Mostly empty space?

[rrw4rusty]

Hi!

 

I've heard that the quantum world is mostly empty space. I need a way to visualize how much and, at different levels. In thinking about this I immediately hit the 1st problem; of what substance, in what state and at what temperature. Then, at the molecular, atomic or sub-atomic level?

 

So how about this... in the following I am always talking about a solid (not gas, liquid or plasma) at 72 degrees Fahrenheit. I'll take anything any body knows as long as its using somekind of a comparative scale.

 

Some 'completely made up' examples of what I'm looking for:

(Molecular Level)

* If an iron molecule were 1 inch in diameter, each molecule would be 2 inches apart.

 

(Atomic level)

* if the average size of atoms within an iron molecule were 1 inch in diameter the average distance between atoms within an iron molecule would be 5 inches.

 

(Sub-atomic level)

* If the atomic nucleus of an atom were one inch then the average distance that an orbiting electron would be 27 ft.

* If a proton were one inch in diameter then the distance between a proton and a neutron would be 5 inches

* if proton were 3 feet across then it would have 2 quarks which would be .5 inches across and would be on average 1 foot apart.

* if an atom were the size of the solar system then a sting would be the size of a tree (this one I heard somewhere)

 

Do you kind of see what I'm looking for? fAny kind of information like the above on anything that anyone has would be greatly appreciated!

 

Thanks!

Rusty

[toastywombel]

Hi!

 

I've heard that the quantum world is mostly empty space. I need a way to visualize how much and, at different levels. In thinking about this I immediately hit the 1st problem; of what substance, in what state and at what temperature. Then, at the molecular, atomic or sub-atomic level?

 

So how about this... in the following I am always talking about a solid (not gas, liquid or plasma) at 72 degrees Fahrenheit. I'll take anything any body knows as long as its using somekind of a comparative scale.

 

Some 'completely made up' examples of what I'm looking for:

(Molecular Level)

* If an iron molecule were 1 inch in diameter, each molecule would be 2 inches apart.

 

(Atomic level)

* if the average size of atoms within an iron molecule were 1 inch in diameter the average distance between atoms within an iron molecule would be 5 inches.

 

(Sub-atomic level)

* If the atomic nucleus of an atom were one inch then the average distance that an orbiting electron would be 27 ft.

* If a proton were one inch in diameter then the distance between a proton and a neutron would be 5 inches

* if proton were 3 feet across then it would have 2 quarks which would be .5 inches across and would be on average 1 foot apart.

* if an atom were the size of the solar system then a sting would be the size of a tree (this one I heard somewhere)

 

Do you kind of see what I'm looking for? fAny kind of information like the above on anything that anyone has would be greatly appreciated!

 

Thanks!

Rusty

 

Many scientists use to believe that the quantum world is full of empty space, but our view of empty space is starting to change. Especially since the concepts of virtual-particles that really took-off with Bekenstein-Hawking radiation.

 

It is believed that empty space is not nothing, its more an expression of an anti-particle, particle pair. These are called virtual pairs. Here are some links, the first one about hawking radiation the second about virtual pairs.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hawking_radiation

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virtual_particle

 

Finally, I don't know for sure but I am leaning to believe that your scales of atoms and subatomic particles are in-accurate. I always thought that the atoms nuclei were much bigger than the scale you mentioned, compared to electrons, and that electrons are much further away from the nuclei than the scale you used. I do not know for sure and I am in somewhat of a hurry so I'll leave that to someone else.

 

Hope this helps!

[rrw4rusty]

Many scientists use to believe that the quantum world is full of empty space, but our view of empty space is starting to change. Especially since the concepts of virtual-particles that really took-off with Bekenstein-Hawking radiation.

 

It is believed that empty space is not nothing, its more an expression of an anti-particle, particle pair. These are called virtual pairs. Here are some links, the first one about hawking radiation the second about virtual pairs.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hawking_radiation

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virtual_particle

 

Finally, I don't know for sure but I am leaning to believe that your scales of atoms and subatomic particles are in-accurate. I always thought that the atoms nuclei were much bigger than the scale you mentioned, compared to electrons, and that electrons are much further away from the nuclei than the scale you used. I do not know for sure and I am in somewhat of a hurry so I'll leave that to someone else.

