Chemistry

[akash shrestha]

Has anyone seen an atom yet, in real?

Edited October 16, 2011 by akash shrestha

[John Cuthber]

Define "seen".

Atoms are too small to see, but it's possible to get pictures of them by using electron microscopes or x ray holography.

[Napoleon]

Here you go.

 

http://en.wikipedia....ling_microscope

Edited October 16, 2011 by Napoleon

[akash shrestha]

I meant the similar picture of atom as shown in this link with microscope

http://sciencespot.net/Media/atom2.jpg

Edited October 26, 2011 by akash shrestha

[Caesius]

I meant the similar picture of atom as shown in this link with microscope

http://sciencespot.net/Media/atom2.jpg

 

No, we cannot "prove" that atoms exist. But we have some pretty good evidence through indirect means.

[Greippi]

Out of interest, Caesius, what would be needed to "prove" they exist?

[small bang]

This is just a diagram of what we know what is included in an atom. With protons and neutron in the middle and electrons on the outside, we don't know if an atom actually looks like this as it's so small.

[Seiryuu]

Out of interest, Caesius, what would be needed to "prove" they exist?

 

I would presume that we would have to observe atoms without the aid of any microscoping instrument. There have been many models of the atom throughout the centuries, and our idea of the electron shell and the nucleus may not hold in the next 500 years.

[Cinimod105]

To do so, we have to understand the definition of 'real'. From what I know, all the theories we are learning today are simply proposed explanations for the different macroscopic phenomena that humans have observed. Thus, they may or may not be true. If something happens which does not comply with our current scientific model, then it would have to be altered. Similarly, the idea of atoms is simply what humans invented to explain the various physical properties of the things around us. To answer the original question, we are actually seeing atoms all around us, just that we are not seeing individual atoms, but rather, we see them bonded to one another to form the various compounds we use daily.

[Axioms]

To answer the original question, we are actually seeing atoms all around us, just that we are not seeing individual atoms, but rather, we see them bonded to one another to form the various compounds we use daily.

 

The amount of space in atoms is vast. What we see is the reflection of light that is absorbed by our theoretical view of atoms.

 

 

akash shrestha

Lepton I meant the similar picture of atom as shown in this link with microscope

http://sciencespot.net/Media/atom2.jpg

 

In my understanding we will never be able to see the structure described in the picture. In order to see the atom we have to emit light, elecromagnetic radiation, which has energy known as quanta, which the atoms absorb and emits. If we can find a way to look at atoms without projecting light onto it we might see the structure or we might find something completely different. You can look up the atomic line spectra if you want to know more details.

 

Greippi

Baryon Out of interest, Caesius, what would be needed to "prove" they exist?

 

We have an idea that atoms behave in a certain manner. We defined a situation where we can measure these ideas which seems to be very appropriate in what we observe. The atom bomb would be an example of the calculations behind the theory of atoms. We cannot prove that atoms exist in the sence of our depictions of the structure of the atom. If we could see electrons in orbit around a nucleus would be an acceptable proof. Unfortunately we cannot do that.

[John Cuthber]

" What we see is the reflection of light that is absorbed by our theoretical view of atoms. "

What?

Was that meant to mean something?

My theoretical view of atoms is a very abstract concept. It doesn't absorb light.

Any light that was absorbed by it would be destroyed by that absorption- it wouldn't be reflected.

Having been absorbed it wouldn't be there to see.

[Axioms]

" What we see is the reflection of light that is absorbed by our theoretical view of atoms. "

What?

Was that meant to mean something?

My theoretical view of atoms is a very abstract concept. It doesn't absorb light.

Any light that was absorbed by it would be destroyed by that absorption- it wouldn't be reflected.

Having been absorbed it wouldn't be there to see.

 

 

It is supposed to mean something. It was in reply to a quote about how we see bonded atoms. It explains the physical aspects of touch but not why we can see it. Out of context it doesn't make as much sense. I should have explained it in more detail or just worded it properly so I do appologise. If we were to see the atoms bonded with out a light source we would see empty spaces. Light "fills"these empty spaces.

 

If compounds did not absorb light it would be a "very reflective" world. For an object to appear to have no reflection, or very little reflection, the incoming light source frequency is the same as, or very close to, the vibration frequency of the electrons in the given material. The electrons of the compounds absorb the energy from the light source and thus no reflection.

 

The light is not destroyed but its photon's energy is absorbed by the electrons in the atom. If you think of the atomic line spectra and supply a high amount of energy to a compound to excite the electrons to a higher energy state, the energy is conserved. When they drop back to their standard state they emit photons, with a frequency, which corresponds to a colour. If this were not true we would find it very difficult to identify compounds.

 

If you think about it you will see that the colours of everything is determined by its chemical properties. The chemical properties determine what frequencies of light are absorbed and what frequencies of light are reflected.

 

I am interested to know what your theoretical abstract veiws of atoms are.

[John Cuthber]

That's still mainly word salad.