
An atom can, however easily be divided further. An atom is made of a central 'nucleus' which is the meaty, heavy bit of the atom and is a bit like a vibrating blob - think of a drop of water on a hot cooker ring or pan, sizzling away but still in the shape of a sphere.
Circling around the nucleus are 'electrons'. These are very small and light (they weigh almost nothing) and they vibrate around the nucleaus in circular orbits, a little bit like planets orbiting the sun. Their orbits, though, are complete spheres rather than just one slice, so they can be anywhere in the three dimensions of a sphere. Imagine a tiny marble as the nucleus, the electrons would be wizzing and vibrating around in a shell - imagine a big beachball with the marble in the middle of it....the skin of the beachball would be the orbit of the electron(s) - there can be several electrons...
OK so far ?
Weird question to pose.
Lower levels of education is always a LIE >.< ok not always.
Anyways it's still weird question because splitting it in half over and over again would mean you are splitting it into two parts both the same, atoms aren't like a block of gold that if you kept splitting it, it's still blocks of gold.
So simply to answer first part, no you can't continuously split an atom over and over again and second part would be that electrons/protons/neutrons are the smallest things in the world that can't be broken down further. So yeah from above poster, atoms can be broken down into electrons/protons/neutrons but they won't have the same characteristics as that atom. (For physics buffs, please don't go further into quarks and for any string enthusiasts, don't step into that either because string theory hasn't been proven and it isn't technically a theory xP)
Lower levels of education is always a LIE >.< ok not always.
Anyways it's still weird question because splitting it in half over and over again would mean you are splitting it into two parts both the same, atoms aren't like a block of gold that if you kept splitting it, it's still blocks of gold.
So simply to answer first part, no you can't continuously split an atom over and over again and second part would be that electrons/protons/neutrons are the smallest things in the world that can't be broken down further. So yeah from above poster, atoms can be broken down into electrons/protons/neutrons but they won't have the same characteristics as that atom. (For physics buffs, please don't go further into quarks and for any string enthusiasts, don't step into that either because string theory hasn't been proven and it isn't technically a theory xP)
| DjinniFire wrote: |
| Weird question to pose.
Lower levels of education is always a LIE >.< ok not always. Anyways it's still weird question because splitting it in half over and over again would mean you are splitting it into two parts both the same, atoms aren't like a block of gold that if you kept splitting it, it's still blocks of gold. So simply to answer first part, no you can't continuously split an atom over and over again and second part would be that electrons/protons/neutrons are the smallest things in the world that can't be broken down further. So yeah from above poster, atoms can be broken down into electrons/protons/neutrons but they won't have the same characteristics as that atom. (For physics buffs, please don't go further into quarks and for any string enthusiasts, don't step into that either because string theory hasn't been proven and it isn't technically a theory xP) |
Withoug going into detail, as requested, here is a link to the complete model of particles. There are a lot more than the 3 mentioned (2 of which are not fundamental and can be 'split' - the neutron and proton - the other is fundamental - the electron - and cannot be split). I wont go into details but it is useful to have a reference in case you later want to take it a bit further:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_particles
One final point.
You don't prove science, you can't. To find out why you might like to check out the following links:
http://www.answers.com/topic/problem-of-induction
http://dieoff.org/page126.htm
Basically, if you just want a summary - you cannot prove something just by saying "Look it has done what I predicted a million times without error, therefore my theory must be right". To see why this is not right, consider a new law - "the sun will rise tomorrow". It has done so billions of times so it will do so tomorrow. The problem, of course, is that one day it won't, Scientific laws must do better than that....they are not supposed to be only good for a time and then wrong...
The solution was proposed by Karl Popper and involves flipping the problem on it's head.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl_Popper
http://www.eeng.dcu.ie/~tkpw/
Popper said that, yes, no number of observations can prove something right, for sure. 1 single observation can prove something wrong though. Since that time (early last century) scientists work by coming up with a new hypothesis that looks like it might be a law. S/he must then try their best to prove the hypothesis is wrong. Then their science mates have a go at demolishing it (called 'Refuting'). If it survives still, then the scientist will send his new hypothesis to a journal/magazine in his specialism, which specialises in publishing theories. The Journal will hire a team of top people in the field and pay them to prove the hypothesis is wrong. If they can't then it will probably be published in the journal. If so it can then correctly be called a law of science, or part of a wider theory of science. Until that point it is neither, and even now, if someone comes along in a week, or a year, or a century and manages to prove it wrong then it falls and must be discarded or re-done.
i know an atom is the smallest matter. my question was about other peoples opinion about atoms. i will say it again if you didnt under stand. ok for the math thinkers an atom can forever be cut in half. ok now the science thinkers an atom cannot be broken down because it is the smallest matter on earth.
now i want to know you're opinion about a atom. if it can be cut in half forever. or you will be left with an atom that cannot be broken down.
state you opinions please.
ok i see that you say an atom can be broken apart into its protons and its electrons and neutrons. but by physical means can it be cut in half. example like cutting a golf ball in half.
| pertra wrote: |
| ok i see that you say an atom can be broken apart into its protons and its electrons and neutrons. but by physical means can it be cut in half. example like cutting a golf ball in half. |
Basically correct. You can't 'cut' an atom because there is no blade fine enough.
It is relatively easy to split the electrons from the nucleus - this is known as Ionization and can be compared to a rocket leaving the earth - if you have enough energy it is possible to fire a rocket so that it escapes the gravity of earth completely. If you supply enough energy to an electron (the 'ionization potential'), the electron can break away from the attraction of the nucleus completely. Radiation of certain types (called Ionizing Radiation) can do this and such radiation is dangerous for this reason - it can cause this effect in important molecules, such as DNA, which can cause cells to become cancerous.
