lemur Posted April 19, 2011 Share Posted April 19, 2011 (edited) This is a response to an emerging discussion in another thread about the common claim that most of an atom consists of empty space. My question is whether it makes sense to attribute any volume at all to the constituent point-particles or if that's like claiming that 0-dimensional points make up a small amount of volume in a 3D object. Can electrons, protons, and neutrons be described as having volume and "empty space" or do they generate volume/space with their energetic interactions: from previous thread: Nuclei have fairly well-defined sizes, many orders of magnitude smaller than atomic sizes. Ok, but nuclei are configurations of particles, not particles themselves, right? I'm just wondering if there's any basis to that assumption that the particles themselves constitute some amount of the atom's volume that isn't "empty space?" It seems like the fact that the particles move around with energy is what creates volume, which I supposed is why they are regarded as waves (i.e. patterns of motion among otherwise volumeless particles). Doesn't that make sense? Edited April 19, 2011 by lemur Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
khaled Posted April 20, 2011 Share Posted April 20, 2011 (edited) Hard to imagine ..? Atoms protons and neutrons are tied together making the central sphere inside the atom, electrons flies circularly around the center ... Forcing electrons to move between atoms started to idea of electricity, messing with the center of the atom was messing with the unity of the atom itself, In the Center of the Atom, I don't think there is any space .. but the space is between the inner spherical center of the atom and its final level of power ... But the question is, what are electrons, protons, and neutrons from the inside ... Edited April 20, 2011 by khaled Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swansont Posted April 21, 2011 Share Posted April 21, 2011 Electrons are point particles and protons and neutrons are not. Scattering experiments demonstrate a size of the electron consistent with zero. Proton size can be determined by the charge distribution and the effect it has on atomic structure, and also by scattering experiments. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lemur Posted April 21, 2011 Author Share Posted April 21, 2011 Electrons are point particles and protons and neutrons are not. Scattering experiments demonstrate a size of the electron consistent with zero. Proton size can be determined by the charge distribution and the effect it has on atomic structure, and also by scattering experiments. I don't see the distinction from the way you explain it. An electron has a charge distribution just like a proton, right? As for the other two reason, why do they imply volume? In what sense are any of these particles 3D? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swansont Posted April 21, 2011 Share Posted April 21, 2011 I don't see the distinction from the way you explain it. An electron has a charge distribution just like a proton, right? As for the other two reason, why do they imply volume? In what sense are any of these particles 3D? An electron is a point. It has no charge distribution; that would imply it has a size. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lemur Posted April 21, 2011 Author Share Posted April 21, 2011 An electron is a point. It has no charge distribution; that would imply it has a size. I don't understand. If two electrons are approaching one another, they don't become increasingly repelled from each other the closer they get? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swansont Posted April 21, 2011 Share Posted April 21, 2011 I don't understand. If two electrons are approaching one another, they don't become increasingly repelled from each other the closer they get? Yes. What has that got to do with whether their charge is localized to a point or not? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lemur Posted April 21, 2011 Author Share Posted April 21, 2011 (edited) Yes. What has that got to do with whether their charge is localized to a point or not? I think of an electron as a negatively charged electrostatic field that somehow has mass. I see mass as a gravitational field that somehow has inertia. I assume that these fields are basically regions of varying force-potential that get activated by interacting with other 'particles.' The only reason it seems to have a, "point," imo, is because the field-force extends in all direction with an "interior" that converges at a point of strongest intesity (I assume). However, I don't have the idea that the 'point' itself is anything except the center of the force-fields. For it to be a thing with volume, it would have to be a tiny 3D object with surface area, inside/outside, etc. but I think that seems like a projection from a perspective that distinguishes matter from force at the level of observable objects. Edited April 21, 2011 by lemur Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swansont Posted April 21, 2011 Share Posted April 21, 2011 I think of an electron as a negatively charged electrostatic field that somehow has mass. I see mass as a gravitational field that somehow has inertia. I assume that these fields are basically regions of varying force-potential that get activated by interacting with other 'particles.' The only reason it seems to have a, "point," imo, is because the field-force extends in all direction with an "interior" that converges at a point of strongest intesity (I assume). However, I don't have the idea that the 'point' itself is anything except the center of the force-fields. For it to be a thing with volume, it would have to be a tiny 3D object with surface area, inside/outside, etc. but I think that seems like a projection from a perspective that distinguishes matter from force at the level of observable objects. If you want to discuss science, you have to use the agreed-upon definitions and models everyone else uses. If you want to object to the statement that atoms are mostly empty space because you've reinterpreted what it means to have volume and what is meant by empty space and made up your own model, then I don't care to discuss it with you. It's not worth the effort. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lemur Posted April 21, 2011 Author Share Posted April 21, 2011 If you want to discuss science, you have to use the agreed-upon definitions and models everyone else uses. If you want to object to the statement that atoms are mostly empty space because you've reinterpreted what it means to have volume and what is meant by empty space and made up your own model, then I don't care to discuss it with you. It's not worth the effort. I'm not making up definitions. I'm question the coherence of existing ones. What does "point-particle" refer to except 0-dimensional points? What does "mostly empty space" imply except for the idea that there is some amount of 3D space taken up by these particles that is different than the volume they stake out with their relative positions? If there is some interpretation that I am somehow re-interpreting, please let me know - but as far as I know I was just questioning the logic of known claims and definitions. When my conceptions/definitions diverge with what experts know, of course I want to know because I'm probably the one who has it wrong. That doesn't mean, though, that I can't be right in finding a logical gap in expert knowledge, does it? Sometimes it seems like people are more concerned with asserting the validity of knowledge than with critically exploring it. I don't see how that is conducive to good science/learning. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
michel123456 Posted April 22, 2011 Share Posted April 22, 2011 An electron is a point. It has no charge distribution; that would imply it has a size. Do you mean an electron is a 1D object? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swansont Posted April 22, 2011 Share Posted April 22, 2011 Do you mean an electron is a 1D object? No, unless you do some esoteric redefinition of size, it's a point; there is no internal structure to it. If you do scattering experiments, there is no "hard sphere" scattering result, and in a penning trap there is no effect that one gets from having the charge spread out over some volume. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
michel123456 Posted April 22, 2011 Share Posted April 22, 2011 (edited) By 1D I mean it is a moving point. Edited April 22, 2011 by michel123456 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
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