 

Hope this helps!

 

Darn, I ambushed myself in two ways!

 

1. I know about VPPs filling the 'empty' space, to get the answer I am looking for these must be ignored or excluded. Or, perhaps I should be asking how much space is left for VPPs.

 

2. All the 'examples' I used were MADE UP and are only EXAMPLES. They or all WRONG (of right then I just lucked out). I wanted to show the kind of info I wanted (what I didn't want was data I wouldn't understand or could not grasp or picture). I wanted things I could visualize.

 

So, all of this in my OP:

-------------------------------------------

Some 'completely made up' examples of what I'm looking for:

(Molecular Level)

* If an iron molecule were 1 inch in diameter, each molecule would be 2 inches apart.

 

(Atomic level)

* if the average size of atoms within an iron molecule were 1 inch in diameter the average distance between atoms within an iron molecule would be 5 inches.

 

(Sub-atomic level)

* If the atomic nucleus of an atom were one inch then the average distance that an orbiting electron would be 27 ft.

* If a proton were one inch in diameter then the distance between a proton and a neutron would be 5 inches

* if proton were 3 feet across then it would have 2 quarks which would be .5 inches across and would be on average 1 foot apart.

* if an atom were the size of the solar system then a sting would be the size of a tree (this one I heard somewhere)

--------------------------------------------

 

Are only EXAMPLES of what I am looking for, nothing more. I do not know any of this -- it is what I'm seeking.

 

Thanks! And sorry for outsmarting myself, lol!

Rusty

[swansont]

If you know the lattice structure of the substance, you can find the spacing from the density — you know how much volume a mole of atoms takes up. The size of the atom isn't really a well-formed concept in this context, because atoms are not hard spheres like marbles; if you have a covalent bond you are sharing electrons, so in that regard you'd have to say the atom's size is half of the bond length, but that will be different than of you had an unboundl atom.

[toastywombel]

Here is the frame of reference you were maybe looking for, I got it off of this website http://www.davidparker.com/janine/nucleus.html. It is referring to Rutherford's model of the atom.

 

" Rutherford used his theory to estimate the size of the nucleus. He found it was less than 6 X 10^-14, or 0.00000000000006 meters across. Today we know it is about a fifth that size. The atom is about 10^-10 meters across, nearly 10,000 times the size of the nucleus. The nucleus fills less than a billionth of the atom's volume.

 

Here was a picture of the atom nobody had imagined--a vast, nearly empty space with a tiny charged sphere in the center. If the nucleus were the size of a marble, then the atom would be nearly one kilometer (0.6 mile), across. Somewhere in that space were even tinier electrons. In a few strokes of the pen, Rutherford had transformed the solid world around us into empty space. "

 

Hope this helps

[rrw4rusty]

Here is the frame of reference you were maybe looking for, I got it off of this website http://www.davidparker.com/janine/nucleus.html. It is referring to Rutherford's model of the atom.

 

" Rutherford used his theory to estimate the size of the nucleus. He found it was less than 6 X 10^-14, or 0.00000000000006 meters across. Today we know it is about a fifth that size. The atom is about 10^-10 meters across, nearly 10,000 times the size of the nucleus. The nucleus fills less than a billionth of the atom's volume.

 

Here was a picture of the atom nobody had imagined--a vast, nearly empty space with a tiny charged sphere in the center. If the nucleus were the size of a marble, then the atom would be nearly one kilometer (0.6 mile), across. Somewhere in that space were even tinier electrons. In a few strokes of the pen, Rutherford had transformed the solid world around us into empty space. "

 

Hope this helps

 

Thanks! It helps!

[Sorcerer]

Its really hard to visualise at the quantum level because particles are shown as probability distributions, never really in one discrete place (unless u force them to be by measurement) but smeared out. And that kinda bugs me too, because it implies we exert some kind of will on the universe, changing its nature by observation.

 

I cba looking up stuff at the moment, but a rough guide is an atom (not H+) is 99.9999% empty space, primarily because the electron shells are massive compared to the nucleus.