Splitting the nucleus itself is much more difficult and needs much more energy than ionization. It was first done by German scientists in 1938 and later used as the basis for the atomic bomb.
The process of splitting is more correctly known as 'fission' and is normally associated with splitting nuclei of heavy radioactive atoms such as Uranium and Plutonium. When the nucleus is split a tremendous amount of energy is released. The nucleus is 'held together' by a force known as the 'binding energy' which typically represents 1/10,000th to 1/100,000th of the total mass of the nucleus. When an atom is split it will form two or more new, lighter atoms. The total mass of the new atoms formed is slightly less than the mass of the original atom. The mass difference, when multiplied by the speed of light squared (e=mc^2) is the amount of energy liberated by the fission.
ok thank you i agree. any one else want to share there opinion about atoms?
Bikerman has dealt with most things above but, if we start from the simplest atom it is easy to show how their nuclei combine to produce heavier elements. Nuclear fusion, the opposite of fission, powers most of the observable universe: Sol converts millions of kilogrammes of hydrogen (H) nuclei (protons) to helium (He) in its 15 million-odd Kelvin degree core. Other fusion reactions there include H + Deuterium (D), H + Tritium (T), D + D, D + T, T + T and equivalent combinations of He and its isotopes.
These reaction products are available in small quantities and may further combine to yield Oxygen, Nitrogen and Carbon nuclei within Sol. (Heavier elements require a hotter furnace and the trace amounts of other material within Sol demonstrate it's a 2nd or 3rd generation star.)
The production of gold nuclei is interesting as it requires the explosive energy of a hypernova (e.g. SN2006gy) or the merging of multiple neutron stars. (Iron can be produced in 'ordinary' supernovae.)
These reaction products are available in small quantities and may further combine to yield Oxygen, Nitrogen and Carbon nuclei within Sol. (Heavier elements require a hotter furnace and the trace amounts of other material within Sol demonstrate it's a 2nd or 3rd generation star.)
The production of gold nuclei is interesting as it requires the explosive energy of a hypernova (e.g. SN2006gy) or the merging of multiple neutron stars. (Iron can be produced in 'ordinary' supernovae.)
| pertra wrote: |
| what is you're opinion about atoms? can a atom be cut forever in half?(math people) or that an atom can only cut to an atom because they are the smallest thing on earth?(science people) |
Well that all depends. The word atom comes from the Greek word for indivisible. In that sense, what we call an atom isn't truly an atom (because it is made of protons, neutrons, electrons, quarks, gluons etc.).
As far as cutting them in half forever, I don't believe you can. If you agree with String theory, at some point you get down to a string at which point it cannot be subdivided. Mathematicians never said the atom could be cut in half, just that any distance could be divided.
The atom isn't the smallest thing on earth, or for that matter anywhere in the Universe. It is the fundamental piece of an element. Nothing smaller retains the elements properties; however, as the atom is made up of stuff, it is clearly not the smallest piece of matter.
| pertra wrote: |
| what is you're opinion about atoms? can a atom be cut forever in half?(math people) or that an atom can only cut to an atom because they are the smallest thing on earth?(science people) |
An atom isn΄t the smallets thing on Earth. There are over 11 parts conforming the atom and of course, they are way smaller.
Off the topic a little bit but still related to atoms. Considering that atoms are predominantly empty space, everything is made up of mostly nothing. If the emptiness were extracted from a human they could fit inside a grain of sand and if the emptiness in the whole human race were extracted it could fit inside an apple.
Your not the first, you could be for the next one though
| Not by this user, for a contest!! wrote: |
| Don't ask Jeeves, ask the son of God.
Find the topic (Hint: Use Google) |
Your not the first, you could be for the next one though
| pertra wrote: |
| what is you're opinion about atoms? can a atom be cut forever in half?(math people) or that an atom can only cut to an atom because they are the smallest thing on earth?(science people) |
well if you take a laser, you can cut an atom up to 16x. With a chainsaw...eh, youd be lucky to slice it 3!
seriously tho theorectially you can cut it into subatomic particles, Im not sure but I don't think you can split nuons and quarks tho...
| EanofAthenasPrime wrote: |
| I don't think you can split nuons and quarks tho... |
I've always wondered if it was possible to spit quarks and etc.
| breebree wrote: | ||
|
| greatfire wrote: |
| I've always wondered if it was possible to spit quarks and etc. |
It is very unlikely that things like quarks and leptons (which include muons and electrons) can be subdivided.
The reason is that these elementary particles actually don't have any size. They are - as far as we know given current physics - simply points in space with no dimension. They are not "balls" or spheres... or rather, you can say they are spheres with a 0 radius. You can't split a point. There's nothing "inside" a point.
We don't know exactly what makes elementary particles different if they have no substructure. For example, we don't know why an electron is different from an up quark if there's nothing "inside" them to make them different. But string theory suggests that all elementary particles are how we observe what are really one-dimensional "strings" that are vibrating in higher dimensions. Even though there is only one kind of "string", different vibrational modes in different dimensions are what cause the differences that make an electron behave differently from an up quark.
Of course, string theory is really just on the fringe of physics - it's far too early to say whether or not it will even be useful. And it is really impossible to prove that leptons and quarks are actually points in space without any size or substructure. Nevertheless, the evidence is strong and because there is no reason to assume any size or substructure to leptons or quarks - the interactions of their various fields (Higgs, electromagnetic, etc.) explain everything without requiring size or substructure - Ockham's razor tells us that we shouldn't assume any size or substructure.
 |