I am a primary science presenter and teach KS1 and 2 science. Often I am approached with amazing questions thought up by 7 year olds.

 

One of these questions has me baffled and I wonder if anyone can help

 

When explaining molecules I was asked what is inbetween molecules? We were discussing solids, liquids and gases. Myself and my collegues have been thinking about this for a while now and are unsure?

 

It can't be nothing! Physically it can't be a vacuum, can it??

 

Any Ideas??

That is a cool question. Kids rock sometimes. This thread may get better answers in the Chemistry forum, but in General Discussion I'll give it a try (I'm not formally trained in chemistry, so please take my comments with a grain of salt).

 

It would seem that the space "in between molecules" is an aggregate of forces, all pushing and pulling on each other. There is going to be little or no mass, except perhaps those particle/antiparticle pairs that are alwasy popping into and out of existence (like the ones around black holes that Stephen Hawking determined could lead to BH evaporation).

 

Otherwise, it's just empty. Forces and the occasional quauntum doodad... but, after that, it's like anywhere else in the universe that is more "empty" than "containing substance."

 

 

This is all, of course, premised on the idea that our current models are correct. Clearly, new discoveries on things like dark matter and dark energy or even Higgs bosons could very well change all of this, and we may one day find out that the emptiness is truly itself a rich canvas of activity and change. Who knows, right?

 

Sorry... I probably didn't help much. I could barely pull my sentences together in a meaningful way, let alone in a way that a 7 year old can understand. Hopefully someone more educated than me on this can come in and offer up something more clear.

 

Enjoy. Thanks for helping bring science to the kids of the world. I salute that greatly.

It can't be nothing! Physically it can't be a vacuum, can it??

Why do you think it could not be vacuum, i.e. no other molecules/atoms? If you skip all unnecessary complication then "vacuum", in the sense of "nothing", is a decent answer to the question. Note however, that the term "vacuum" is usually used on larger length-scales and also for volumes that can have a few (but relatively little) molecules in them.

IMHO the best thing to tell them is that it is currently a matter of scientific investigation but that our best explanations at this point are those presented above, i.e. there is nothing so far as we know......

there`s only forces between them.

the problem comes when we think of molecules on a large scale (like we see them in a textbook as 3d or stick diagrams etc...) and imagine them floating around in front of us as such images.

to say there is nothing as in "No Thing" between them isn`t strictly inaccurate.

but it`s helpful to never lose sight of the fact that these are really tiny and very fast moving/vibrating particles that our textbook based imagination of these is actually flawed.

Between molecules, you can think of molecules being seperated by space. A more technical answer, you could come out with virtual particles being exchanged between molecules...

 

The exchange of energy between molecules are due to the angular momentum of their constituents: atoms. In an angular momentum, energy will be exchanged in [math]t_1[/math] to [math]t_2[/math] in a time of [math]0<r<t<c[/math], so you could say the space between molecules have particles whizzing back and forth, sharing energy with other molecules.

I think the more important underlying question is:

"Do particles like protons, neutrons, electrons have an outer shell (like an egg)?"

 

I always understood (read: I'm not sure!) that the particles actually don't have a hard shell, but in stead have a density distribution with a peak in the center of the particle.

 

The density approaches zero asymptotically as you move away from the center of the particle, meaning that it's never completely zero. Therefore, there is no "between the particles".

I think the more important underlying question is:

"Do particles like protons, neutrons, electrons have an outer shell (like an egg)?"

 

I always understood (read: I'm not sure!) that the particles actually don't have a hard shell, but in stead have a density distribution with a peak in the center of the particle.

 

The density approaches zero asymptotically as you move away from the center of the particle, meaning that it's never completely zero. Therefore, there is no "between the particles".

 

I would like to see you explain that to a first grader;)

I think the more important underlying question is:

"Do particles like protons, neutrons, electrons have an outer shell (like an egg)?"

 

I always understood (read: I'm not sure!) that the particles actually don't have a hard shell, but in stead have a density distribution with a peak in the center of the particle.

 

The density approaches zero asymptotically as you move away from the center of the particle, meaning that it's never completely zero. Therefore, there is no "between the particles".

 

There are some models that deal with a shell, such as positroniums, with an outer shell, containing an electron and a positron whizzing around; so the shell contains the momentum of the particles.

I think nothing is the most appropriate answer.

 

I'd also disagree that it's under debate, vacuum fluctuations and virtual particles are quite well understood.

What is in between molecules???

 

Space.

 

Distance.

 

Other molecules.

I am a primary science presenter and teach KS1 and 2 science. Often I am approached with amazing questions thought up by 7 year olds.

 

One of these questions has me baffled and I wonder if anyone can help

 

When explaining molecules I was asked what is inbetween molecules? We were discussing solids, liquids and gases. Myself and my collegues have been thinking about this for a while now and are unsure?

 

It can't be nothing! Physically it can't be a vacuum, can it??

 

Any Ideas??

 

when two same atoms react with each other they form molecule for example O + O reacts and gives O2, when two different atoms react with each other they form molecule of compound

for example, H2 + O gives H2O

and this always happens by intermolecular force of attraction between the particles, in solid suppose ice, intermolecular force of attraction is pretty high in liquid intermolecular force of attraction is less and in gaseous state intermolecular force of attraction is negligible>

 

Key Concept: so in between molecules there is intermolecular force of attraction

What's inside an atom? a proton is 1×10^−15m and a hydrogen is ~10×10^−10m.

 

Tell them that there are particle forces that occupy some space. Besides that "dark matter" and other transient particle junk.

 

Otherwise it's not a "vacuum" it is a "void". Vacuums refer to lack of gas. Light particles travel trough a "vacuum" quite readily.

 

Scratch that. Tell them that's where God is.

when two same atoms react with each other they form molecule for example O + O reacts and gives O2, when two different atoms react with each other they form molecule of compound

for example, H2 + O gives H2O

and this always happens by intermolecular force of attraction between the particles, in solid suppose ice, intermolecular force of attraction is pretty high in liquid intermolecular force of attraction is less and in gaseous state intermolecular force of attraction is negligible>

 

Key Concept: so in between molecules there is intermolecular force of attraction

 

I appreciate your intent to help out, but that post was completely and entirely unhelpful and can quite possibly add more confusion to the matter. "force" is not what the original poster was looking for. You can't hold "force" in your hand. It is not matter.

 

The question had already been answered multiple times in this thread and the answer is "nothing". In between molecules and atoms is nothing. Empty space.

I think the best answer so far is from captain panic.

 

However, you're right that it would be rather difficult to explain that to a first-grader, although perhaps less difficult than we imagine. I was often astounded at the things younger children can grasp when an adult would question the concept to death.

 

Possibly the best first-grader way to write it would be to explain that things get a bit fuzzy at the atomic scale, and it's hard to say exactly where the edge of a particle is or even where the particle itself is or where it's going. tell them it's an awesome question and one that people are still investigating now and that if they want to know more the should study quantum mechanics when they get older (or in their spare time if they're particularly precocious).

 

And yes, elmejor, Please don't answer people's questions unless two criteria are met: 1) the question hasn't already been answered fully 2) the best answer you can give is complimentary to the answers already given or better than those already given.

Kids are quite curious they ask funny questions. but they have a right to know...