What is in an atom.

[Joatmon]

I was wondering about the bulk of the volume of an atom. If electrons stopped moving (whether particle or wave function) in the atoms of your body you would be the slightest layer of dust on the floor. If you were in a hermetically sealed container only just big enough to contain you and this hypothetical event happened would the container contain almost a vacuum or would it be full of air? Are you a walking vacuum or a walking bag of air?

Edited September 20, 2012 by Joatmon

[Spyman]

Air also consists of atoms and atoms in general don't have other atoms freely roaming around inside them, so atoms are mostly empty voids inside.

 

Air is the name given to atmosphere used in breathing and photosynthesis. Dry air contains roughly (by volume) 78.09% nitrogen, 20.95% oxygen, 0.93% argon, 0.039% carbon dioxide, and small amounts of other gases. Air also contains a variable amount of water vapor, on average around 1%.

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

[Joatmon]

Air also consists of atoms and atoms in general don't have other atoms freely roaming around inside them, so atoms are mostly empty voids inside.

 

Air is the name given to atmosphere used in breathing and photosynthesis. Dry air contains roughly (by volume) 78.09% nitrogen, 20.95% oxygen, 0.93% argon, 0.039% carbon dioxide, and small amounts of other gases. Air also contains a variable amount of water vapor, on average around 1%.

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

I know the question is hypothetical, but would the container contain a vacuum? It seems that it should.

[Moontanman]

I know the question is hypothetical, but would the container contain a vacuum? It seems that it should.

 

 

I would say that yes, if all the atoms in your body did that the chamber would contain either a vacuum or a rarefied mixture of collapsed atoms depending if the atom dust could float around or not.

[Joatmon]

I would say that yes, if all the atoms in your body did that the chamber would contain either a vacuum or a rarefied mixture of collapsed atoms depending if the atom dust could float around or not.

I tend to think that a vacuum would be expected, however unless in a weightless environment the very tiny amount of atom dust would weigh the same as you and rapidly fall to the floor.

[ydoaPs]

I tend to think that a vacuum would be expected, however unless in a weightless environment the very tiny amount of atom dust would weigh the same as you and rapidly fall to the floor.

 

Well, you've basically just made a low temperature plasma. I don't think it would immediately fall into a pile of dust.

[Spyman]

I know the question is hypothetical, but would the container contain a vacuum? It seems that it should.

If the container is sealed then no air can get inside and nothing from the body can escape outside either, so it would contain exactly the same parts but in a different setup. The overall density of the content inside would be unchanged, however if the components settles on the bottom then it would be almost a vacuum above that layer. This thin layer would be very compact and contain the whole mass of the former body - not very dust like at all.

[Joatmon]

If the container is sealed then no air can get inside and nothing from the body can escape outside either, so it would contain exactly the same parts but in a different setup. The overall density of the content inside would be unchanged, however if the components settles on the bottom then it would be almost a vacuum above that layer. This thin layer would be very compact and contain the whole mass of the former body - not very dust like at all.

I think we agree (see #5). I used the term "dust" as it was used previously. but this very thin layer of collapsed atoms would weigh so much that perhaps dust is not the best way to describe it.

It seems then describing us as walking (near) vacuums is correct?

Edited September 20, 2012 by Joatmon

[ydoaPs]

I think we agree (see #5). I used the term "dust" as it was used previously. but this very thin layer of collapsed atoms would weigh so much that perhaps dust is not the best way to describe it.

It seems then describing us as walking (near) vacuums is correct?

 

It would be more of a dust cloud, since you're basically making a low temperature plasma.

[Joatmon]

It would be more of a dust cloud, since you're basically making a low temperature plasma.

 

Surely a pile of nuclei and electrons is different to a plasma?

 

 

 

[ydoaPs]

Surely a pile of nuclei and electrons is different to a plasma?

 

Not surely. Why would it be a pile in the first place? We're talking about a collection of unbound charged particles (Which is a low temperature plasma). And this collection is initially suspended within the volume. The charged particles should interact with each other leaving the gross behaviour similar to that of a gas. Surely a gas is different than a pile of dust.

[Spyman]

I think we agree (see #5). I used the term "dust" as it was used previously. but this very thin layer of collapsed atoms would weigh so much that perhaps dust is not the best way to describe it.

It seems then describing us as walking (near) vacuums is correct?

Depends on how you define vacuum, but in a general sense I agree, we consist mostly of emptiness.

 

List of some densities:

 

1×10^-22 kg/m³ outer space

1×10^-18 kg/m³ ultra high vacuum chambers

1×10^-3 kg/m³ mechanical vacuum pump

1×10^-0 kg/m³ air at sea level

1×10³ kg/m³ water at 4° Celsius

1.062×10³ kg/m³ average human body

7.874×10³ kg/m³ iron metal

2×10¹⁷ kg/m³ atom nucleus

[Joatmon]

Not surely. Why would it be a pile in the first place? We're talking about a collection of unbound charged particles (Which is a low temperature plasma). And this collection is initially suspended within the volume. The charged particles should interact with each other leaving the gross behaviour similar to that of a gas. Surely a gas is different than a pile of dust.

I think you have probably not really understood the, admittedly, strangeness of my question. It really was if your atoms completely collapsed so that they occupied a very small volume, what would be outside that collapsed mass? To achieve this the electrons and the nucleus would have no space between them and so no similarity to a gas. (For example think of them having the same charge).

I am happy with Spyman's idea.

[ydoaPs]

I think you have probably not really understood the, admittedly, strangeness of my question. It really was if your atoms completely collapsed so that they occupied a very small volume, what would be outside that collapsed mass?

 

The thing is, if you separated all of the electrons from their nuclei (which would break every chemical bond), it wouldn't collapse. It would act like an ionic gas. Aka, a low temperature plasma.

 

Even if we grant this ionic collection the initial state of being in a pile, it would immediately start turning into an ionic gas since the constituents of that pile are repelling and attracting.

 

To achieve this the electrons and the nucleus would have no space between them and so no similarity to a gas. (For example think of them having the same charge).

 

If you're changing the scenario to electron capture, it still won't be a pile for long as the free neutrons will decay into charged particles.

[Joatmon]

The thing is, if you separated all of the electrons from their nuclei (which would break every chemical bond), it wouldn't collapse. It would act like an ionic gas. Aka, a low temperature plasma.

 

Even if we grant this ionic collection the initial state of being in a pile, it would immediately start turning into an ionic gas since the constituents of that pile are repelling and attracting.

 

 

 

If you're changing the scenario to electron capture, it still won't be a pile for long as the free neutrons will decay into charged particles.

 

Ok it's obvious that I haven't made my initial question completely clear. Let me try to make it clear. An atom consists of a nucleus and electrons but mostly space. How would you describe the space? Absolutely empty of anything (i.e. a vacuum) or in some other way?

 

 

[Pugdaddy]

I though that vacuum space had a non-zero energy density. So the"pile" would surrounded by a sea of virtual particles popping in and out of existence with some density probability distribution. Due to the uncertainty principle, at the edges of the "pile" would some of the virtual particles would pop into existence within the "pile".

[alpha2cen]

This is a Fig. of vacuum energy. We have not known what is in the vacuum yet exactly. Our objects are made of electrons, protons and neutrons.

[MetaUniT]

I imagine the "empty space" as a sort of place holder for the information of the forces acting to hold the atoms together. If the atoms were no longer held together, you would have to assume the forces holding them together would have been changed, and that would change the behavior of the force carring particles. So however you would change the fundamental forces that hold the atoms together to cause them to collapse, would determine the state of the rest of the matter/energy.