handrail Posted March 31, 2009 Posted March 31, 2009 Is it possible to have a shadow effect within a crystal latice at a atomic level ? ie can one atom be shielded from the effects of photons by a intervening atom.
GDG Posted April 1, 2009 Posted April 1, 2009 Probably not. When doing x-ray crystallography, one rotates the crystal bit by bit over more than 180[math]^{o}[/math]. If an atom was "hiding" behind another, it should show up at some point when illuminated from a different angle.
einstein's bro Posted April 9, 2009 Posted April 9, 2009 Probably not. When doing x-ray crystallography, one rotates the crystal bit by bit over more than 180[math]^{o}[/math]. If an atom was "hiding" behind another, it should show up at some point when illuminated from a different angle. my thoughts exactly
jake.com Posted April 19, 2009 Posted April 19, 2009 Probably not. When doing x-ray crystallography, one rotates the crystal bit by bit over more than 180[math]^{o}[/math]. If an atom was "hiding" behind another, it should show up at some point when illuminated from a different angle. You said probably. Can you think of some hypothetical situations where this might occur? In an extremely large molecule maybe? Like maitotoxin? or a water molecule structure?
swansont Posted April 19, 2009 Posted April 19, 2009 You have Beer's law, which says that macroscopically the intensity drops off exponentially. Atoms near the surface are more likely to interact.
jake.com Posted April 19, 2009 Posted April 19, 2009 You have Beer's law, which says that macroscopically the intensity drops off exponentially. Atoms near the surface are more likely to interact. What?
swansont Posted April 20, 2009 Posted April 20, 2009 [math]I = I_0 e^{-\alpha x}[/math] Light gets absorbed, and this is more likely at the surface of a material. Interior atoms are shielded.
jake.com Posted April 20, 2009 Posted April 20, 2009 [math]I = I_0 e^{-\alpha x}[/math] Light gets absorbed, and this is more likely at the surface of a material. Interior atoms are shielded. So, pretty much, the closer to the interior you are as an atom, the less light that can possibly reach the surface of the atom. This equation is just explaining mathmatically why you get less light if you're further away, right?
swansont Posted April 20, 2009 Posted April 20, 2009 (edited) So, pretty much, the closer to the interior you are as an atom, the less light that can possibly reach the surface of the atom. This equation is just explaining mathmatically why you get less light if you're further away, right? The equation is for a bulk material, not a single atom. If you shine light on a material, the amount that penetrates falls off as an exponential. Edited April 21, 2009 by swansont fix typo
jake.com Posted April 21, 2009 Posted April 21, 2009 The equation is for a bulk material, not a single atom. If you shine light on a material, the amount that penetrates falls of as an exponential. So its an exponetial decay equation? I'm just learning that in Algebra II
swansont Posted April 21, 2009 Posted April 21, 2009 So its an exponetial decay equation? I'm just learning that in Algebra II That's right.
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now